Why do the God-haters persist?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Youre wasting your time bruce.

He is ego centric and irrational.

Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.

It's an ego thing.
He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.

True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!

This is a very good description of religion, and why in fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

 

[Montrovant]

To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

 

[Boss]

To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?

"We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic. "

From your OP.
This states that not only are these people not atheist or agnostic (the latter term incorrectly used to describe a watered-down atheism) but you claim it is their dirty little secret, indicating they are aware that they are lying about their beliefs.
The 9 words were a perfectly apt summary of what was stated as part of your argument.
You love that "context" bit. Every single time your own words are used to display your muddled thought process or your goalpost realignment you trudge out the idea that idiocy surrounded by more of it will suddenly become profound.
It doesn't.
Neither does making up words like "insultuous". It further marginalizes your degree.

 

[koshergrl]

Yawn. Yet another example of the wit that permeates the anti-christian bigotry forum.

 

[Boss]

Bruce, I will no longer argue with you over misrepresented context. You've tried this enough and it has failed over and over through the whole thread and in the other thread we are conversing. I don't have the time or patience to correct you each time you misrepresent something I've said. So you and Moonbat go right ahead and infer different meanings into what I have posted, and show the world how you are willing to lie and manipulate things in order to win an argument.

As for "insultuous" you are correct, it's a made-up word. It means insolent. I will frequently use these to see if there are any Word Nazi's lurking out there, because that helps me to evaluate your psyche. Usually people don't pick up on it unless they are like you, determined to find anything they can to stick their victory flag in. I wasn't an English major, I was a Science major. I often have people tell me I should have been an English major, but I've found the rules of English too stuffy and confining for me. Irregardless, I am betting you had to go look up "insultuous" to be sure it wasn't actually a word.

 

[MrMax]

To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

Boss has a Phd in psychology? Doesn't everyone on the internet have a Phd? I have 2.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Bruce, I will no longer argue with you over misrepresented context. You've tried this enough and it has failed over and over through the whole thread and in the other thread we are conversing. I don't have the time or patience to correct you each time you misrepresent something I've said. So you and Moonbat go right ahead and infer different meanings into what I have posted, and show the world how you are willing to lie and manipulate things in order to win an argument.

As for "insultuous" you are correct, it's a made-up word. It means insolent. I will frequently use these to see if there are any Word Nazi's lurking out there, because that helps me to evaluate your psyche. Usually people don't pick up on it unless they are like you, determined to find anything they can to stick their victory flag in. I wasn't an English major, I was a Science major. I often have people tell me I should have been an English major, but I've found the rules of English too stuffy and confining for me. Irregardless, I am betting you had to go look up "insultuous" to be sure it wasn't actually a word.

"Irregardless is a word commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since the early twentieth century, though the word appeared in print as early as 1795.[1] Most dictionaries[citation needed] list it as "nonstandard" or "incorrect". ". From Wiki

Strike two.
As far as "insultuous" goes, it means nothing at all.
You really think anyone believes that you undermined the credibility of your OP by using made up words in order to troll for "Word Nazi's(sic)", as you call people who speak English.
See if you can figure out why the other things are highlighted in bold above. They are also errors. We'll have a quiz later.
You made the right decision not being an English major. Those suggesting you should have been must have been science majors, too.
You reveal yourself again as being a borderline cretin and invent a narrative to save face.
As for misrepresenting you, if you mean quoting you directly then I am guilty as charged.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It's an ego thing.
He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.

True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!

Dorito Tea! Reduced to posting snarky commentary from the peanut gallery and handing out "thanks" to his butt buddies like the lowly coward he is! Yes, you're fighting the "good fight" ...these dweebs need all the moral support they can get, it's been a rough go! Keep on pushing the "thank" button and leaving your retarded mouth closed, that's what I like to see!

Don't flatter yourself that you and your mindless drivel merit more of my time and attention than you deserve.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yawn. Yet another example of the wit that permeates the anti-christian bigotry forum.

Rapier insight on my post.
Neither of you could handle the truth.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?

Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.

I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.

I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".

The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying. You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him. You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board. What part of this is untrue?

Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?

 

[BreezeWood]

I haven't excluded wildlife from anything. Anyone can see that humans are different from other wildlife. It's because of that difference that we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity where other wildlife doesn't appear to. If we lacked this, we would be no different than other wildlife. Our actions and behavior would be determined by primal instinct or reaction to environment without any regard for morality as we know it. We'd kill and eat our own. In the Spring, we'd go out and mate with others suitable for reproduction without regard to "consent." Stronger males would kill off weaker ones, etc. We would have never become "civilized" creatures, our nature would be no different than wildlife.

