The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

'And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.'

Sound familiar?

It does sound familiar. It's the tediously familiar attempt at slur that the hyper-religious use aimed at those outside of their cult.

 

[Newby]

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

I understand your feelings are hurt when your arguments are exposed as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition, but why come whining to me? If your arguments are untenable, why would I give you a pass simply because you claim an exception from the standards of reason and rationality.

But that's what seems to go right over your little head, my dear, you have 'exposed' nothing here. You have shown nothing to be 'untenable', and please keep your 'passes' to yourself, I have no need of them. Hollie must live in her own little world where she thinks she has somehow presented sound refutations or arguments here. Amusing!

She's also apparently unable to understand or identify sarcasm when it's presented.

Actually, pumpkin, you're just a whiner. You entered the thread for no purpose other than to whine about your inability to further an argument.

Your bruised ego is of your own making.

Classic example of a Hollie post; attack, personal insults, no substance. Over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.. lol

 

[Newby]

'And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.'

Sound familiar?

It does sound familiar. It's the tediously familiar attempt at slur that the hyper-religious use aimed at those outside of their cult.

You think that's a 'slur'? I call it an observance of fact. And it sounds familiar because you recognize yourself in Christ's words, you're not the first to match His description, and you certainly won't be the last.

 

[Newby]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

I understand your feelings are hurt when your arguments are exposed as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition, but why come whining to me? If your arguments are untenable, why would I give you a pass simply because you claim an exception from the standards of reason and rationality.

But that's what seems to go right over your little head, my dear, you have 'exposed' nothing here. You have shown nothing to be 'untenable', and please keep your 'passes' to yourself, I have no need of them. Hollie must live in her own little world where she thinks she has somehow presented sound refutations or arguments here. Amusing!

She's also apparently unable to understand or identify sarcasm when it's presented.

Actually, pumpkin, you're just a whiner. You entered the thread for no purpose other than to whine about your inability to further an argument.

Your bruised ego is of your own making.

Classic example of a Hollie post; attack, personal insults, no substance. Over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.. lol

And here you are, still whining.

Your purpose in entering the thread was to whine, and you're upset at being identified as a whiner.

 

[Hollie]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

 

[Newby]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

Slogans and cliches? Those are the words of Christ, yet you don't recognize them? I would have thought you knew it all by heart since you have such a passionate hate for it, how else can you refute it unless you know it and understand it? I simply said that I think you're psychotic, and an atheist, neither of which are 'name calling', just observations based on the blind hatefulness of your posts.

Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and birds came and devoured them.
Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.
Now he who received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I'd say you received the seed by the wayside, and it is your choice to be of the first group that Christ described, as it is anyone's choice as to which group they will be a part of. If you want to debate Christians, then you need to learn and understand the Bible, the Bible prepares us for ones such as yourself. You need to debate the topic from some other point of reference other than hate, that gets you no where.

 

[Hollie]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

That silliness you cut and pasted has already been refuted in another thread.

Why cross-post such failed nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

Slogans and cliches? Those are the words of Christ, yet you don't recognize them? I would have thought you knew it all by heart since you have such a passionate hate for it, how else can you refute it unless you know it and understand it? I simply said that I think you're psychotic, and an atheist, neither of which are 'name calling', just observations based on the blind hatefulness of your posts.

Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and birds came and devoured them.
Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.
Now he who received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I'd say you received the seed by the wayside, and it is your choice to be of the first group that Christ described, as it is anyone's choice as to which group they will be a part of. If you want to debate Christians, then you need to learn and understand the Bible, the Bible prepares us for ones such as yourself. You need to debate the topic from some other point of reference other than hate, that gets you no where.

I'd suggest you save your proselytizing for a more receptive audience at the Kingdom Hall.

 

[Steven_R]

I seek proof. God supposedly wants me to be saved. God alone knows exactly what proof I need to be convinced, yet doesn't provide said proof. Why? Why would God make me a skeptic and then damn me for my nature?

