Are atheists destroying the US?

[Hollie]

Hollie's angst is so high she does not realize she is talking to herself with "recoil in panic when you're tasked with sch a basic requirement as supporting your argument, and you cannot."

You can't deny God exists. You saying you have is not proof other than you being a goof ball emotionally.

Most of the planet denies your partisan gawds exist. You're really just a typical religionist in that you uncritically accepted the majority religion and gave no thought to challenge the dogma. You're simply a clone. You can, however, derive some comfort in that most people do precisely what you did: you bought in to the dogma you were given.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie's parroting of better educated atheists is noted.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie's parroting of better educated atheists is noted.

I can't help but notice that your befuddlement leaves you with no options but to lash out like a petulant child. Your primary distress is an inability to present a coherent argument for your gawds. I’m less open to baseless claims of the supernatural. You take the unfortunate position of assuming that anyone who disagrees with your “because I say so”, dogma is necessarily attacking your gawds. This is a public discussion board, Laddie. Expect others to challenge your specious claims.

Your beliefs in a human based configuration of gawds has everything to do with your assuming that everyone must agree with your dogma. Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, configured many gawds to address their fears and superstitions. Your projections of a spirit world is but one configuration of gawds among thousands. Your spirit worlds and the gawds residing in them are merely evidence of cultural bias, a co-option, revision and modification of earlier gawds by way of a distillation of fears and superstitions that preceded yours. People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.

Shouldn't you be out making sacrificial slaughter of some lambs?

 

[BluePhantom]

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians know very little about their bibles. Rote memorization of a few verses learned in Sunday school is hardly a working knowledge of the bibles.

A working example of that is the utter collapse of the Genesis tale as a confused, contradictory collection of disjointed claims. A critical examination of arguably the most important event in human history breaks down as completely muddled and self-refuting.

I think that is sort of true but not completely true. I think most Christians actually know the Bible very well, they just overlook the historical contexts that led to the traditions and doctrines of the church. For example, they know about Satan but they don't realize that Satan did not exist in Judaism until the Babylonian conquest and he was created as means to explain why Jews were still suffering despite their covenant with God.

It's not scripture that many Christians are unaware of, it's the history behind the scripture that they are unaware of.

 

[BluePhantom]

Although I do have to say Hollie that your "gawds" thing is pretty juvenile. It's right up there with calling the San Francisco 49ers the "forty-whiners" and the Oakland Raider the "Chokeland Faiders". It doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility which is a shame because you can sometimes provide a decent argument. It makes you appear childish, militant, and antagonistic instead of someone that is worthy of an intelligent discourse. For myself, I read your posts with interest and in a respectful manner but as soon as you write "gawds" I kind of roll my eyes and think "what immaturity" and your argument loses it's merit. Do whatever you wish, but I would scrap that and let your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to resort to such childish things to make your point

 

[Hollie]

Although I do have to say Hollie that your "gawds" thing is pretty juvenile. It's right up there with calling the San Francisco 49ers the "forty-whiners" and the Oakland Raider the "Chokeland Faiders". It doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility which is a shame because you can sometimes provide a decent argument. It makes you appear childish, militant, and antagonistic instead of someone that is worthy of an intelligent discourse. For myself, I read your posts with interest and in a respectful manner but as soon as you write "gawds" I kind of roll my eyes and think "what immaturity" and your argument loses it's merit. Do whatever you wish, but I would scrap that and let your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to resort to such childish things to make your point

I find that an argument needs to be tailored to the audience. In terms of the several angry, self-loathing, hyper-religious types that troll these threads, yeah, gawds is entirely appropriate.

Gawds as an assertion is extraordinary and as I hold science to a standard of proof, I hold religions to a standard of proof to support the existence of such entities. I would be interested in a sound theory to start off that process but unfortunately all of the theological theories ask the subscriber to them to exempt their particular supernatural entities from the rules the theory seeks to lay the groundwork for. I'd say that qualifies them as "unsound" by definition, and I'm at a loss to understand theists conceding their supernatural pronouncements are indefensible, and often just outlandishly silly, yet they still adhere to them. It’s a form of self-delusion.

 

[Hollie]

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians know very little about their bibles. Rote memorization of a few verses learned in Sunday school is hardly a working knowledge of the bibles.

