The Nonsense of Atheists

[SnakeLord]

normal evidence gathering is not the only way to know something reliably.

By "normal", I assume you mean: through observation, testing, experimentation, logical inference etc? What then consititutes this 'ab-normal' evidence gathering of yours that is reliable. How precisely is evidence being gathered?

isn't it rare for even two people to perceive the same experience the exact same way?

I wouldn't say subjective experiences are necessarily "rare". To use on example, I would consider the subjective experience of 'flying' in a dream as the complete opposite of "rare", indeed it seems very commonplace. I suppose it depends entirely upon what you mean exactly. If you meant, for example, the "experience" of getting raped, then - I would think - it's probably a lot more rare for men than it is for women. Whereas women wouldn't say such experience was 'rare', (depending upon what scale we use), men likely would. Please be specific.

worship is simply a deserved appreciation for what you've experienced

I don't understand, kindly explain this in detail. Is this to say that when you experience something pleasing, that we all generally do, like love, harmony, peace etc that you 'worship'... whatever it is you worship and for whatever reason you worship it, but that when - like pretty much everyone else - you experience that which we typically regard as displeasing, such as death, decay, pain, suffering, cysitinosis, predation etc that you do the opposite of worship? Kindly provide details.

people are always so offended by that word

I would personally think that a god would be vastly more offended. An "all-loving" god and you're sucking it's butt for your own sake. We wouldn't expect or even want it from our own loved ones. When I help people, when I put myself out, (which a god cannot do), it requires no "worship" and such thing would be offensive to me, it's like my helpful actions have turned someone into a gibbering idiot. I helped you because I have love for you, blabbering on like a schoolgirl is completely inconsequential. In the realm of christianity, it's essential. Think about it.

 

[gmilam]

And your "substance" is... what, precisely?
Let's see some of it.

After you. :bugeye:

 

[phlogistician]

You would have to be stupider by far to follow atheism, whose proponents include Chairman Mao, murderer of ~50,000,000, Josef Stalin, murderer of ~40,000,000, Pol Pot, murderer of ~4,000,000, and the countless other mass murderers of history, including one Kim Il Jung of North Korea.

Both Stalin and Pol Pot attended Catholic schools. Hitler was also a Catholic.

Sorry, is that a big hole in your foot, as well as your 'argument'?

 

[RenaissanceMan]

The Soviets persecuted the religions because they felt it was a threat to their power structure. Instead of using religion to subdue its people, they used fear of the KGB, gulags, their neighbor...(fear is also something religions are also very adept at using to control the masses) Their ideology was to simply keep themselves in power and to acquire more power. Communism was simply the ideology that best fit their goals of subjugating the populace to keep the peasants peasants and the leaders in power.

Atheism is not an ideology or even a belief, but refusal to accept an idea without evidence to support it, no matter how many people are taken in by it.

KRR

You mentioned something about lacking "substance" and so I asked about YOUR "substance" and you dodged that question.

Atheism is the affirmative, the condescending, the unrelentingly hateful CREDO of superiority, of certainty, of absolute denial.
Not many people are taken in by it, relatively speaking.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Both Stalin and Pol Pot attended Catholic schools. Hitler was also a Catholic.

Sorry, is that a big hole in your foot, as well as your 'argument'?

You should apologize for your glaring errors.

How many atheists were raised in Christian or other religious environments, and went on to stumble into the darkness, as you no doubt have.

No less a hateful atheist than Isaac Asimov believed in God UNTIL he faced a science examination of great importance.

Rather than STUDY for it, Isaac the Ignorant chose to PRAY to God to help him pass it. He failed, and forever railed against God.

Talk about ignorant.

This pathetic excuse of a man was afraid to fly on aircraft.
This feeble ignoramus so neglected his own son that the younger Asimov turned to pedophilia, and was arrested in Northern California when hundreds of child porn pictures were found on his computer by a technician.

Isaac, like so many other atheists, is revered by the left. He was a fool.

 

[dhcracker]

Atheists have only a few fundamental points.

1. They're smarter than anyone else. Just ask them.

2. Read Item #1.

3. You're stupid if you're not an atheist.

4. A corollary of Item #1 is that atheists are "rational" and "scientific."
Ask them.

Of course history belies atheist lies. Take Copernicus, please. Or Isaac Newton. Or Francis Collins. Brilliant scientists and discoverers and Christians all.

Don't bother arguing with an atheist, however. It's simply futile.

Just read the excellent book, Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God , by Hahn and Wiker.

Truly outstanding and now available in paperback.

I disagree totally, I'm agnostic and I often debate both sides I find both sides are equally stuck in their own ideas.. however atheists have a larger population of tolerance than you give them credit for and that anyone gives religious credit for. Its the few very vocal ones that want to stamp out religion your beef is with.. not atheism in general.

