The insecurity of atheists, and why they spam theist forums on a daily basis

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 181
#151
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I view the critical issue as whether 'the ultimate reality' is a conscious entity.  By identifying TUR as a god you pin your colours to the mast that it is conscious, and by identifying it as the God of the orthodox church you are go even further beyond what can be justified by logic alone.
#152
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
The consciousness of a plant or an insect is very different from the consciousness of a human. I wonder if an ant would see a human being as conscious? Well, you of course would not give an ant such credit to think in such a way, which would be an easy way to dismiss the point I am making.

Say God was conscious. The form of consciousness that God takes would more than likely be incomprehensible to you to begin with.

But here is a real question for you. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility of God being conscious?
#153
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
It doesn't seem necessary and all the problems there were about where the universe and life came from etc are simply replaced by the problem of where God came from.

Being a human being, I know how human beings think!  I can imagine how pre-scientific humans would have imagined gods to explain the world.  Indeed, I cannot imagine how they could fail to do so! I have never heard of  human society that has not had gods.   And until the middle of the C19 there was no real alternative explanation to be had.  I think that today we don't know everything.  We don't now what 'the truth' is, but we know what it is not.



#154
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists post here because if they vented their shit on loved ones they wouldn't have any of them any more. We do a great service here.
#155
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@polywannacracker
Poor numpty
#156
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Adding an adjective to the word reality is redundant, the combination becomes meaningless.

Gee you're dumb.
#157
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Orthodox Christianity is about purifying the heart, not explaining things.


I would say that you have a superstitious understanding of The Ultimate Reality as the idea of it coming from anywhere is nonsensical(though you don't know yet), and you have an idea of human consciousness that you attribute to God, which we would not accept either.

I would say that your understanding has been influenced greatly by the heretical western church which has fallen into two major errors.

1. A dominance/submission fetish that in do doubt is the influence of Rome's heresy, which is defined by submission to the Bishop of Rome, and said Bishops dominance. The reaction of the protestants against this, which was to reject the Roman Bishop and Church Tradition with it. Secularism is the natural progression of the protestant mentality, eventually rejecting the bible, and even God all together.

2. The idea that God is grasped through proper education and logic rather than purifying the heart, which has caused the west to stray in that a corrupt heart full of idolatry is incapable of seeing clearly to reason, and is blind to its own blindness. The Latins adopted scholasticism(rejected by Orthodoxy from the beginning), and after the west rejected it, what filled the void was nihilism and the arbitrariness that naturally developed as a means to grapple with the absurd through intellectual means alone.


But of course, if you don't  believe that Orthodox is the true and original form of Christianity that has remained faithful to Holy Tradition guided by the spirit of truth, you are going to be confused in believing our claims are just as valid as the heretics!

And so, just like depression, the nihilism intrinsic to atheism is self defeating and self perpetuating. And like most people who are truly depressed and negative minded, they will say, "I'm not pessimistic, I am realistic!"





#158
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac


I would say that you have a superstitious understanding of The Ultimate Reality
Adding an adjective to the word reality is redundant, the combination becomes meaningless.

#159
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stronn
My reason for coming here is quite simple. Religion is a bad idea, and I oppose bad ideas.
Curious about how you get "bad"?

Bad suggests there is a standard and if that standard is not absolute and objective it is relative and changing. Why is your idea and "better" than those of religionists? So establish your standard as something that I can trust in and not just your own personal opinion and preference. And if that is all it is (personal opinion) then why is what you believe good, because you are making a moral distinction?

While I agree with your surmise, for the most part, I see one religious teaching as standing out from the rest.  So, I would stand right along side you with that statement, with one exception. And I believe my system of belief has what is necessary for religion yet I believe that those who deny God do not have a moral backbone to stand on. 

You are begging the question of why what you believe is bad by your assertion above.  

#160
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe that those who deny God do not have a moral backbone to stand on. 
My guess would be that theists and atheists have very similar morals.   A normal person would judge murder as bad and charity as good whether they are theist or atheist.

What your mixed metaphor might refer to is that atheists don't have a convenient simple 'Theory of morality' to explain why murder is bad and charity is good.   While that might matter to philosophy types, i don't think it matters much IRL.

 

#161
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@janesix
I usually get 120 for my iq give or take... gotten 138 before (actually the last one i did). I felt like bragging. Anyways, you're just having one of those days huh? I do think agnostics are better than atheists... but just like everyone, not all atheists are bad. 
#162
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Tell us what your absolute and objective standards are.
#163
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Tell us what your absolute and objective standards are.
You already know my answer and it is a logical one. 
#164
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You've never given an answer, you have always run away.
How about you answer.
Tell us what your absolute and objective standards are.
#165
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
You've never given an answer, you have always run away.
How about you answer.
Tell us what your absolute and objective standards are.