A working example of that is the utter collapse of the Genesis tale as a confused, contradictory collection of disjointed claims. A critical examination of arguably the most important event in human history breaks down as completely muddled and self-refuting.

I think that is sort of true but not completely true. I think most Christians actually know the Bible very well, they just overlook the historical contexts that led to the traditions and doctrines of the church. For example, they know about Satan but they don't realize that Satan did not exist in Judaism until the Babylonian conquest and he was created as means to explain why Jews were still suffering despite their covenant with God.

It's not scripture that many Christians are unaware of, it's the history behind the scripture that they are unaware of.

I think you will find that with a critical analysis of the Genesis tale, Satan existed much earlier than you allow for, and clearly as a product of the gawds, at least per the fable. I've found that most Christians have never made such an analysis of Genesis and thus have no conception of just how clumsy the fable really is. I just would have expected better story composition, character development and a consistent theme from one or more gawds. But then again, the tale really delineates the human authorship and human frailties of the men who wrote the fables.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know what you're talking about, since we always have to remind you of what's in your Bible.

I'm talking about how you and she are ignorant about what's in my Bible.....

Why is it that many atheists know more about the Bible than many self-described, devoted Christians

The Bible contains awful things, silly things, contradictory things, and downright stupid things- none of which ever get mentioned by their minister at Church.

So, most Christians only know a few nice passages here and there, and they just assume the rest of the book is just as nice.

When people actually read the thing they tend to realize that it is just the writings of primitive men, with their primitive understanding of the universe, and their rather primitive barbaric culture, and the god that they created to reflect those views of reality.

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians know very little about their bibles. Rote memorization of a few verses learned in Sunday school is hardly a working knowledge of the bibles.

A working example of that is the utter collapse of the Genesis tale as a confused, contradictory collection of disjointed claims. A critical examination of arguably the most important event in human history breaks down as completely muddled and self-refuting.

and in my experience, the majority of Christians know significantly more about their bibles than the atheists who post to this board......I have also demonstrated repeatedly that I know more about pagan mythology than the idiots atheists here who try to use it to claim that Christianity copied it.......and to be honest, I have proven I know more about everything than you do........

You give yourself credit for offering "pwoof" of nothing. Your bible'ology is among the most limited and befuddled among the more excitable of the YEC'ists.

just yesterday I provided proof that Attis was never resurrected....meanwhile, you probably still believe that since he cut off his own penis in a fit of madness, it is a clear parallel to Pilate washing his hands and turning Jesus over to the Sanhedrin........

 

[PostmodernProph]

Fake christians are a far worse danger. They are like ISIS pretending to be Muslims

"Fake" christians is a matter

this from someone so fucking stupid she can't tell the difference between a young earther and someone who is not a young earther.......

When your views are consistently aligned with the YEC'ist cabal, that's what you become.

so in your studied opinion, when I say the earth is not young I am aligned with those who say the earth is young......yet people complain when I say atheists are irrational..........

Re-read your comments when you awake from your stupor.

lol....you've never read my comments but you ask me to?.....

I actually find it unremarkable that can't understand how limited your knowledge is regarding the bibles. You confuse Sunday school indoctrination with a working knowledge of the bibles.

I find it amusing that you atheists believe you know anything about scripture, given that your only exposure to it comes from pasting articles from AtheistsRUs websites that pretend a guy with an engineering degree working out of his basement is "a majority of biblical scholars"........

 

[PostmodernProph]

I have read your holy book

to be honest, I find that unlikely......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I don't know what you're talking about, since we always have to remind you of what's in your Bible.

I'm talking about how you and she are ignorant about what's in my Bible.....

Why is it that many atheists know more about the Bible than many self-described, devoted Christians

The Bible contains awful things, silly things, contradictory things, and downright stupid things- none of which ever get mentioned by their minister at Church.

So, most Christians only know a few nice passages here and there, and they just assume the rest of the book is just as nice.

When people actually read the thing they tend to realize that it is just the writings of primitive men, with their primitive understanding of the universe, and their rather primitive barbaric culture, and the god that they created to reflect those views of reality.

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians know very little about their bibles. Rote memorization of a few verses learned in Sunday school is hardly a working knowledge of the bibles.

