The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[sophocles07]

Why do you ask, because it said so... Your asking us to believe that the source of your authority is legitimate based on the fact that the source itself claims that authority... it's just not right man...

Correct. It seems like there is some sort of “wall” past which the religious cannot pass—they cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative. They, at this point, recede from discussion and up the same rhetoric as before.

It’s pitiful.

 

[Macon GA]

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[

 

[Kade]

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[

I can send you hundreds of sources refuting this... hell, American Bison have full anal penetration between themselves...

That is beside the point, perhaps a sort of populist answer to this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

 

[Macon GA]

Kade,

When have I ever said that I "HATE" anybody? You are assuming that I do, but you are wrong in that assumption.

I am not impressed with standardized scores either, however they are a good point of reference. My children are ranked "nationally." I can compare their scores to others in the same grade level. I am more impressed when my twelve year old finishes reading The Odyssey and then asks for more like it.

If my children enter the world "hating" others, then I have failed as a mother. You would probably be surprised if you met my family. You may even like us.... !

 

[Macon GA]

Dinner time calls. I will try and check back in tomorrow some time.

Have a good evening all......

 

[beachmaster]

frankly, any creator that creates life only to punish it severely for the crime of not believing is not worth a lick of salt.

Agree. I would not worship such a monster.

We have criminal laws against torturing ANIMALS! It's considered Immoral, Inhumane!

Why on earth would I worship a beast that tortures or creates a place of eternal torture for my fellow man, let alone animals? I wouldn't, not even if I believed it really existed (which obviously, I do not).

 

[Kade]

Kade,

When have I ever said that I "HATE" anybody? You are assuming that I do, but you are wrong in that assumption.

I am not impressed with standardized scores either, however they are a good point of reference. My children are ranked "nationally." I can compare their scores to others in the same grade level. I am more impressed when my twelve year old finishes reading The Odyssey and then asks for more like it.

If my children enter the world "hating" others, then I have failed as a mother. You would probably be surprised if you met my family. You may even like us.... !

Ha. *scoff*

I never hate people I meet in person. Seriously. I'm sure I would love your family. I'm just one of those people who discusses politics and religion openly... regardless of consequences.

I'm a graduate from the University of Notre Dame, and I got in with an essay that could have been titled:

"An Atheist's Survival in the Deep South"

Figure that one out...=P

I wanted so badly to learn about the faith I was raised in that I finished with a theology degree... when I finish law school I'm entering politics... and I guarantee there will be one group only who is going to be blocking my path...

Is that tolerance?

 

[beachmaster]

Correct. It seems like there is some sort of “wall” past which the religious cannot pass—they cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative. They, at this point, recede from discussion and up the same rhetoric as before.

It’s pitiful.

Yup. I can't imagine Theocrat engaging in discussion on the points that have been raised. Probably will just be "you'll burn in hell for your disbelief".

He doesn't realize that God made hell just for people who would believe what is taught in ancient texts that have been copied, redacted, translated, re-translated, re-redacted, re-copied over and over. He's testing humans, and the idiots will get punished. It's the skeptics and critical thinkers that God will reward. He'll say "well done, you passed my test!". Oh hallelujah, glory be the day!

 

[Kade]

Yup. I can't imagine Theocrat engaging in discussion on the points that have been raised. Probably will just be "you'll burn in hell for your disbelief".

He doesn't realize that God made hell just for people who would believe what is taught in ancient texts that have been copied, redacted, translated, re-translated, re-redacted, re-copied over and over. He's testing humans, and the idiots will get punished. It's the skeptics and critical thinkers that God will reward. He'll say "well done, you passed my test!". Oh hallelujah, glory be the day!

