I am an atheist thread 3

[psyche23]

Really!?

And why not? I’d rather like to get the cards on the table right off the bat, and see if honesty is of value to the atheist, and not just the usual hiding behind “Christians being nice” and “atheists being mocking and illogical” being valued as the “rules of engagement” for the recreational mocker that is the average, or even exceptional, atheist.

It’s one thing to be honest and get the cards on the table. It’s another to make everyone so defensive that communication is practically impossible.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Sorry to horn in, but I’m rather impatient, and since atheists are SO well known for their irreverent sense of humor, I didn’t think you’d mind an interjection of the razor-like wit that is my bad self:

Quote:
Originally Posted by A
Wow, we have really covered a lot of subjects on the last 2 threads. I would like to start again and say that you have all been very generous with your time. Thanks and keep it up!

So, is this the “I’m an atheist heathen and I like to argue with so-called believers” thread?

How “tolerant” are you folks (the atheists here) at being called self-contradicting hyper-religious “anti-not-your-religion”-ists?

Also known as fascist would-be slavemasters of mankind?​

Just curious.

Hello
I never posted “blah atheistic trash blah”. Are drinking more than i am or what???

It’s nice to know you’re curious!

The “blah atheistic trash blah” is what I didn’t care to read, as I was simply looking to interpose that posting into an “active” sub-thread within this thread. In other words, I simply wanted to “quote” you, as an atheist, and the actual content of that particular posting was irrelevant, and most easily “translated” by me as what all such verbage from atheists is.

And I most PROBABLY am drinking more (Tropicana Sugar-Free Orange-Ade with Phenylalanine-based sweetener) than you are, and while I’m not entirely sure what your beverage of choice is, I imagine that the “active ingredient” of yours MAY have more effect on you than mine does on me!

And apparently, you’ve lost control of your “shift key”, and the ability to type certain pronouns when grammatically required, so we may have proof that you are more “affected” by your beverage than I am.

 

[phooney]

No time for jibba-jabba tonight my friends, I have an astronomy class to go to, then an early night!

Will be seeing you tomorrow

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Hi 659

Not really just atheist. Women who want control over their own body. People who could be helped by stem cell research. Etc…

I can’t buy booze on sunday because god doesn’t like it. What if they past a law that no one could shop on saturday because Thor didn’t like it. How would you feel about that? Would that be scary??

Poor frat boy Ikie! Can’t be a licentious libertine when he wants to be!

I have no problem with him being a licentious libertine of a frat boy, but to blame God for allowing other people to set rules to limit access to some substances, just as he would set “un-limits” to those same substances if he were “in power”, is quite funny!

He would claim rights for himself that he would prohibit others to have! What a surprise coming from a would-be slaver of mankind if he were given “power” to do so.

This is the very unlovely thing about atheists: They are utterly arbitrary in what they will “allow” people to do, but it’s ALWAYS a “doing” which brings them “comfort”, such as the “comfort” to be free of people who disagree with them and bring them discomfort in as an unaccountable-as-possible way as possible.

 

[phooney]

Poor frat boy Ikie! Can’t be a licentious libertine when he wants to be!

I have no problem with him being a licentious libertine of a frat boy, but to blame God for allowing other people to set rules to limit access to some substances, just as he would set “un-limits” to those same substances if he were “in power”, is quite funny!

He would claim rights for himself that he would prohibit others to have! What a surprise coming from a would-be slaver of mankind if he were given “power” to do so.

This is the very unlovely thing about atheists: They are utterly arbitrary in what they will “allow” people to do, but it’s ALWAYS a “doing” which brings them “comfort”, such as the “comfort” to be free of people who disagree with them and bring them discomfort in as an unaccountable-as-possible way as possible.

Wow, who let the cat-lady from the Simpsons sign up to a forum account?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

This is not absurd. Jesus plainly says in the four gospels, if you believe your prayers would be answered. He didn’t say if god was in the mood, or work in mysterious ways, or we don’t understand the will of god.

