D’Souza, a former CT columnist, said he did not know that Christians generally do not approve of engagements prior to divorces being finalized.

“I asked a lawyer whether there was anything wrong in being engaged while separated but prior to being divorced,” he said. “I was told there’s no problem with that and actually that happens all the time. I proposed to Denise and we became engaged.”

“I believe I have good biblical grounds for divorce and was going through the legitimate process,” said D’Souza. “The thing I will admit: I did not have any idea that it is seen as wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced even though separated. … That was a true error of judgment, but it was truly a case where I didn’t know better.”

Right. A self-professed evangelical, who signed an evangelical statement of faith to head an evangelical college, writes columns for Christian publications and regularly attends Christian conferences as a guest speaker had absolutely no idea that sharing hotel rooms with women he wasn’t legally married to was frowned upon in Christian circles (at least doctrinally if not in actual practice).

If you buy that, I have a bridge not far from King’s College you might be interested in buying, as well.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/dinesh-dsouza-denies-infidelity.html

And via AoSHQ, Dinesh D’Souza: …

Speaking of which:

After a meteoric rise in the evangelical world, The King’s College president Dinesh D’Souza now faces his board’s likely questions about his relationship to a woman not his wife.

http://k0ks3nw4i.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-ever-atheist-versus-christian.html

It is claimed to be the first Christianity versus Atheism debate in Malaysia. Wanna try your hand at ripping the atheists’ arguments apart?

Loud and in your face? Again, when has this happened to you? You never responded to any of my previous queries about your real life (aka meat world) experiences with atheists. I have a strong hunch you don’t know any, or at least none that have openly identified themselves as such. – Ron

I admit that we bascially don’t have Western style secular atheists around these parts.

But my gist is, do a quick browsing of atheists online and tell me how many of them are espousing logic and rational thinking in a cheerful and amicable manner?

It just seems to me that atheists fit the label too well – they are defined by their opposition to the beliefs of others as opposed to their own beliefs.

Hence I concur with your identification as ‘non-believer’ as the more accurate term. Or perhaps ‘rationalist’ or ‘logical thinker’ which would have the added benefit of insinuating that every other belief is irrational and illogical, the way ‘free thinker’ insinuates that religious believers have captive, restricted minds.

Unfortunately most neat labels already come with, or soon end up saddled with, unwanted connotations. Hence the list at the top right of the main page.

Why do you guys always seem so… Grumpy?

And I actually do cite genocide often enough.

I do concur with you that he uses the word ‘troll’ too often that it is essentially meaningless. Another word he uses often is ‘snark’. It is meaningless too, when one attempts to justify himself so many times, which phrases are snarky which aren’t. What is the point of being snarky when only the author himself understands his own jargon.

Exactly the point. If it’s not a philosophy, then why don’t we see other non-philosophies go around mocking children who are keeping their baby teeth for the tooth fairy, or shaving the beards of shopping mall Santas?

Well, that could quickly change if the tooth fairyists and mall Santas were to form PACs and begin lobbying for legislation that gives them special status or abrogates the rights of others.

Put bluntly, why do atheists have to be so loud and in-your-face about their non-worldview?

Loud and in your face? Again, when has this happened to you? You never responded to any of my previous queries about your real life (aka meat world) experiences with atheists. I have a strong hunch you don’t know any, or at least none that have openly identified themselves as such.

Why would a cartoon with derisive door-to-door Loch Ness Monster Skeptics, by contrast, make no sense?

This scenario isn’t quite as far-fetched as you may think,, because Nessie’s existence is taught as a fact by a number of evangelical schools in the UK (and the U.S.). If religious apologists start pressing the issue publicly, the skeptics will eventually mount countermeasures.

I don’t personally lose sleep over the Rwandan Genocide either.

So in other words this was just a talking point to fill out the list of grievances, i.e., activities which you consider the Catholics might find offensive, but don’t cause you any real personal discomfort because you don’t share those religious beliefs anyway.

Your flippancy regarding the Rwandan Genocide is also duly noted. But let me remind you that even though the genocides were ethnically motivated, the vast majority of participants on both sides of the conflict belonged to the Catholic faith — something to keep in mind the next time you’re tempted to argue that Christianity has abandoned its violent tendencies.

Well maybe Hiro Nakamura could go back in time and populate the country with Shintoist settlers, complete with monks for the Founding Fathers.

The U.S. may have started out predominantly Christian, but the demographics have changed considerably over the past 236 years and it’s now a pluralistic society. Besides, if religious priority were based on who was here first, we’d have to cede that right to the Native American deities and spirits.

Dare them to offer porn for Qurans, or free white powder for blacks.

First off, it was called a ‘Smut for Smut’ campaign and offered to trade porn for all religious texts.

Second, the event took place in San Antonio, Texas — a staunchly conservative Bible Belt state — where Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Muslims combined make up less than two percent of the population; so it’s unlikely that many people there would read the Qur’an.

Third, the event attracted screaming Christian protesters and angry feminists — so it was hardly a success in terms of generating positive publicity.

Fourth, a number of atheist blogs denounced the campaign as juvenile, sexist and counter-productive to promoting goodwill within the community. (And I would concur.)

Missing the point again: Proportion of vocal online atheists who are nice vs trolls. Compare against proportion for religious ones, particularly religious ones who make the entire point of their online presence to troll atheists.

[citation need]

In my opinion, the word “troll” gets used so often it’s essentially become meaningless. It was originally reserved for those who intentionally posted inflammatory comments to disrupt peaceful discussions; but now its just another epithet thrown out whenever anyone posts a dissenting viewpoint.

Then why do you self-identify as an atheist, but not an aEaster Bunnyist or an aunicornist???

Actually, I almost always refer to myself as a non-believer (which leaves the burden of proof in the believers court where it belongs). To my thinking the word atheist shouldn’t even exist since a lack of belief in something isn’t really a formal position on the matter. However, I confess that I am often guilty of using the term as a matter of expediency.