Clever beachmaster. That point has been argued by several prominent philosophers... what if it the only real test was to maximize your knowledge and love for this life, in every way you can? Think about it... all evidence points to no god, and this conclusion could be the culmination of a powerful intelligent creator as attempt to fulfill a desire for ultimate "free will"... not that I believe it of course, but what an interesting turn of events.... you can place the litany of idiots throughout time in one category... the oblivious to knowledge and progress, and oblivious to liberty, tolerance, and love... it applies to ALL generations, and it is regardless of the accident of upbringing or location at birth... how far have you progressed as a human, in thought and behavior? If god existed it would be ultimately reasonable and intelligent, and all would and could conclude that it were those people who best represented its vision. It is harder to believe truth in fear, to believe against the grain, because your rational mind tells you so... these people believe for selfish reasons, for reward, for immortality...

We have but one life to live, and to live at its fullest, armed with this information alone, who are we to tell others what they can and cannot do, who are we to harm others, they share this same struggle, to be happy, and to be free...

It is this that we honor, even amidst accusations that we, as non-believers, have nothing to look forward to... it is patently false.. we have this life, and the things we have not experienced, our future children, or future jobs, our future happiness, and that hope that we can live a fulfilled life and potentially help others to do the same...

Who is to say or know, if there is a god at all, that this isn't its desire? Why wouldn't it be? Its vastly more rational explanation and vastly more common sense... and it does not require fear, or demand towards anything but the ability for your own mind to grasp rational concepts and to think for yourself...

Excellent.

 

[Theocrat]

Yeah, Yeah

No, he reveals himself to mankind through MY word... I am God. My words therefore are the Word of God. Who are you to dispute that?

God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.

You miss your own point. How would they know for sure if they were being deceived if in fact they were being deceived? THEY WOULDN'T! Don't you get that?

You're right. I was answering too quickly and didn't think over my response. My apologies for that. What I meant to say is how can the person who's doing the deceiving know for sure that he himself isn't deceived.

And you support Ron Paul? He is for freedom... including freedom to worship or believe, not worship or disbelieve. You must have come to the wrong forum my friend. I think you meant to sign up for the Huck's Army forum.

That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.

 

[WilliamC]

You are correct, but there is no denying that no group is more despised in this country than atheists. You want to become an instant pariah - just proclaim yourself to be an atheist. Like most libertarians my view is live and let live. But you know as well as I do, no one who admits to being an atheist has a prayer, so to speak, to being elected to office in this country. Folks don't care who you pray to, as long as you pray to somebody.

I guess it's a good thing I never plan to run for any sort of public office then.

I'm not much good at lying.

 

[sophocles07]

God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.

Bleehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.

Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

 

[WilliamC]

Kade,

Our tax money is used to promote humanism, which Christians oppose, through federally funded education. Our tax money is used to fund murder via abortion. Our tax money is given as welfare to many whose immoral lifestyles we find deplorable (laziness, sexual promiscuity, illegally entering the country, etc.). Basically, the government steals my family's money and "redistributes the wealth" so to speak. So it looks like we both have the same problem. Where do you think the government uses your tax money to "promote religion (which I am assuming is a reference to Christianity)?

As someone who is pretty much the definition of a secular humanist I deplore the fact that government does these things.

I am a home educator, and my taxes fund the public school down the street, yet I can receive no tax credit for my children's curriculum or educational endeavors. There is a problem here. You think the state wants to encourage individual thinkers?

Of course not. While I am not religious I sometimes think it would be better to home school my three kids, since the quality of the education they will receive at the public schools is quite sub-par.

I only have one in grade school now but he is quite bored with classes since he (in many ways but by no means all ways) is so far ahead of his grade. But he is also getting socialized at his school and he isn't rebelling or anything so it's not so critical to me that he gets out of the system.

At least we don't have broadcast, cable, or satellite TV in the house, just DVD's. And we don't allow unrestricted access to the internet either, so in many ways we are doing some of the same things that religious folks sometimes do and for pretty much the same reason. I want my kids to be able to critically think for themselves and make their own decisions.

All right, don't cuss me out or anything, but how does homosexuality square away with your ideas of Natural Law? Just curious.