All prayers ARE answered, in the best and most wise way possible. That one’s prayers are not answered in a less that best way, which could very well be how WE would have our prayers answered, shows that God is not willing to do us damage by simply giving us what we want, and that folks like you have no clue as to what “God” means.

Of course, having no idea what “God” means makes having an even VAGUE sense of what “prayer” means an utter impossibility.

Your ignorance is well demonstrated! Please keep up the good work of making the image of the “atheist” as foolish as many people STILL don’t realize it is! Thanks!

He plainly said nine times in the gospels that if a believer prayed, his or her prayers would be answered.

So, either you are lying or jesus was lying. This is not an idiotic reguest. Was your jesus lying?

What does YOUR “jesus” do? Does he “lie”?

Your “jesus” is that through which the universe was created which is the interface of this universe to that which created it. What do you call this “thing”?

In other words, is your “machine-like universe” a perpetual motion machine, which you inevitably would have to answer “yes”, and if so, how can anything you do be any more than an utter infinitesimal irelevancy, and of no meaning whatsoever?

And if of no real meaning, isn’t ANY action “good” which makes you “comfy”?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Hi Pax

In other words, god cannot be felt by our five senses. He doesn’t exist.

How does the number 264 feel?

Is it smooth or rough? Warm perhaps?

Once again, the atheist reduces himself to 8 year-old schoolboy “philosophy”. The so-called mind of the atheist is such a pleasure to watch. Much like a goldfish in search of his own floating “poop” to eat.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

For me, I’ve always thought the realm of science was in anything we could observe through any of our senses, or via the instruments that we can create. This seems to match up with what you think the jurisdiction of science is.

This is quite so. And one of our instruments, which in fact is the instrument BEHIND all our other instruments, is our perception, which is internal.

However, I would think it would then follow that if God had an effect or presence in our universe that we had any way of observing, it would be in the realm of science.

Since God has created everything IN the universe, all “forces” within it ARE His “interfering” with it, such that any “locality” when “interfered with”, affected by, any other “locality” via “force”, that is evidence of God’s “prodding” the interfered with locality.

Your argument seems to rest on vague ‘other’ senses for evidence. It would surely be a contradiction of free will if only a quarter of the modern population had this sense, wouldn’t it?

There is no “other sense” other than our perception, which is internal. All our instruments impinge on that one instrument.

We each have the free will to accept that stimuli can originate from (what you would see as) “inside” (which is not really inside but rather simply “from God” which is an unlocatable direction), and if you choose to attribute the internal perception of those stimuli to “not God”, then that is your free choice.

If one has to believe first in order to be privy to this evidence, it would contradict the standards of evidence we place in every other area of our life, and if one has to believe in a deity before there is evidence of that deity, why start with Yahweh?

One must “believe” a hypothesis to use it to search for truth. If that “belief” is confirmed by evidence received in response to that “belief” is the truth of that belief strengthened?

You only find your lost keys where you look for them! If, because you are looking for them, as you “believe your keys MUST be somewhere”, you find them, do you not believe more so after that in “your keys”?

Now this is the interesting part! Why would we look for something which we don’t know we have lost? The answer is that we wouldn’t! But if many do, and they are so much like us, what are the odds that we simply don’t realise that we DO have keys that we’ve lost!?

Atheists like to think that THEY are the majority population when it suits them, and the minority population when it otherwise suits them, but the fact is that sensing the “God shaped hole” within us as men is the overwhelmingly predominant “sense”, and the atheistic “pride of specialness” in claiming that they are the less deluded than their believing brothers is simply vanity.

Why not go through all possible gods in alphabetial order? I was wondering if you could describe what these other sense(s) is/are?

Spirits precede gods which precede God.

Since, as a typical atheist, you have no idea of what “God” (monotheistic as per Christianity) means, and posit that that definition is equivalent to “one of the gods” (polytheistic), you are not equiped to discuss why God is prefereable to follow over “gods”.