It's not an ego thing, it's a requirement thing. We comprehend spiritual nature and connect to it because we've been given that ability by "the Everlasting" as you put it. Other animals may also have an ability to connect that we're not aware of, I recognized you might have a valid point there, I don't know. I personally think we were chosen as the Stewards of life by God, The Everlasting, Spiritual Nature, whatever you wish to call it. This responsibility requires we maintain spiritual fidelity and we do that through worship. You apparently see "worship" as some unnecessary component that isn't required. And IF man could maintain spiritual fidelity without it, I could see your point. But we can't.

We'd kill and eat our own.

B: Anyone can see that humans are different from other wildlife ...It's because of that difference that we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity where other wildlife doesn't appear to.

other than their not building a car why is it necessary to distinguish a difference specifically to humanity ? - "we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity" - "fidelity" ? are you saying they have no Spirit at all ?

B: If we lacked this, we would be no different than other wildlife. Our actions and behavior would be determined by primal instinct or reaction to environment without any regard for morality as we know it.

you really are a Racist - "without any regard for morality as we know it." that certainly is well defined.

B: We would have never become "civilized" creatures, our nature would be no different than wildlife.

have you ever ventured outside your bedroom ? - there is no difference between T-Rex and a Terrier, civilization is found in an outhouse ?

B: Other animals may also have an ability to connect that we're not aware of, I recognized you might have a valid point there, I don't know.

"we're not aware of" - your bedroom is connected to your "church", that does explain much of your reasoning.

B: I personally think we were chosen as the Stewards of life by God ... This responsibility requires we maintain spiritual fidelity and we do that through worship. You apparently see "worship" as some unnecessary component that isn't required. And IF man could maintain spiritual fidelity without it, I could see your point. But we can't.

"... as the Stewards of life by God" - what in the history of mankind could possibly draw you to that conclusion other than the fallacy of the literature you chose to read and accept as fact ?
.............

B: You still haven't gotten it correct. I never said anyone should worship god. I said it's important and fundamental for humans to worship.

is that how a car is built ? how about those people who stone someone to death ?

B: Again, humans are fallible, they aren't God or Jesus, they make mistakes and commit sin.

... they make mistakes and commit sin. sorry, the only people who are not Admitted are sinners - to bad for you.

OP: True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.

another example of an absurdity based on duplicitous reasoning.

.

 

[koshergrl]

And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say. You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.

Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?

Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.

I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.

I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".

The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying. You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him. You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board. What part of this is untrue?

Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?

You don't understand the language. Telling someone the rewards of behaving a certain way is not the same as telling them to behave in a certain way.

Telling people they can attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't telling them how they must behave. It's giving them a choice. And if they reject it, the consequences are their own. It still isn't telling them how to behave.

Any more than telling Christians they're retarded for believing in a *sky pixie* is telling them how to live their lives.

Or is it?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?

Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.

I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.

I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".

The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying. You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him. You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board. What part of this is untrue?

Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?

You don't understand the language. Telling someone the rewards of behaving a certain way is not the same as telling them to behave in a certain way.

Telling people they can attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't telling them how they must behave. It's giving them a choice. And if they reject it, the consequences are their own. It still isn't telling them how to behave.

Any more than telling Christians they're retarded for believing in a *sky pixie* is telling them how to live their lives.

Or is it?

How does that relate to Boss' post?
He has stated he is not a Christian.

 

[koshergrl]

Whether or not he is Christian has nothing to do with anything.

I'm agreeing with him that it isn't "telling people how to behave" when you tell them what you believe.

 

[koshergrl]

Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.

Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Whether or not he is Christian has nothing to do with anything.

I'm agreeing with him that it isn't "telling people how to behave" when you tell them what you believe.

So what does the Christian rap have to do with it?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.

Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.

I don't hate Christians. I have alot of respect for those that have those beliefs influence the way they live their lives.
I don't have much respect for hypocrites, though.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
Why do you think they are a punchline? You certainly don't respect them.

 

[Boss]

I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.

I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".

When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion.

When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!

 

[koshergrl]

Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.

Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.

I don't hate Christians. I have alot of respect for those that have those beliefs influence the way they live their lives.
I don't have much respect for hypocrites, though.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
Why do you think they are a punchline? You certainly don't respect them.

That is the punchline.

"I love Christians if they act the way I think they should act"...

Lolol....