Well not having any personal experience in this all I can say is that homosexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom by any means. Doesn't lead to the production of offspring so it's not evolutionarily advantageous to the individual, but on a population level it seems to be a way of fostering cooperation or simply relieving stress.

see here for an example, google will turn up plenty more.

I'm not that anxious to cooperate all the time and I prefer the stress myself

 

[Cinnaboo]

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

I actually knew this to be true, and almost added an addendum saying as much, but I was a little weary of typing. Oh well.

The reason I didn't was because I consider homosexual activity to be an example of homosexuality, even if the animal in question also engages in sex with the opposite gender. This is partly because, though I acknowledge that most people have a tendency to favor one gender over the other, I don't see any reason for people to categorize their sexuality so vocally, except as a silly self-restraint.


You are very wrong, however, in concluding that there are zero species that exhibit true homosexuality. Several have been known to raise young together, and some even mate for life. Most notably those no good penguins.

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/09/gay-penguins.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/17/ap/national/mainD8LEOL500.shtml

 

[beachmaster]

God said that there would be false prophets in the last days calling themselves "the Christ" and/or "God," so you're just a liar. Your word has no authority in matters of absolute truth.

Prove I'm lying.

You're right. I was answering too quickly and didn't think over my response. My apologies for that. What I meant to say is how can the person who's doing the deceiving know for sure that he himself isn't deceived.

Maybe the deceiver is being deceived. I don't deny that possibility. Maybe the entity that is deceiving you, making you believe it is the real god, is itself deceived. Hell, maybe it really thinks it's God and has fooled you too!

That's right. I support Congressman Paul because he has a great understanding of the religious intent of our Founders which allowed freedom to flourish in these United States, and he's a constitutionalist. Mike Huckabee is not conservative, and he's definitely not a constitutionalist. So Huck's Army is just a boy scouts club, to me.

Congressman Paul supports my RIGHT to not believe in any gods and my RIGHT to not worship any gods. You don't. WTF?

 

[Theocrat]

May I Remind You, O Antitheist

Correct. It seems like there is some sort of “wall” past which the religious cannot pass—they cannot answer the above question about believing something because that something claims to be authoritative. They, at this point, recede from discussion and up the same rhetoric as before.

It’s pitiful.

You fail to comprehend that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His nature, and therefore, He Himself is the final authority in all matters of knowledge, reality, truth, morality, beauty, etc. Yes, His authority is self-authenticating because there is no standard nor being higher than He.

Consider the alternative. If claims about truth, reality, knowledge, beauty, morality, etc. cannot be authenticated by the person who makes these claims, then there will have to be something or someone else to authenticate them. But then who authenticates that thing or person, and then what person or thing authenticates the person or thing that authenticated the previous thing or person who made the epistemological, aesthetic, metaphysical, and/or ethical claims? You can see this would just be a long chain that would go on for eternity, but then you couldn't authenticate anything on your own.

God is the "wall" by which all things that are beautiful, true, moral, etc. are standing against in the universe. The "atheist" worldview, as I've said many times, cannot account for absolutes, standards of morality, laws of logic, and a host of other universal, invariant, abstract entities because their worldview already assumes that the universe only contains material, finite, impersonal, tangible things which evolve by themselves through random processes (given enough time), and therefore, they only can deal with empirical observations that are tested through their senses (sound, taste, sight, smell, and touch).

 

[WilliamC]

Billy D Kid,

The disdain I feel for false teachers who profess to be Christians far outweighs any disdain I may have for atheists. I despise the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens of Christianity.... You can throw in the Benny Hinns and the John Hagees too. People who have gotten rich off the ignorance of Christians make me sick.

We seem share a common sense of disdain for those who seemingly share our beliefs but would use fraud or coercion to convert others to them.

I can't stand the fact that militant atheists wish to forcebly remove all vestiges of religion from government and the public purview. While government should not be used to force any particular religion on the population neither should it be used to force a lack of religion on the population.