The “sense” which you would have described to you is called “revelation”, which is confirmed only by verification by the Church. It is (can be), essentially, the exact same perception as any “outwardly stimulated (initiated)” perception, but not attributable to any “outward stimuli”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
“It really simple to answer that. God answers all prayer sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes the answer is no.”

But that is exactly what would happen with no god as well.

A “no” answer is NOT a “non” answer!

How do you KNOW that what you see as a “no” answer is exactly what happens with a “non” answer?

You simply can not prove (using your own demand for proof in materialistic measure) that you actually KNOW what you say that you know!

Therefore, you are either a simpleton in not realizing that you can’t claim to know what you don’t know, or a liar in being self-contradictory in claiming to know something while knowing that you don’t know it!

I prefer to think you are a simpleton to that of being a liar. I’m feeling generous today, apparently.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Hah ha ha ha ha…! It’s a great thing to know that a least you are exhibiting the usual odd-ball humor of the typical atheist!

Although, if you are so easy to insult, and actually would be so “sensitive like a baby’s bottom” as to want to prohibit the wider audience here from hearing opinions of honest observations of “fanatically religiously-fervent atheists”, then the usual fascistic behavior of the typical atheist is well demonstrated in you.

Seriously, is that necessary!!! I have several atheist friends and they’re good people. If you’re here to prove a point, then go ahead and do it. But this type of talk isn’t helping…

Please, my friend, if your sensitivities are so delicate, please simply ignore me. The problem with atheists is that atheists don’t realize how truly dangerous they are. To prod them into responding by mere stated observation of their behavior, which invariably results in “emotionality”, which they “dogmatically” so decry as “irrational” unless it serves their purpose (yet another hypocracy of the atheist), is the way to show them themselves so that they might “buy a vowel” and start thinking like rational human beings.

There are many murderers who are, otherwise, bery good people indeed! Shall we not call murderers murderers, then?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Uh, learning REQUIRES belief my friend!

What is hypothesis if not “belief”?

If you recall, I stated that I am quite fully capable of learning and believing at the same time. Thus proving that believing does not inhibit learning.

OK then, for those who DO believe that belief inhibits learning, why is that?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Really!?

And why not? I’d rather like to get the cards on the table right off the bat, and see if honesty is of value to the atheist, and not just the usual hiding behind “Christians being nice” and “atheists being mocking and illogical” being valued as the “rules of engagement” for the recreational mocker that is the average, or even exceptional, atheist.

It’s one thing to be honest and get the cards on the table. It’s another to make everyone so defensive that communication is practically impossible.

The atheist believes that if he can run you around in circles without getting to “the cards”, without getting to the basic axiomatic propositions with which we can agree to disagree, then he’s “won”.

I would rather “run off” that childish type of atheist off so that those (atheists) who remain are of at least enought sense as to actually not play that nonproductive silly game.

If one is just yanked around by the tether of “nicey-nicey so-called communication” as a toy by the perverse and childish atheist for the ammusement of his equally as childish friends, then I’d rather cut the tether and get into their faces.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Wow, who let the cat-lady from the Simpsons sign up to a forum account?

Hey, I like THAT one!

Very good!

Reeooooooooooooooooooow! Pht, phhhhhhhht!

Care for a game of Cat Scratch Fever my, hopefully worthy but most probably not, friend!?

 

[psyche23]

Please, my friend, if your sensitivities are so delicate, please simply ignore me. The problem with atheists is that atheists don’t realize how truly dangerous they are. To prod them into responding by mere stated observation of their behavior, which invariably results in “emotionality”, which they “dogmatically” so decry as “irrational” unless it serves their purpose (yet another hypocracy of the atheist), is the way to show them themselves so that they might “buy a vowel” and start thinking like rational human beings.

