User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
Flush the Holy Books

Religious tolerance has started to stifle our freedom. Those with beliefs that are backed up by "holy" books can request all kinds of extra rights. Those whose beliefs are more organic and not backed up by old timey books don't have the same rights.

I recommend that we flush all the holy books at <!a href=''><!/a> before it's too late. These books have had their time, and have no place in this modern world. It's time to reinvent our beliefs and reevaluate what we believe. We'll never do that till we remove these books from their pedestal.

Ok, I have one problem with your proposal. You are talking about equality for all people, no matter their beliefs. How would taking away a Christian's books that support their belief be supporting equal rights. Yes, everyone should have the same oppurtunities towards success, but how are relgious books stifling this? Secondly, by throwing away those books you are taking away that person's beliefs and saying that are not equal to your own. You are now putting yourself and your beliefs above anyone that does not hold those beliefs. You are becoming the very hyprocrite that I'm sure you despise.

And besides you're a "holy" guy yourself with that name, being the "holy" flusher and all. Thus, you should flush yourself first.

I do agree. You can't just burn books (or flush) books especially just because you don't agree with them. I don't think they should ever be taken from shelves, even though I do think people should see them for the mythology that they are. This is still no reason to go up in arms as this. You surely don't want to follow in the line of these religions that did just this and rid the world of what doesn't work with you. Then you start becoming more like those religions that have done that. As far as reevaluating our beliefs, you don't need nor should you need to get rid of specific texts to accomplish this. Most atheists have already done this without removing the texts. I have all sorts of mythological texts in my home as well as other fictional books, but that doesn't make me believe them more. It's more the societal structure that does this and the people themselves, not the book. Actually, getting rid of the books would give them more fuel for their fire. I don't think you actually thought this proposal through before coming up with it.

Burning any book is a terrible thing to do, even if said book is 'dangerous'. It's the equivilant to burning The Origin of Species because it is damaging to creationism. First ammendment anyone?


I have posted this in another section, but am also posting it here in the interest of thoroughness:

Teresa: Please present your support (logical argumentation or independently verifiable evidence) for why anyone here should take your claims above seriously. It's fine for you to post claims--but at this site we expect people to actually have reasons for what they think and say. I'm not saying you don't have reasons--but you haven't given any, so no one can really respond intelligently to what you're posting.

I am only doing what I think is right and I am trying to be inttelagent

teresa age12


Try harder, maybe you'll be "INTELAGENTT(?)" enough to spell that word<!--- correctly.

Nice attack on a 12 year old.

Honestly, I can't tell if this is a real 12-year-old or someone just having a go. If it's for real, I can only say: Teresa, please read your post directly above my last post and ask yourself, "Does this sound like intelligent dialogue?" I was 12 once. As I recall that's middle school age, about 7th grade. Even at that age, all caps and exclamation points across the page should still be viewed as immature expression.

And I'm not trying to be mean, I'm simply saying that "I am trying to be intelligent" is somewhat dishonest in light, not only of what was said, but of how it was presented. Your post would be interpreted as screaming and emotional--even by youngsters--who are the ones most likely to use that sort of emphasis. While I understand the lack of life experience and the immaturity that comes with that, I also don't believe in talking down to anyone past the age of 10. As far as I'm concerned, you're old enough to have intelligent dialogue at that point. For example, while I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with logical fallacies--I would expect that you could understand the problem with a fallacy if it was explained to you clearly and thoroughly.

I hope you would interpret that sort of response from an adult as a sign of respect for your potential to be intelligent, and not as an attacked.

Well, putting the entire text in all-caps, and ending with exclamation marks across the page is likely showing anger. But I have seen scholars, scientist, and even college professors use all-caps on the Internet when they were arguing with dull-witted people. To determine if it is immature or not it depends on how the all-caps are used and what the person is saying. (It also matters what has gone on before.) If a person tries to point out errors several times, and the reply indicates they just don't get it, I have seen the meaningful words in all-caps for emphasis. It does not denote anger always; it means didn't you see this. It means how can you say that when I told you this already! However, they do know how to spell! The Internet is not anything like writing pros, or presentations, or things for publication it is very informal. So, I do think it is what is being said, and how it is being said that really matters. And in that case most of the OBVIOUS Christians who write dreadfully INARTICULATE posts make religion look like it is only for uneducated dopes. However, there is always an exception! Like a dope wanting to burn up books! One of the ways they know the bible is full of forgeries, changed text, and so forth is OLD BOOKS!

AND starting a sentence with "And" is taught in english 101? Relax.

Every grammatical source I have checked including some authors and English professors state that it is grammatically correct to start a sentence with 'and.' It can be overused; however, it is not incorrect to use it. People also start sentences with 'additionally' or in 'addition.' And they said it couldn't be done!

The Venerable Bede, the first great author, starts his book with 'and'. Bede was also an instructor, teaching grammar and other elements of writing. His command of scholarship, writing, language, and history was astounding.

See Genesis from 1:2 throughout Genesis 1:25 - and beyond - every sentence is started with And. HOW CAN THE WORD OF GOD BE WRONG!

Your posts on bombing in the name of religion...LMAO thread had so many grammatical errors that Emily pointed it outů And I find that amusing!

Recalling my college yrs....I do not recall any of my english or professional writing profs encouraging or allowing the begining of a sentence with the word 'and'. If such was attempted, one would a receive deduction from their grade. You refer to specific writings. That's great. It still does not make it correct (the grammatical errors, not the actual writings).

I'm referring to grammatical errors of another writer on this thread not the one above my post.

Religous tolerance is stifling our freedoms...cite examples and make sure my freedoms are affected. People who get their beliefs from "holy books "have more rights.... name the rights and make sure on holy book readers have them.......

i think you are funny (in a good way).

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup