Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.
The typical atheist does not have the Mental capacity to grasp the idea of what the Creator actually is, much less attack the concept.It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.
.Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.I concur. I can’t see how it could be any other way.
You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.
We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.
I'll take religion over that any day of the week.
Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.
I'll take religion over that any day of the week.
.It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.
It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".
It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.
It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".
There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods. Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.
It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".
And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.
More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.
I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?
Then you are very ignorant. This nation was founded on secular government and classical liberalism, neither of which pay any mind to any magical gods.We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.
And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.
More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.
I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?
There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.
And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.
Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.
More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.
Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?
I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.
There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.
And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.
Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.
More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.
Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?
I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.
Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
.There's no reason to get angry and emotive because others don't believe in your gods.
And no reason to call me angry and emotive. It's deceitful and one has to assume you have no argument so you must resort to mistruths instead.
Right off the bat you paint yourself as not trustworthy.
Huge swaths of the planet believe in gods other than your gods. You can thus expand your hate to include huge swaths of the planet. Aren't you lucky.
More lies and regurgitated falsehoods.
Overwhelmingly, people's perceptions of their gods come from holy books that describe those gods. Have you chosen to create your own, customized, new-fangled designer gods?
I assume the question is facetious and requires no reply.
Of course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
The Bible is uniquely riddled ...
Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual meritOf course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual meritOf course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.
And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.
Agreed. The weak are the first to turn.Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.I concur. I can’t see how it could be any other way.
You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.
We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.
I'll take religion over that any day of the week.
She’s a big poster in the Israel / Palestine threads.Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual meritOf course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.
And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.
Palestine called. They want you to keep helping Israel.Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual meritOf course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.
And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.
I think it's comical when the thumpers console each other to assuage their failures to put forth a coherent argument.
I thought it was comical when "Ringtone" was feverishly cutting and pasting his slogans to include "one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence"
He then went on to cut and paste from the bibles, obviously appealing to the bibles as a means to support his argument that one doesn't need to appeal to a religious system to support their gods... by way of cutting snd pasting bible verses.
I couldn’t agree more. I see it over and over again.It is easier to attack and mock Christianity, or any religion, than to attack the concept of God.They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.
It's a cheap cowardly cop out. What atheists really want is a way to deny God but since that's beyond them they conflate God with man's flawed religions. That's far from "rational".
Yes. I have to say her act as grown old and tiresome already. And it doesn't even have anything of intellectual meritOf course, one need not appeal to any given religious system of thought or to any given "revelation" attributed to God in order to make the case for God's existence and mankind's moral duties. Once again, as ding and Jim and you and I have shown on this and other threads, the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic as brought to bear on the problem of existence manifestly evince that God must be, and the observation that relativism is inherently self-negating, coupled with the fact that no sane person would that another violate his life, liberty or property, tells us what our fundamental moral duty is: we are to treat our neighbor as we would have them treat us.
That's why most atheists conflate religion and God; i.e., they don't wish to be bound to any moral standard authoritatively imposed by another.
The Bible is uniquely riddled with observations attesting to the fact that humanity knows from the first principles of things—ontology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics—the fundamental truths of our existence sans any additional, real or imagined revelation from a sacred or religious text. Paul gives an example of this very thing:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1: 18 - 22, 28).
What you're dealing with here in Hollie is the psychology of long-term ignorantia affectata, a form of self-imposed, spiritual and, thus, intellectual sociopathy. I knew what Hiollie was from the jump. You're wasting truth and reason on a fool and a pathological liar . . . on a reprobate mind.
to recommend it. It is pure trollery.
And she so wants someone to pay attention to her. Such a shame.