There are many murderers who are, otherwise, bery good people indeed! Shall we not call murderers murderers, then?

It’s not my sensitivities I’m worried about. We’re having good conversations here and am making headway I think in understanding one another. This doesn’t mean I agree with their beliefs or lack of. But I think unity is much more effective than coming in here calling people names. I’m actually surprised there haven’t been more atheists responding here.

And we are called to love everyone. Even our enemies. Even if it’s hard. Love means wanting the best for that person(s). Love is patient, love is kind, it does not bear false witness ect… No Christian/Catholic is bending in his/her beliefs, we’re hopefully intending to be patient and kind as we’ve been taught to do.

You’ll get more responses by asking the same question in a respectful way than by name calling and generalizing. Most likely they’ve put you on ignore anyway. If you truly wish to get your points across and have them read at the same time, you would be wise to choose your words carefully.

 

[psyche23]

The atheist believes that if he can run you around in circles without getting to “the cards”, without getting to the basic axiomatic propositions with which we can agree to disagree, then he’s “won”.

I would rather “run off” that childish type of atheist off so that those (atheists) who remain are of at least enought sense as to actually not play that nonproductive silly game.

If one is just yanked around by the tether of “nicey-nicey so-called communication” as a toy by the perverse and childish atheist for the ammusement of his equally as childish friends, then I’d rather cut the tether and get into their faces.

Ok, any atheist who’s intention it is to run me around in circles in a game of cat and mouse. If all you’re interested in is just proving how right you are and how horribly dumb I am, speak now or forever hold your peace… That way I will know who to respond to and who to ignore…

That satisfy you???

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

It’s not my sensitivities I’m worried about. We’re having good conversations here and am making headway I think in understanding one another. This doesn’t mean I agree with their beliefs or lack of. But I think unity is much more effective than coming in here calling people names. I’m actually surprised there haven’t been more atheists responding here.

Lovely. More “fake” ecumanism"! Just what we need.

Atheists call Catholics (and others who are non-atheists) names simply by making their opinions known! My observations of atheists are not name-calling, but simply descriptions of my observations of atheists.

If they are so weak-knee’d as to run away at a little “confrontational truth”, then do we really want them as conversation partners in the first place, as their GOAL (proven by the inability to respond to digging for any truths which underlie their “positions”) is simply to mock and harrass.

And we are called to love everyone. Even our enemies. Even if it’s hard. Love means wanting the best for that person(s). Love is patient, love is kind, it does not bear false witness ect… No Christian/Catholic is bending in his/her beliefs, we’re hopefully intending to be patient and kind as we’ve been taught to do.

I **DO **love atheists, despite the hate I feel for their evil behavior, and hearing the truth will do them good. That they choose to see truth-telling as “insult” is not my problem.

You’ll get more responses by asking the same question in a respectful way than by name calling and generalizing. Most likely they’ve put you on ignore anyway. If you truly wish to get your points across and have them read at the same time, you would be wise to choose your words carefully.

Atheists love being enabled to play their little games, which folks like yourself do so well. Your goal is to “persuade” them to see truth, which they will do only when they are forced to, and I am not capable, nor is anyone other than they themselves with the grace of God capable of persuading OR forcing them to see truth.

But, as in this venue, which consists SOLEY in words, we are able to ONLY expose ourselves for the sense we display, a “non-violent” confrontational “fight” is an excellent way to bring out the differing views of the respective sides.

If they “run away”, what is the reason? Is it fear of being “damaged” by a bunch of pixles?

No. It is fear of being shown the fools they are.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Ok, any atheist who’s intention it is to run me around in circles in a game of cat and mouse. If all you’re interested in is just proving how right you are and how horribly dumb I am, speak now or forever hold your peace… That way I will know who to respond to and who to ignore…

That satisfy you???

Uh, do you also request that thieves PLEASE come to your house TODAY so that they can be identified and sent to prison so that you can be more comfortable with the rest of the population?

