War in Heaven (No Atheists)

[spiritual_spy]

This public democracy, brain washed your psychology so you're nothing like diversity without equality, My mother told me that placing my faith in God was the answer but then I hated God cause he gave my mother cancer - but then when I came alot more wiser I realizsed it was all gods plan. Death is a another part of life.. Man fuck a minority, I'm not politically minimal, In school my teachers blinded me but now I can see I'm mentally and revolutionarily free You think illuminati's just a fuckin conspiracy theory? that's why conservative racists are all runnin' shit and your phone is tapped by the Federal Governmen.

Another random post from muslim! Congrats!

 

[lixluke]

Nope. Eventually, you might understand this... you can't prove a negative. What I have done is falsified your claims with contradictory evidence. Where does that evidence come from? Reality.

OK I understand.
In other words, you have provided hard evidence to falsify my assertion that atheists are fanatical morons.
And this so called, "evidence", comes from reality.
Ooookay.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

OK I understand.
In other words, you have provided hard evidence to falsify my assertion that atheists are fanatical morons.
And this so called, "evidence", comes from reality.
Ooookay.

Very close. Reviewing the entire thread shows 3 distinct claims from you:

1) Atheism is a religion
2) Atheists are the most extreme religious fanatics
3) Atheists are morons

That's what was falsified. I have also noted that you might view your assertions as mere opinion rather than claims. An opinion is a belief / conclusion held with confidence and not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. When an opinion is openly asserted as a statement of truth (not conjecture) it is elevated to a claim. For example, the following is a claim:

Atheists are the most fanatical of all religions. They cannot help themselves. They are the most dogmatic, imposing, wackos of all religions.

This thread is in a sub-section of a science forum and claims are going to be scrutinized and in many cases falsified. Conjecture in the presence of known contradictory knowledge is not immune to criticism either.

 

[lixluke]

When an opinion is openly asserted as a statement of truth (not conjecture) it is elevated to a claim.

Well then in that case, I would have to state that the following are absolutely true:
1) Atheism is a religion
2) Atheists are the most extreme religious fanatics
3) Atheists are morons

Please do provide hard evidence against these undeniable truths if you can.

This thread is in a sub-section of a science forum and claims are going to be scrutinized and in many cases falsified. Conjecture in the presence of known contradictory knowledge is not immune to criticism either.

Blah blah blah.
Bully bully bully.

How many thousands of times have I heard the "This thread is in the science forum, and therefore shall discriminated against, and be attacked by fanatical atheists" bully lecture before?

Let's learn more about atheists dogmatic beliefs such as:
The belief that religion in a science forum is subject to attacks from atheist fanatics.


How do Atheists view theology in science?
Atheists are ignorant bigots that make no room for theology in science. Atheists tend to discriminate against religion. They believe that scientists may have conflicting theories about various aspects of science, but real scientists must agree with their belief that God does not exist, and that religion is all concocted mythology. Furthermore, they impose this bigoted dogma with the utmost fanaticism. They have no tolerance for people that believe theists can be scientists. Many Atheists tend to bully others into abiding by their bigoted belief. They wish to force others to abide by their dogma and theirs alone that theology does not belong in science. They arrogantly impose their dogma by preventing others from discussing religious topics as fact. Atheists are arrogant bigots that impose their dogma by bullying others into abiding by it. Atheists are SUPER FANATICAL when it comes to imposing their ideas about how religion should be discussed in a scientific community.


How should scientists approach religious discussion?
There are no specific rules regarding the way scientists should approach religious discussion the than typical rules of free discussion. Atheists however tend to fanatically suppress free open discussion regarding religion. They do not like it when scientists discuss religion as if it were factual, and make extreme fanatical efforts to bullying them into discontinuing. Although there is nothing wrong with discussing prayer and religious ideas as scientists, ATHEIST bigots fanatically impose the belief that religious discussion in science should be severely limited, and they actively bully others to bake sure that it is severely limited.

http://www.caliditta.com/atheists.htm

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This public democracy, brain washed your psychology so you're nothing like diversity without equality, My mother told me that placing my faith in God was the answer but then I hated God cause he gave my mother cancer - but then when I came alot more wiser I realizsed it was all gods plan. Death is a another part of life.. Man fuck a minority, I'm not politically minimal, In school my teachers blinded me but now I can see I'm mentally and revolutionarily free You think illuminati's just a fuckin conspiracy theory? that's why conservative racists are all runnin' shit and your phone is tapped by the Federal Governmen.

Muslim, I am sorry I gave you a hard time (please accept my apology). I can tell from your post that you're probably living in an enviornment where you feel alienated and thats never a good experience.

Rather than wrap and present your identity so tightly around things that segregate you, it might be a consideration to find common ground. I have already noted that you like rap (probably various other music as well). What artists do you listen too?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well then in that case, I would have to state that the following are absolutely true:
1) Atheism is a religion
2) Atheists are the most extreme religious fanatics
3) Atheists are morons

Please do provide hard evidence against these undeniable truths if you can.