A working example of that is the utter collapse of the Genesis tale as a confused, contradictory collection of disjointed claims. A critical examination of arguably the most important event in human history breaks down as completely muddled and self-refuting.

and in my experience, the majority of Christians know significantly more about their bibles than the atheists who post to this board......I have also demonstrated repeatedly that I know more about pagan mythology than the idiots atheists here who try to use it to claim that Christianity copied it.......and to be honest, I have proven I know more about everything than you do........

and in my experience

Which seems very limited

and yet everytime I have documented your errors you run away and hide.....why is that, child?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Although I do have to say Hollie that your "gawds" thing is pretty juvenile. It's right up there with calling the San Francisco 49ers the "forty-whiners" and the Oakland Raider the "Chokeland Faiders". It doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility which is a shame because you can sometimes provide a decent argument. It makes you appear childish, militant, and antagonistic instead of someone that is worthy of an intelligent discourse. For myself, I read your posts with interest and in a respectful manner but as soon as you write "gawds" I kind of roll my eyes and think "what immaturity" and your argument loses it's merit. Do whatever you wish, but I would scrap that and let your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to resort to such childish things to make your point

I find that an argument needs to be tailored to the audience. In terms of the several angry, self-loathing, hyper-religious types that troll these threads, yeah, gawds is entirely appropriate.

Gawds as an assertion is extraordinary and as I hold science to a standard of proof, I hold religions to a standard of proof to support the existence of such entities. I would be interested in a sound theory to start off that process but unfortunately all of the theological theories ask the subscriber to them to exempt their particular supernatural entities from the rules the theory seeks to lay the groundwork for. I'd say that qualifies them as "unsound" by definition, and I'm at a loss to understand theists conceding their supernatural pronouncements are indefensible, and often just outlandishly silly, yet they still adhere to them. It’s a form of self-delusion.

lol.....actually, Hollie obviously tailors her audience to her argument, since she only has one.....

 

[Hollie]

Although I do have to say Hollie that your "gawds" thing is pretty juvenile. It's right up there with calling the San Francisco 49ers the "forty-whiners" and the Oakland Raider the "Chokeland Faiders". It doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility which is a shame because you can sometimes provide a decent argument. It makes you appear childish, militant, and antagonistic instead of someone that is worthy of an intelligent discourse. For myself, I read your posts with interest and in a respectful manner but as soon as you write "gawds" I kind of roll my eyes and think "what immaturity" and your argument loses it's merit. Do whatever you wish, but I would scrap that and let your arguments stand on their own. You don't need to resort to such childish things to make your point

I find that an argument needs to be tailored to the audience. In terms of the several angry, self-loathing, hyper-religious types that troll these threads, yeah, gawds is entirely appropriate.

Gawds as an assertion is extraordinary and as I hold science to a standard of proof, I hold religions to a standard of proof to support the existence of such entities. I would be interested in a sound theory to start off that process but unfortunately all of the theological theories ask the subscriber to them to exempt their particular supernatural entities from the rules the theory seeks to lay the groundwork for. I'd say that qualifies them as "unsound" by definition, and I'm at a loss to understand theists conceding their supernatural pronouncements are indefensible, and often just outlandishly silly, yet they still adhere to them. It’s a form of self-delusion.

lol.....actually, Hollie obviously tailors her audience to her argument, since she only has one.....

Your typically pointless spam.

 

[Hollie]

"Fake" christians is a matter
When your views are consistently aligned with the YEC'ist cabal, that's what you become.

so in your studied opinion, when I say the earth is not young I am aligned with those who say the earth is young......yet people complain when I say atheists are irrational..........

Re-read your comments when you awake from your stupor.

lol....you've never read my comments but you ask me to?.....

I actually find it unremarkable that can't understand how limited your knowledge is regarding the bibles. You confuse Sunday school indoctrination with a working knowledge of the bibles.

I find it amusing that you atheists believe you know anything about scripture, given that your only exposure to it comes from pasting articles from AtheistsRUs websites that pretend a guy with an engineering degree working out of his basement is "a majority of biblical scholars"........

What's interesting is your inability to offer a meaningful comment.

 

[guno]

I have read your holy book

to be honest, I find that unlikely......

to be honest, I find that unlikely.

