Should atheists actively challenge religious beliefs?

Please provide the data that led you to this conclusion.

I was banned for two weeks because I wanted to attack the arguments of atheists and not the religious who are not so tough as they think. To me, a home should be in good order.

1 Like

You were put on time out because you wouldn’t debate. It will happen again if your actions indicate that to be the case after review.

1 Like

To me, rationalism is a religion. It has so much wrong with it that it is not funny. Unlike religion proper which is hysterical in both senses of the word, rationalism pretends to be rational.


  1. the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Wrong again…

That is an obvious oxymoron.

1 Like

Okay, rationalism is a fascism.

Nope, re-read the definition again carefully, as you’re demonstrably wrong again. Who knows what you hope to achieve by stringing demonstrably erroneous claims together in tandem like this?

What does fascism mean in simple terms?

Fascism is generally defined as a political movement that embraces far-right nationalism and the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government.


  1. the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

They’re not remotely similar.

How can I be wrong about rationalism when I am an empiricist?

By not understanding either word obviously. A cursory read of the definitions demonstrate the claim was nonsense.

1 Like

People of faith have nothing to fear from me. It is the rationalists on both sides that I hate.

Another utterly irrelevant non-sequitur.


Anyone who believes a universal truth comes out of a book like a dictionary has to be wrong in the head.

Including the Nobel laureates who are theists? Same as last time you asserted this it is idiotically preposterous. Focus on the belief and the claims, instead of making preposterous sweeping generalisations about those who hold the beliefs.

All generalisations are false, including this one. - Mark Twain

I might be absurd but at least I am not ridiculous. As Karl Marx said, I treat the ridiculous seriously when I treat it with ridicule.

The difference being he understood irony.

No one claimed this, only that the assertion you made was absurd, and of course it was, twice.

Cherry Picking much.

Cherry picked, from a two sentence post? I quoted your claim as it was a blatantly dishonest straw man, as no one had asserted you were absurd. If it makes you happy then, no one has asserted you were ridiculous either, making that part utterly irrelevant. The Marx quote without quotation marks, also had no relevance whatsoever. You seem to be leaping from one non-sequitur to another.

Ironically not one word in your post addressed what I had actually said, you never do, making your false accusation of cherry picking doubly absurd.

Honesty is the beholder’s.

This has to be some sort of record for irrelevant non sequiturs?


The records are being examined, the results of which should be available forthwith…

Edit: you can’t get there from here

1 Like