I'll keep it to asks. Submit allows editing and I prefer to make sure my words remain my own. Besides I said respond to, not necessarily engage. When your logic involves blaming the victim of a crime who was simply expressing their freedom of speech, and in any way providing the slightest justification to extremists there is no engagement to be had. There are certain views that just don't need to be debated, they're self evidently moronic. Atheism has no dogma, means it's not a religion. Simple.

That’s unfortunate. I was hoping to have some meaningful debates in line with what you profess to be the purpose of your blog. By the way, according to Merriam-Webster, one of the meanings of ‘dogma’ is “c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds”. How is this not true about the atheist ‘philosophy’ or the ‘progressives’ views on why they’re superior to established religions and why religion supposedly has no place in this enlightened modern society of ours?

Share your thoughts on this...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.