 

[phlogistician]

You should apologize for your glaring errors.

How many atheists were raised in Christian or other religious environments,
and went on to stumble into the darkness, as you no doubt have.

And how many christians, were raised as christians, and never had the guts to question the bullshit they'd been fed?

I never believed, however. I went to a nominally christian school, but I saw through the bullshit even as a child.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the people I mentioned were raised as Catholics, so if you want to blame something for turning them into what they are, I'd start with organised religion.

turned to pedophilia,

Hmm, and the Catholic Church have been caught doing what? Oh yes, protecting paedophile priests and covering up their crimes.

Sorry, is that hole in your foot, and your argument? You name a person, I name an entire organisation. TRUMPED, kiddo.

 

[phlogistician]

Atheism is the affirmative, the condescending, the unrelentingly hateful CREDO of superiority, of certainty, of absolute denial.

So do you believe in Pan, Loki, Ganesh, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Uzume, Jengu, and Aphrodite?

 

[spidergoat]

Pol Pot and Stalin were just two (powerful) people, and yet millions use religion every day as an excuse to oppress other people. The Nazis were not atheists, in fact some of them were rather high placed in the protestant church.

 

[Lori_7]

How can I rely on anyone's experience if experiences are observer-dependent?

you can't. that's the beauty of it, and that's why it's frustrating when demands are made to put these observations in a lab and evidenced in that manner. i think it's supposed to be evidenced personally, and attempting to recreate something like that in a lab is futile. you gotta figure, if there's an intelligence involved, the lab has to take that into consideration, and there's no way to account for it. how do measure something when you don't know what it is, don't know how to measure it, and it may or may not wish to be measured? i mean, it may have been nice if, during the time when i was experiencing some spiritual phenomenon, that a team of scientists were huddled around measuring and observing things, if they could in fact observe or measure those things which is a huge if, but they weren't (in my living room, or wherever). and it seems to me, that's not why it happened to me. it happened for a reason, and the reason was not to be measured or observed or manipulated by some scientist.

We have consciousness. Doesn't it make sense that we could create sub-consciences at will? Kids can have imaginary friends. They exist in one's mind. Might they not persist and mature in scope and power as a kind of self-regulatory system?

you know that during one of those experiences of mine i was told that my childhood imaginary friend wasn't imaginary at all, but a spirit. i've also seen documentaries where children have spoken of imaginary friends, with names, physical features, personalities, and stories, that matched exactly to people who used to live in their homes who are now deceased, and the child had no idea that such a person ever existed! yeah. i think that children are more open to spiritual interactions because they don't "know any better" yet.

We even call the thing that helps us make ethical decisions a conscience. I suggest that ethical thinking is an evolutionary development, that it has a specialized location in the brain, and that it can be perceived as a personality. My own experience with meditation confirms that the thing you think is your personality can be observed as from the outside. So what is the thing that is doing the observing?

that's a really good question.

 

[Lori_7]

By "normal", I assume you mean: through observation, testing, experimentation, logical inference etc? What then consititutes this 'ab-normal' evidence gathering of yours that is reliable. How precisely is evidence being gathered?

on a personal level through experience and interaction. we're talking about some subject that is intelligent, and most likely doesn't give a rat's ass about your agenda or your "requirements". if an atheist puts limits on what is recognizable, or evidential, then why would a spirit care?

I wouldn't say subjective experiences are necessarily "rare". To use on example, I would consider the subjective experience of 'flying' in a dream as the complete opposite of "rare", indeed it seems very commonplace. I suppose it depends entirely upon what you mean exactly. If you meant, for example, the "experience" of getting raped, then - I would think - it's probably a lot more rare for men than it is for women. Whereas women wouldn't say such experience was 'rare', (depending upon what scale we use), men likely would. Please be specific.

no, i mean 50 people survive a plane crash. same plane...same crash. you'll get exactly 50 different accounts of that crash from the survivors. you could interview 10 of my closest friends and family members and you would get exactly 10 views of me, but i'm still the same person, and i still exist.

I don't understand, kindly explain this in detail. Is this to say that when you experience something pleasing, that we all generally do, like love, harmony, peace etc that you 'worship'... whatever it is you worship and for whatever reason you worship it, but that when - like pretty much everyone else - you experience that which we typically regard as displeasing, such as death, decay, pain, suffering, cysitinosis, predation etc that you do the opposite of worship? Kindly provide details.

it's reverence. understood and earned. that's it. :shrug: what's the problem?