 

[sophocles07]

You fail to comprehend that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent in His nature, and therefore, He Himself is the final authority in all matters of knowledge, reality, truth, morality, beauty, etc. Yes, His authority is self-authenticating because there is no standard nor being higher than He.

You’ve done exactly what I said you would do.

Good fucking job.

Consider the alternative. If claims about truth, reality, knowledge, beauty, morality, etc. cannot be authenticated by the person who makes these claims, then there will have to be something or someone else to authenticate them. But then who authenticates that thing or person, and then what person or thing authenticates the person or thing that authenticated the previous thing or person who made the epistemological, aesthetic, metaphysical, and/or ethical claims? You can see this would just be a long chain that would go on for eternity, but then you couldn't authenticate anything on your own.

They CAN be “authenticated” by the person, though; you fail to understand this. Having a colorless vague “God” to “authenticate” these matters only means that a bunch of writers have impressed their moral system—through the Bible—into social orders. It does not mean that “God” does so. God is a literary character.

God is the "wall" by which all things that are beautiful, true, moral, etc. are standing against in the universe. The "atheist" worldview, as I've said many times, cannot account for absolutes, standards of morality, laws of logic, and a host of other universal, invariant, abstract entities because their worldview already assumes that the universe only contains material, finite, impersonal, tangible things which evolve by themselves through random processes (given enough time), and therefore, they only can deal with empirical observations that are tested through their senses (sound, taste, sight, smell, and touch).

Look, you idiot: I’ve been over this about 10+ times throughout this thread; if you can’t grasp

SIMPLE

FUCKING

SCIENTIFIC

CONCEPTS

there is no use continuing argument with you.

GO back to my answer to this, and reply DIRECTLY TO EACH ARGUMENT. I don’t want this vague re-statement of your same original point. I”VE ALREADY ARGUED IT. You have not responded. You just continue re-stating the same idiotic “ideas.”

 

[Theocrat]

My "Evolution" Made Me Do It

They CAN be “authenticated” by the person, though; you fail to understand this. Having a colorless vague “God” to “authenticate” these matters only means that a bunch of writers have impressed their moral system—through the Bible—into social orders. It does not mean that “God” does so. God is a literary character.

Says who, sophocles07? You? Who made you the final authority on such matters, O finite man? Oh, I mean, O evolved chimp from a rock rained upon for millions of years which came from nothing...

Look, you idiot: I’ve been over this about 10+ times throughout this thread; if you can’t grasp

SIMPLE

FUCKING

SCIENTIFIC

CONCEPTS

there is no use continuing argument with you.

GO back to my answer to this, and reply DIRECTLY TO EACH ARGUMENT. I don’t want this vague re-statement of your same original point. I”VE ALREADY ARGUED IT. You have not responded. You just continue re-stating the same idiotic “ideas.”

Your answers were unacceptable, sophocles07 because, you see, those electrochemical processes in your brain which came together by themselves didn't agree with the ones in my brain, so therefore, I have to keep reiterating my point. Don't blame me, though. I'm just a result of natural selection, so I can help but repeat myself because that's what my genes tell me to do.

 

[sophocles07]

Says who, sophocles07? You? Who made you the final authority on such matters, O finite man? Oh, I mean, O evolved chimp from a rock rained upon for millions of years which came from nothing...

I say so because there is nothing else that could authenticate such matters. Even the Bible is merely, as I’ve said, man-made moral systems. God is a man-made literary character. A literary character “authenticates” your religious/ethical claims. NOT a “God.”

Your answers were unacceptable, sophocles07 because, you see, those electrochemical processes in your brain which came together by themselves didn't agree with the ones in my brain, so therefore, I have to keep reiterating my point. Don't blame me, though. I'm just a result of natural selection, so I can help but repeat myself because that's what my genes tell me to do.

This makes absolutely no sense; I'll take it as saying "I don't know how to respond to your arguments, sophocles07, so I'll respond with rhetorical flourish."