Of course you would, your mind can't fathom that someone would read your 'holy' book and not accept your myth as being real. I have read multiple versions of your "holy" book from the king james to the Catholic Douay-Rheims version and others like the NIV. Now which one of those is the real true one , so I can be sure to restudy it .

Who knew the stars are really twinkly little thing and not suns from other solar systems as science has proven. Must be true, it says so in the bible!!

Revelation 6:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

 

[guno]

 

[BluePhantom]

In my experience, the vast majority of Christians know very little about their bibles. Rote memorization of a few verses learned in Sunday school is hardly a working knowledge of the bibles.

A working example of that is the utter collapse of the Genesis tale as a confused, contradictory collection of disjointed claims. A critical examination of arguably the most important event in human history breaks down as completely muddled and self-refuting.

I think that is sort of true but not completely true. I think most Christians actually know the Bible very well, they just overlook the historical contexts that led to the traditions and doctrines of the church. For example, they know about Satan but they don't realize that Satan did not exist in Judaism until the Babylonian conquest and he was created as means to explain why Jews were still suffering despite their covenant with God.

It's not scripture that many Christians are unaware of, it's the history behind the scripture that they are unaware of.

I think you will find that with a critical analysis of the Genesis tale, Satan existed much earlier than you allow for, and clearly as a product of the gawds, at least per the fable. I've found that most Christians have never made such an analysis of Genesis and thus have no conception of just how clumsy the fable really is. I just would have expected better story composition, character development and a consistent theme from one or more gawds. But then again, the tale really delineates the human authorship and human frailties of the men who wrote the fables.

Perhaps, but Satan did not appear in the Old testament until the book of Job which was written around the 6th century BCE (I think - too lazy to look it up but it was around there). Genesis was centuries earlier, perhaps 400-500 years earlier, and some of the stories existed in oral tradition back into ancient Sumer and Babylon as far back as 2500 BCE maybe. The Egyptians and Sumerians, etc surely had their own evil deities, but the Israelites didn't fold them in. They were monotheistic. If you have God of good stuff and then a god of darkness it's polytheistic which would go against their principle.

You can see the effect as the depiction of God softens throughout the Bible. Initially He is a hard ass that is responsible for both joy and suffering and as Satan develops, the hard ass, negative characteristics get attributed to Satan leaving God with only positive characteristics.

What people have done is to look back at the early books of the Bible and ascribe certain things to Satan after the fact. For example, some people might argue that the serpent in the garden of Eden that tempted Eve was Satan. Well that's not what it says. It just says a serpent. People have correlated the serpent with Satan after the fact according to tradition but the Bible doesn't say that.

 

[PostmodernProph]

so in your studied opinion, when I say the earth is not young I am aligned with those who say the earth is young......yet people complain when I say atheists are irrational..........

Re-read your comments when you awake from your stupor.

lol....you've never read my comments but you ask me to?.....

I actually find it unremarkable that can't understand how limited your knowledge is regarding the bibles. You confuse Sunday school indoctrination with a working knowledge of the bibles.

I find it amusing that you atheists believe you know anything about scripture, given that your only exposure to it comes from pasting articles from AtheistsRUs websites that pretend a guy with an engineering degree working out of his basement is "a majority of biblical scholars"........

What's interesting is your inability to offer a meaningful comment.

but you see, we've seen it doesn't matter what our comments are......you simply give us all the same answer regardless of what we say.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I have read your holy book

to be honest, I find that unlikely......

to be honest, I find that unlikely.

Of course you would, your mind can't fathom that someone would read your 'holy' book and not accept your myth as being real. I have read multiple versions of your "holy" book from the king james to the Catholic Douay-Rheims version and others like the NIV. Now which one of those is the real true one , so I can be sure to restudy it .

Who knew the stars are really twinkly little thing and not suns from other solar systems as science has proven. Must be true, it says so in the bible!!

Revelation 6:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

thus spoke one of the untimely figs....

 

[Igrok_]

Atheism destroys not only the society, but families and personality at all. As an example watch on USSR and hundreds of thousands or even millions killed by pure atheists who were driven only the idea. Neither relatives nor society or education could lead them to stop destroying all around them. In the same way look around ancient Rome and their killing of christians. So, this is by far not a new idea where somebody should be interested in...