Contradictive evidence was already provided in my long post and you chose to not read it... can't help you there bub.

Blah blah blah.
Bully bully bully.

How many thousands of times have I heard the "This thread is in the science forum, and therefore shall discriminated against, and be attacked by fanatical atheists" bully lecture before?

You obviously feel bullied by atheists

Let's learn more about atheists dogmatic beliefs such as:
The belief that religion in a science forum is subject to attacks from atheist fanatics.

Not that I agree or disagree, whats wrong with criticizing religion or any other idea?

How do Atheists view theology in science?
Atheists are ignorant bigots that make no room for theology in science. Atheists tend to discriminate against religion. They believe that scientists may have conflicting theories about various aspects of science, but real scientists must agree with thei8r belief that God does not exist, and that religion is all concocted mythology. Furthermore, they impose this bigoted dogma with the utmost fanaticism. They have no tolerance for people that believe theists can be scientists. Many Atheists tend to bully others into abiding by their bigoted belief. They wish to force others to abide by their dogma and theirs alone that theology does not belong in science. They arrogantly impose their dogma by preventing others from discussing religious topics as fact. Atheists are arrogant bigots that impose their dogma by bullying others into abiding by it. Atheists are SUPER FANATICAL when it comes to imposing their ideas about how religion should be discussed in a scientific community.

How should scientists approach religious discussion?
There are no specific rules regarding the way scientists should approach religious discussion the than typical rules of free discussion. Atheists however tend to fanatically suppress free open discussion regarding religion. They do not like it when scientists discuss religion as if it were factual, and make extreme fanatical efforts to bullying them into discontinuing. Although there is nothing wrong with discussing prayer and religious ideas as scientists, ATHEIST bigots fanatically impose the belief that religious discussion in science should be severely limited, and they actively bully others to bake sure that it is severely limited.

While I have never personally witnessed scientists bullying other scientists, I can understand that theology is not science and vice versa and how to let theology become a part of science would corrupt it. I have seen scientists talking about their religious beliefs. They're just people and some people have them and they are perfectly capable at conducting science.

 

[lixluke]

Contradictive evidence was already provided

So then you are saying that you did provide "evidence" against my 3 claims.

whats wrong with criticizing religion or any other idea?

Lalalalala.
Hey everybody let's pretend we are not fanatically imposing our bigoted beliefs about religion and science, but oh so innocently criticizing ideas.
I hope you enjoy living in your fantasy world of self righteousness.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So then you are saying that you did provide "evidence" against my 3 claims.

I provided contradictive evidence that falsified your claims and you even know where to find it.

whats wrong with criticizing religion or any other idea?

Lalalalala.
Hey everybody let's pretend we are not fanatically imposing our bigoted beliefs about religion and science, but oh so innocently criticizing ideas.
I hope you enjoy living in your fantasy world of self righteousness.

?. Did you go off the deep end on me there? Let me rephrase the question in a way more compatible with your emotional filter so that perhaps you can get to an answer without throwing a tantrum.

Question: What's wrong with criticizing religion or any other belief/idea/assertion/speculation/etc.?

 

[lixluke]

You are too daft to realize that you are not doing ant sort of intellectual criticiizing and such. You fanatics are imposing your selfrighteous form of discussion on others, and wish to force others to abide by the way YOU feel discussions should be held.

You are unwelcoming to others, you discriminate against theists, you do not allow them to speak freely about their own personal beliefs. This is not the behavior of an intellect, but the behavior of a biggoted fanatic.

You are delusional in the sense that you have no idea of what a total self righteous bigot you are.
This is your attitude:
Lalalalala.
Hey everybody let's pretend we are not fanatically imposing our bigoted beliefs about religion and science, but oh so innocently criticizing ideas.


I hope you enjoy living in your fantasy world of self righteousness.
Intellects do not make threads such as "Let's save theists some grief, and let them know in advance how we bigots want them to discuss their views."
"And if they do not we will grief them."
The definition of trolling is "intentional griefing".


Intellects welcome others, and are open to their views. Intellects make effort to make others feel comfortable, and promote productive discussion, and well conducted smooth debates.

 

[spiritual_spy]

You are too daft to realize that you are not doing ant sort of intellectual criticiizing and such. You fanatics are imposing your selfrighteous form of discussion on others, and wish to force others to abide by the way YOU feel discussions should be held.

You are unwelcoming to others, you discriminate against theists, you do not allow them to speak freely about their own personal beliefs. This is not the behavior of an intellect, but the behavior of a biggoted fanatic.

You are delusional in the sense that you have no idea of what a total self righteous bigot you are.
This is your attitude:
Lalalalala.
Hey everybody let's pretend we are not fanatically imposing our bigoted beliefs about religion and science, but oh so innocently criticizing ideas.


