http://www.helptheneumanns.com/

Just thought you would like to know.

I find it really funny how abortion can NOW be considered murder when it isn’t murder (to these Christians) to deny a life-saving experience.

I also find it utterly humorous how they think a prayer to a man who has a 99% chance of NOT existing can save a life. I mean, if they say it is in the bible, well they need to think on this question: Do we revolve around the sun, or does everything revolve around us? The bible has been wrong nearly a hundred times. And it clearly is wrong once again.

RIP children of NEGLECT and I guess this is considered abuse. A child is dying out there and all the parents do is pray. Yeah, pray for their child’s soul not to haunt them for MURDER.

I mean, it is against the law to withhold medication and support against a dependent person like someone who needs help around the house and needs other people to give them their medicine. Like the one case where the guy left his dependent… someone in the bathroom for like… ever. It was illegal then, why is it less of a charge for when it comes to children?!

America, in all religious aspect, is going down into the slums because people can’t pull their heads out of the bible and see that the scientific uprising of modern day is going to be 100% MORE effective than praying which will get you a grave. At least with scientific treatment, a life has a better chance of survival. I hope the Neumanns get a long hard coming to them.

As for being taken with myself, as compared to the general run of neo-atheists who think they stand within the golden circle of the truly enlightened, the only true possessors of absolute knowledge in direct contact with truth and light? Find one place in which I’ve ever pretended to knowing what I only believe, then we can talk attitude.

By the way, from what you say, apparently I’m
late in congratulating you for being taken on as a
partner at this blog in the way Wade was.

What are you talking about? I’m not a partner of this blog. How did you get that idea?

I doubt this thread will ever get back on topic. The thing is, it started derailing the first time you posted- which was off topic because this thread had nothing to do with insurance, but rather lame religious beliefs. I’m beginning to wonder if you are a troll.

Unfortunately, Olvizl fits the self-superior, impressed beyond measure by his own intellect, combative atheist stereotype to a T.

That he claims to lecture us about how best to get along with non-atheists is nothing but sheer added entertainment-value. Physician, pull that beam out of your own ass first… I think that’s how that saying goes.

By the way, from what you say, apparently I’m late in congratulating you for being taken on as a partner at this blog in the way Wade was. Have you been monitoring all the threads for “off topic” comment or only on those I haven’t read?

Does the term neo-atheist offend you? My quick definition is it’s the name that rude atheists who like to call other people names, distort their beliefs and practices in order to lie about them, assert that they own science and logic while showing they don’t have the first clue as to what those require are begging to be called.

Given time I could come up with a more refined definition.

That’s about as close to an admission of losing the argument as you’re likely to get, Claire.

Olvizl, if silliness is the current topic under discussion, you are far sillier. If you were serious, or non hate-based, you would know when asked, you should bring evidence for a claim, and leave personal attacks out of a discussion. That is, if you want to be accepted in the wider world of non-trolls.