I would personally think that a god would be vastly more offended. An "all-loving" god and you're sucking it's butt for your own sake. We wouldn't expect or even want it from our own loved ones. When I help people, when I put myself out, (which a god cannot do), it requires no "worship" and such thing would be offensive to me, it's like my helpful actions have turned someone into a gibbering idiot. I helped you because I have love for you, blabbering on like a schoolgirl is completely inconsequential. In the realm of christianity, it's essential. Think about it.

how does reverence = "sucking butt for your own sake"? that may be your idea of reverence, but it's not mine. it's not about kissing ass for help; it's about the recognition, acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of something revered! you can't conceive of such a thing?

 

[AlexG]

Still hearing the voices in your head Lori?

 

[Lori_7]

Still hearing the voices in your head Lori?

still ignoring the ones in yours alex?

 

[AlexG]

The only voice I hear in my head is me, because I process thoughts as auditory. I don't believe it to be god talking to me, nor spirits, nor ghosts, nor hobgoblins, nor the great pumpkin.

 

[brucep]

is this another "Pointless" thread?

The point for the theist is a need to prop up a house of cards. Secretly this one is afraid atheists are right so he trolls the site for reassurance.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

And how many christians, were raised as christians, and never had the guts to question the bullshit they'd been fed?

Humans have doubts. All humans. To pretend that atheists alone are cock-sure is the height of dishonesty. The height.

On we go:

I never believed, however. I went to a nominally christian school, but I saw through the bullshit even as a child.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the people I mentioned were raised as Catholics, so if you want to blame something for turning them into what they are, I'd start with organised religion.

1. I never mentioned Adolf Hitler. He was your strawman.
2. It was emphatically NOT Catholic credo and Catholic faith which led Stalin and Mao and Pot to kill scores of millions.
If you want something to blame, you had better start with godlessness, but you cannot do that. It upsets your delicate athiest bias.

Hmm, and the Catholic Church have been caught doing what? Oh yes, protecting paedophile priests and covering up their crimes.

Sorry, is that hole in your foot, and your argument? You name a person, I name an entire organisation. TRUMPED, kiddo.

The Pope has offered his profoundest apologies for these many evil deeds.

And atheists would condemn pedophilia under what standard of morality, exactly?

Nor did I name "a person" when in fact my thread names an entire worldwide group, viz. "atheists."

Please pay attention, junior.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

///


I would personally think that a god would be vastly more offended. An "all-loving" god and you're sucking it's butt for your own sake. ///

And of course your personal opinions are at LEAST the equal of God's, are they not?

Atheists the world over constantly invoke their/your own intellectualism to be on a par with God's, as if HE should not contemplate anything of which you atheists would disapprove, such is your collective brilliance and ego.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

 

[phlogistician]

Humans have doubts. All humans. To pretend that atheists alone are cock-sure is the height of dishonesty. The height.

I have no doubt that I don't believe in your god. I doubt you would give us the same description of your God, as Solus Cado would, so you don't believe in the same things. Hell, 60 pages and he's still vague. Tell you what, you theists present a coherent view of what it is you believe in, and get back to us, eh?

1. I never mentioned Adolf Hitler. He was your strawman.

He was a Catholic who murdered a lot of people, not a straw man.

2. It was emphatically NOT Catholic credo and Catholic faith which led Stalin and Mao and Pot to kill scores of millions.

You sure, when it's the common denominator between those two and Hitler?

If you want something to blame, you had better start with godlessness, but you cannot do that. It upsets your delicate athiest bias.

And theists don't commit mass murder? Oh sorry, they do, Hitler being a case in point.

The Pope has offered his profoundest apologies for these many evil deeds.

After being exposed. People are often apologetic after their heinous deeds are uncovered. If he had been the whistle blower, rather than the conspirator his words would have merit. But he wasn't, he was quite happy to let his brethren abuse children, and cover it up, and now, he's just playing the PR game, and you appear to be falling for it. Shame on you.

And atheists would condemn pedophilia under what standard of morality, exactly?

Are you implying that if the Pope said it was OK, you'd fuck children?

Nor did I name "a person" when in fact my thread names an entire worldwide group, viz. "atheists."

Ah, there's your problem, right there. Atheists aren't a group, just like people that don't collect stamps aren't a group. You named some individuals and you blamed their atrocities on atheism. It's the same tired old crap we hear too often. But it's a totally fallacious argument, smacking of desperation if that's all you have.

 

[phlogistician]

RenaissanceMan
Atheism is the affirmative, the condescending, the unrelentingly hateful CREDO of superiority, of certainty, of absolute denial.
”

So do you believe in Pan, Loki, Ganesh, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Uzume, Jengu, and Aphrodite?

You didn't answer, so I must ask again.

 

[ejderha]

I am sincerely curious about something.

Why almost all of the threads of this sort started by theists?