I hope you enjoy living in your fantasy world of self righteousness.
Intellects do not make threads such as "Let's save theists some grief, and let them know in advance how we bigots want them to discuss their views."

Intellects welcome others, and are open to their views. Intellects make effort to make others feel comfortable, and promote productive discussion, and well conducted smooth debates.

And thats what most of us do. So whats your point?

 

[superluminal]

Well then in that case, I would have to state that the following are absolutely true:
1) Atheism is a religion
2) Atheists are the most extreme religious fanatics
3) Atheists are morons

Please do provide hard evidence against these undeniable truths if you can.

Ok. Just as an innocent experiment, please provide hard evidence against these undeniable truths (that I have determined from your posting history) if you can:

1) cool skill wets his bed
2) cool skill is intellectually challenged
3) cool skill is terrified of the dark
4) cool skill, unfortunately, requires a drool bucket when eating
5) cool skill has an obsessive-compulsive disorder
6) cool skill dresses trans-gender
7) cool skill really does to goats what some peoples avatars do to goats

 

[superluminal]

This is the best part:

Intellects welcome others, and are open to their views. Intellects make effort to make others feel comfortable, and promote productive discussion, and well conducted smooth debates.

Ok cool. Lets hear about god and jesus and the bible. We really have formed no opinions since we don't know what religion is about. I welcome your ideas about religion and wish to learn more, since I am open to new ideas. Please, let us discuss this subject, which no one here has heard much about, in an objective, completely innocent manner. We will have smooth, productive discussions that lead to a consensus of views. It will be fun and enlightening.

Please begin Mr. Skill.

 

[lixluke]

And thats what most of us do. So whats your point?

Most do not.
There is a huge difference between saying you can post what you want, and will not be griefed for it by bigoted fanatics.

Claiming that one can post whatever they want followed by a set of stipulations is not supportive of intellectual discussion.

 

[lixluke]

This is the best part:



Ok cool. Lets hear about god and jesus and the bible. We really have formed no opinions since we don't know what religion is about. I welcome your ideas about religion and wish to learn more, since I am open to new ideas. Please, let us discuss this subject, which no one here has heard much about, in an objective, completely innocent manner. We will have smooth, productive discussions that lead to a consensus of views. It will be fun and enlightening.

Please begin Mr. Skill.

You are not objective nor are youi an intellectual.
I have seen you do nothing but impose your from of the way you want things to be discussed, and grief people that do not want to abide be how you self righteously want things to be.

 

[(Q)]

Intellects welcome others, and are open to their views. Intellects make effort to make others feel comfortable, and promote productive discussion, and well conducted smooth debates.

Atheists are morons... atheists are fanatical morons...
empty headed morons... dogmatic, imposing, wackos... fanatical nutbags... blabbering on incessantly... PSYCHOTICALLY FANATICAL... delusional headgear... Wackjob... your retardism... Atheists are indeed morons... you retards... bunch of fanatical morons... Atheists are fanatical morons... total fanatical morons... Atheists are morons... fanatical morons... Ad-hominem illogistics... MORONIC MIND... THEIR OWN UTTER STUPIDITY TO INFILTRATE THEIR PUTRID BRAIN.

Yeah, smoooooooooooth.

 

[superluminal]

Yeah, smoooooooooooth.

Fucking hilarious!

 

[one_raven]

I didn't read all 11 pages of this idiotic flame war, but just in case anyone was on subject and did not mention this...

Revelation, it is plainly evident, is wholly allegorical.
I am not going to go into a 2 page dissertation explaining why I think so.

As for this so-called "Lucifer"...
The Tanakh uses the term "helel ben shachar", which literally translates into "Helel, son of the morning".
If you read all of Isaiah 14, in context, slowly and carefully paying attention to who is saying what to whom, you will see it is NOT, as many people would believe, about Satan at all.
It is about a human king, turned opressive, evil ruler named Helel, whose people will turn against him.

 

[lixluke]

It is about a human king, turned opressive, evil ruler named Helel, whose people will turn against him.

Somebody said it was about King Nebakanezer.
If it was about Helel, was there ever a war in heaven and fall of Lucifer?

 

[one_raven]

Somebody said it was about King Nebakanezer.
If it was about Helel, was there ever a war in heaven and fall of Lucifer?

There never was any Lucifer at all.
That passage, in Isaiah 14 is the only mention of the name "Lucifer" anywhere in the King James Bible, and was a transliteration, of sorts, derrived from "helel ben shachar" ("Helel, son of the morning").
The translated “Lucifer” comes from the Latin "lucis", meaning “light” and "fero" meaning “to bring”.
The King James Bible translated "Helel, son of the morning" to "light bringer".

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There never was any Lucifer at all.

Correct. Give that man an all expenses paid trip to Tahiiti!