who cares about dawkins? the way one lives their life is non of your business. and from a moral standpoint... aslong as it's not hurting anyone... i fail to see how having kids or not having kids is a good or a bad thing.
Who cares about non-religious models of interpreting reality? Not you as long it goes your personal values
Their are no such things are non religious models to interpret reality. either reality exist or doesn't. you need not be either theistic or atheistic to interpret reality asshole.
Your responses are illogical and appeal to emotion, you are closer to the religious zealots than you'd like to admit
depends on that. is religious zealot a good thing based off of context? or is the context of religious zealot bad because i'm an atheist who disagree with tenets of your religion?
What about them? Want to attribute subjective morals to biology? Read some Dawkins, will you
who cares about dawkins? the way one lives their life is non of your business. and from a moral standpoint... aslong as it's not hurting anyone... i fail to see how having kids or not having kids is a good or a bad thing.
Who cares about non-religious models of interpreting reality? Not you as long it goes your personal values
Your responses are illogical and appeal to emotion, you are closer to the religious zealots than you'd like to admit
We've discussed this before. If you want a starting point homosexuals trigger a feeling of discomfort in non-homosexuals
Their are no such things are non religious models to interpret reality. either reality exist or doesn't. you need not be either theistic or atheistic to interpret reality asshole.
depends on that. is religious zealot a good thing based off of context? or is the context of religious zealot bad because i'm an atheist who disagree with tenets of your religion?