Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Mudda]

I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

 

[hobelim]

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

Sure they can but that doesn't describe atheism, it describes agnoticism. In order to maintain their particular beliefs atheists lie about it and claim science backs them up.

The way I look at it if scripture claims that a biologically dead person came back to life after 4 days and science shows that such a thing is biologically impossible I conclude that either the story isn't meant to be taken literally and is about something else not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used or it is just religious fiction.


Science does back up atheism, and only a rational mind can discern the hidden teaching of any fable...

Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

 

[hobelim]

I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves and keep a straight face without going mad?

 

[Iceweasel]

I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

 

[hobelim]

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

It says she gave birth to Jesus without having sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching and was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people or it is complete bullshit.

 

[Iceweasel]

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

It says she gave birth to Jesus without having sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching or it is complete bullshit.

In other words you made that up. The bible doesn't say god had sex with her.

Nor does anything you've said demonstrate that god isn't real. It's a belief and criticizing the bible backs up my assertion that atheism is an anti-Christian movement. You keep proving it!

 

[hobelim]

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

It says she gave birth to Jesus without having sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching or it is complete bullshit.

In other words you made that up. The bible doesn't say god had sex with her.

Nor does anything you've said demonstrate that god isn't real. It's a belief and criticizing the bible backs up my assertion that atheism is an anti-Christian movement. You keep proving it!

I didn't say that God had sex with her. I said he diddled a virgin, made her pregnant without a human father by magic, the holy spirit came upon her or some such shit..

and I didn't say that God isn't real. I am a believer.

What is not real is the false image of God created by a literal interpretation of stories that were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.


Can't you see the distinction?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Sure they can but that doesn't describe atheism, it describes agnoticism. In order to maintain their particular beliefs atheists lie about it and claim science backs them up.

The way I look at it if scripture claims that a biologically dead person came back to life after 4 days and science shows that such a thing is biologically impossible I conclude that either the story isn't meant to be taken literally and is about something else not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used or it is just religious fiction.


Science does back up atheism, and only a rational mind can discern the hidden teaching of any fable...

Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of the non existence of nothing.

 

[Iceweasel]

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

It says she gave birth to Jesus without having sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching or it is complete bullshit.

In other words you made that up. The bible doesn't say god had sex with her.

Nor does anything you've said demonstrate that god isn't real. It's a belief and criticizing the bible backs up my assertion that atheism is an anti-Christian movement. You keep proving it!

I didn't say that God had sex with her. I said he diddled a virgin, made her pregnant without a human father by magic, the holy spirit came upon her or some such shit..

and I didn't say that God isn't real. I am a believer.

What is not real is the false image of God created by a literal interpretation of stories that were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.


Can't you see the distinction?

Most people would interpret diddling a virgin as having sex with her so your language is unique but you can't see that you keep proving my point over and over again. I don't even believe in the bible yet here you are attacking it to prove the nonexistence of god.

 

[Mudda]

Sure they can but that doesn't describe atheism, it describes agnoticism. In order to maintain their particular beliefs atheists lie about it and claim science backs them up.

The way I look at it if scripture claims that a biologically dead person came back to life after 4 days and science shows that such a thing is biologically impossible I conclude that either the story isn't meant to be taken literally and is about something else not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used or it is just religious fiction.


Science does back up atheism, and only a rational mind can discern the hidden teaching of any fable...

Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

But science doesn't prove that a god isn't possible. You just failed again.

 

[Mudda]

I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves and keep a straight face without going mad?

I never claimed that, you made that up.

 

[Mudda]

The way I look at it if scripture claims that a biologically dead person came back to life after 4 days and science shows that such a thing is biologically impossible I conclude that either the story isn't meant to be taken literally and is about something else not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used or it is just religious fiction.


Science does back up atheism, and only a rational mind can discern the hidden teaching of any fable...

Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of the non existence of nothing.

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of your invisible superhero.

 

[hobelim]

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves without going mad?

Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.

It says she gave birth to Jesus without having sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching or it is complete bullshit.

In other words you made that up. The bible doesn't say god had sex with her.

Nor does anything you've said demonstrate that god isn't real. It's a belief and criticizing the bible backs up my assertion that atheism is an anti-Christian movement. You keep proving it!

I didn't say that God had sex with her. I said he diddled a virgin, made her pregnant without a human father by magic, the holy spirit came upon her or some such shit..

and I didn't say that God isn't real. I am a believer.

What is not real is the false image of God created by a literal interpretation of stories that were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.


Can't you see the distinction?

Most people would interpret diddling a virgin as having sex with her so your language is unique but you can't see that you keep proving my point over and over again. I don't even believe in the bible yet here you are attacking it to prove the nonexistence of god.

You are mistaken. I am not trying to prove the non existence of God, neither am I attacking the Bible.

I am pointing out the obvious whether you believe or don't believe in the bible, that it was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people and any image of God conjured by a literal interpretation of scripture is a false image that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence..

There is a difference you know.

 

[hobelim]

Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.

So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?

I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you, who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.

You sound confused, very unlike me.

Well yes, maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves and keep a straight face without going mad?

I never claimed that, you made that up.

I never said that you believe that. I asked you to tell me how such people who do profess such ridiculous beliefs keep a straight face without going mad.


Pay attention!

I guess you are more confused than you think........


Nevermind.

 

[hobelim]

Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of the non existence of nothing.

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of your invisible superhero.

When science begins to examine what causes otherwise intelligent people to profess irrational beliefs and then degenerate into irrational creatures after reading a bronze age fairy tale many will have no choice but to believe...

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...

Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.

Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of the non existence of nothing.

I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of your invisible superhero.

When science begins to examine what causes otherwise intelligent people to profess irrational beliefs and then degenerate into irrational creatures after reading a bronze age fairy tale many will have no choice but to believe...

Your assumption is a perfect example of your own premise.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact. Science can explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...explaining everythin. Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural? Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural. So, yeah. It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.

And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that. Not "will", when we "stand before him", but can and does now".

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

Is English your first language?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...

your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.

 

[ding]

.
in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...

your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.

I knew you were really an atheist.