Since atheists can ONLY run anyone, including themselves, around in circles endlessly contending trivialities, they don’t realize that they ARE being childish, and, as an obvious consequence, complain mightily at being CALLED childish while displaying their childishness.

Being “nice”, which means “telling untruths” to atheists is an endless circular game which they call “winning”.

No atheist CAN come to an actual conclusion about anything, because everything is “relative”, and to stop the masturbatory pleasure they call “conversation regarding anything non-materialistic” is to be “rude” to them, and we’ve SAID that we won’t be “rude” to them, as you would have it.

 

[psyche23]

Lovely. More “fake” ecumanism"! Just what we need.

I’d say the same thing about how you’re going about this…

Atheists call Catholics (and others who are non-atheists) names simply by making their opinions known! My observations of atheists are not name-calling, but simply descriptions of my observations of atheists.

If it looks, sounds and acts like a duck… it’s probably a duck… your observations come across like name calling. As I’ve said before, better be careful with your words. Words have an enormous amount of impact.

If they are so weak-knee’d as to run away at a little “confrontational truth”, then do we really want them as conversation partners in the first place, as their GOAL (proven by the inability to respond to digging for any truths which underlie their “positions”) is simply to mock and harrass.

Of course we want them in our conversation! If they’re weak-kneed as you say, then they will probably be more open to our ideas and opinions because they wouldn’t be strong enough in their own.

I **DO **love atheists, despite the hate I feel for their evil behavior, and hearing the truth will do them good. That they choose to see truth-telling as “insult” is not my problem.

**Your posts seems to suggest otherwise. Thanks for clearing that up. **

Atheists love being enabled to play their little games, which folks like yourself do so well. Your goal is to “persuade” them to see truth, which they will do only when they are forced to, and I am not capable, nor is anyone other than they themselves with the grace of God capable of persuading OR forcing them to see truth.

**That was never my intention so please don’t pretend to know my inner thoughts…My intention *is ***to open doors. Yours appears to close them.

But, as in this venue, which consists SOLEY in words, we are able to ONLY expose ourselves for the sense we display, a “non-violent” confrontational “fight” is an excellent way to bring out the differing views of the respective sides.

If they “run away”, what is the reason? Is it fear of being “damaged” by a bunch of pixles?

No. It is fear of being shown the fools they are.

**Your guess is as good as mine, but again name-calling is really childish… **

 

[psyche23]

Uh, do you also request that thieves PLEASE come to your house TODAY so that they can be identified and sent to prison so that you can be more comfortable with the rest of the population?

**I was being sarcastic…

My point was neither you nor I will know what their true intentions are because we aren’t them!!! So your generalizations do more harm than good. My comment was as absurd as yours.**

Being “nice”, which means “telling untruths” to atheists is an endless circular game which they call “winning”.

There is nothing that says being nice means you’re telling falsehoods. That’s a pretty ridiculous statement.

No atheist CAN come to an actual conclusion about anything, because everything is “relative”, and to stop the masturbatory pleasure they call “conversation regarding anything non-materialistic” is to be “rude” to them, and we’ve SAID that we won’t be “rude” to them, as you would have it.

Where does being rude actually get us??? Nowhere…

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

**Your guess is as good as mine, but again name-calling is really childish… **

May I suggest that you de-quote those parts which are your statements, and leave as quoted those parts which are quotes you are responding to?

Also, so it’s fine for you to call me “childish”, yet you condemn me for calling those that I see as childish childish?

I agree with you that I could be seen as childish, if you consider what I’m doing as being childish, and I accept your description as YOUR DESCRIPTION of your observation of me, and not as an insult.

So, why is it “wrong” to expect atheists to accept MY description of their behavior as a description of my observation of their behavior, and not as “insult”?

The reason is to placate the children, to not diminish their “self-esteem”, so that they will expect to get away with more “bad behavior” later, thus creating yet another crop of “little monsters”.