The God revealed in the Bible is the standard. You have known my standard all along, so please do not play coy. 
#166
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What you mean is the IPSS who created the bible and they are certainly not absolute nor objective, so you don't have such a base either. Your base is because you want to believe whatever you believe, totally subjective and absolutely not objective.
(Ignorant, primitive superstitious savages)
#167
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
What you mean is the IPSS who created the bible and they are certainly not absolute nor objective, so you don't have such a base either. Your base is because you want to believe whatever you believe, totally subjective and absolutely not objective.
(Ignorant, primitive superstitious savages) 

In your imagination. Why would I accept it as reliable? You have clearly shown a bias and animosity. You only hear what you want to hear. I actually appreciated that you posted the thread on prophecy and I hope you will engage in the dialogue instead of offering barbs.
#168
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
My guess would be that theists and atheists have very similar morals. 
Not that I have seen.

#169
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Not my imagination, reality. Everything in your book is the product of the IPSS.
#170
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Not my imagination, reality. Everything in your book is the product of the IPSS.
The gamble you take.
#171
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Oh Pascal you are just so frightened, I'm not because when I die your fairy tales will remain just that, fairy tales.
#172
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

Oh Pascal you are just so frightened, I'm not because when I die your fairy tales will remain just that, fairy tales.
Your choice to believe what you will. Either this life is all ultimately meaningless no matter what meaning you choose to give it now or you will be found wrong. There is no point in discussing something or should I say Someone you choose not to believe in yet you constantly argue against (the irony of it all). 
#173
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't argue about your invisible friend, I point out how ridiculous your beliefs are and why. You have an alleged prophesy that uses weeks as a time frame and you claim that if you change weeks to years and then multiply that by another factor then the prophesy is fulfilled and you are completely unaware that you are no longer discussing your alleged prophesy, you are discussing a fiction of your own creation.
Are the dinosaurs already in heaven?
#174
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
I don't argue about your invisible friend, I point out how ridiculous your beliefs are and why. You have an alleged prophesy that uses weeks as a time frame and you claim that if you change weeks to years and then multiply that by another factor then the prophesy is fulfilled and you are completely unaware that you are no longer discussing your alleged prophesy, you are discussing a fiction of your own creation.

The reference of the seventy sevens has been explained to you, adequately. It is a logical explanation that you do not want to hear or accept.  

Are the dinosaurs already in heaven? prophesy, you are discussing a fiction of your own creation.
Are the dinosaurs already in heaven?
I  have no idea. 

#175
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes you said that the word sevens can be substituted for the word weeks meaning that 70 weeks = 70 sevens and still equals a year and a half. You then change weeks to years which are never mentioned, you have created your own alleged prophesy and even that doesn't work. There is nothing logical about concocting your own prophesy out of thin air and then claiming that it means the original prophesy is fulfilled it's simply dishonest and dishonesty is the hallmark of of your beliefs and I've been proving that for years.
#176
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Yes you said that the word sevens can be substituted for the word weeks meaning that 70 weeks = 70 sevens and still equals a year and a half. You then change weeks to years which are never mentioned, you have created your own alleged prophesy and even that doesn't work. There is nothing logical about concocting your own prophesy out of thin air and then claiming that it means the original prophesy is fulfilled it's simply dishonest and dishonesty is the hallmark of of your beliefs and I've been proving that for years.
Why is this not on your Prophecy thread???

Many Jewish and Gentile scholars recognize the period as 490 years. How you choose to see it is up to you. The Hebrew word for "week" is different than the one used for "seven," as I pointed out earlier. In Daniel 9:24 I am told by those who read and speak Hebrew that the word is seven, not week. But what is a week? It is seven days. 

How you get a week and a half from the passage is beyond reason. But one thing is certain, it is done by ignoring the rest of the passage and the greater context plus the meaning the word. Daniel is told the period will start with the issuing of the decree to rebuild and end with its once again destruction. 

The prophecy works when you understand that the city and temple will be destroyed at the end of this period of time. It works if you understand that Daniel's people are a Mosaic Covenant people. It works if you understand that the Anointed One is Jesus. It works if what is alleged is true, that Ptolemy based his understanding on a faulty chronology.  

What you have been proving to me for years is that you have a bias, a hatred for the God you deny, and for those who believe in Him, and an agenda that at times is myopic. You have proved that you will not engage for the most part, except in a negative, not constructive way.
#177
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@janesix
It is because atheists like to pretend they are more intelligent than theists, when in reality, they are simply insecure,and know they are not. 

So PISS OFF and get therapy for your insecurity, you all need it.
Sweeping negative generalization. Ouch. That's disappointing.

I realize atheists can be arrogant and disdainful, jane, and I take no pleasure in it. I can see why it would drive you to bitterness and hostility. I'm not claiming to be innocent, either. I don't think I'm particularly more intelligent than a given theist, though -- and I think everyone is insecure to some degree. But I don't expect that to be worth much to you.




#178
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
You are a perfect example of the people she is talking about. 
#179
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Because I'm telling you that your beliefs are erroneous and I have given you an abundance of your evidence for proof.
#180
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Because I'm telling you that your beliefs are erroneous and I have given you an abundance of your evidence for proof.
Bald assertions with no proof as the normal standard operating procedure.