Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atheism and cowardice"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Confusing)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
::::...That's the article I'm commenting on. It can safely be assumed that I have read the article I'm commenting on. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 10:12, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::::...That's the article I'm commenting on. It can safely be assumed that I have read the article I'm commenting on. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 10:12, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::Pat Tillman was an atheist. Is he a coward? --[[User:Hetgar|Hetgar]] 20:56, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::Pat Tillman was an atheist. Is he a coward? --[[User:Hetgar|Hetgar]] 20:56, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
 +
::: When an atheist says they're willing to debate their ideas with prominent theists, such as Richard Dawkins, and then he refuses to for all sorts of excuses, that's cowardace.  --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 18:09, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 23:09, November 7, 2011

This doesn't seem to be right

So a few prominent atheists refused to debate...does that mean you can label every single person who is atheist a coward? JohnPaulJonesRevWar 12:15, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

A few prominent atheists? See Atheism and cowardice. Conservative 12:21, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
...That's the article I'm commenting on. It can safely be assumed that I have read the article I'm commenting on. JohnPaulJonesRevWar 10:12, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Pat Tillman was an atheist. Is he a coward? --Hetgar 20:56, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
When an atheist says they're willing to debate their ideas with prominent theists, such as Richard Dawkins, and then he refuses to for all sorts of excuses, that's cowardace. --Wayfinder 18:09, 7 November 2011 (EST)