 

[Newby]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

Slogans and cliches? Those are the words of Christ, yet you don't recognize them? I would have thought you knew it all by heart since you have such a passionate hate for it, how else can you refute it unless you know it and understand it? I simply said that I think you're psychotic, and an atheist, neither of which are 'name calling', just observations based on the blind hatefulness of your posts.

Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and birds came and devoured them.
Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.
Now he who received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I'd say you received the seed by the wayside, and it is your choice to be of the first group that Christ described, as it is anyone's choice as to which group they will be a part of. If you want to debate Christians, then you need to learn and understand the Bible, the Bible prepares us for ones such as yourself. You need to debate the topic from some other point of reference other than hate, that gets you no where.

I'd suggest you save your proselytizing for a more receptive audience at the Kingdom Hall.

Yes, you further cement with your response that you are a seed that fell by the wayside.

You're so afraid to read it and understand it for fear that it will make sense, that you refute it and run away without even reading it. How do you expect to debate anyone without any knowledge? You can't, and that's why you don't, just throw slurs and names at those you don't understand, like any small child without any ability to reason would do.

 

[Newby]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

That silliness you cut and pasted has already been refuted in another thread.

Why cross-post such failed nonsense?

Where was it 'cut and pasted' from? Where was it 'refuted'?

 

[Hollie]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

That silliness you cut and pasted has already been refuted in another thread.

Why cross-post such failed nonsense?

Where was it 'cut and pasted' from? Where was it 'refuted'?

Ask the cut and paster.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

Yes, all atheists are unhappy campers.

Hardly. I'm quite content in knowing that I only get one shot at life and when it's done, it's done so I better make it count. I know I won't see loved ones in the afterlife, so I better enjoy them while I can. My actions are my own and I live my life for me and my guiding principle is "don't be a dick", not because I better be good or else, but because I don't want to be a dick. I like learning about how the universe actually functions, even when the implications are unsettling, because I find that knowing is more satisfying than believing in mythology. And there is comfort in knowing that when I die, the physical part of me (e.g. the atoms that make up me) will exist forever and will be recycled for billions of years in untold plants and animals and fungi until the Earth is consumed by an expanding sun.

But then you really don't have an argument that could possibly overthrow the contention that God must exist, that the God axiom is mere mythology, or defend your metaphysical naturalism against the charge that it, not theology, is the stuff of mythology.

See posts: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10184035/.
____________________________

EDIT: by the way, I just noticed that I wrote in Post #552 ". . . since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids, let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells."

That should read: ". . . since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells."

Also, others can hold their composition, albeit, only in calcified forms, shielded from planetary atmospheric conditions. Hmm. How do such amino acids manage to link up with the others, for as soon as they might link up with the others in the open . . . zap! They denature.

 

[Newby]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

That silliness you cut and pasted has already been refuted in another thread.

Why cross-post such failed nonsense?

Where was it 'cut and pasted' from? Where was it 'refuted'?

Ask the cut and paster.

So you're making unsubstantiated claims once again, and you're unwilling to provide proof of your claim. Shocking!

 

[Hollie]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

Slogans and cliches? Those are the words of Christ, yet you don't recognize them? I would have thought you knew it all by heart since you have such a passionate hate for it, how else can you refute it unless you know it and understand it? I simply said that I think you're psychotic, and an atheist, neither of which are 'name calling', just observations based on the blind hatefulness of your posts.

Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and birds came and devoured them.
Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.
Now he who received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I'd say you received the seed by the wayside, and it is your choice to be of the first group that Christ described, as it is anyone's choice as to which group they will be a part of. If you want to debate Christians, then you need to learn and understand the Bible, the Bible prepares us for ones such as yourself. You need to debate the topic from some other point of reference other than hate, that gets you no where.

I'd suggest you save your proselytizing for a more receptive audience at the Kingdom Hall.

Yes, you further cement with your response that you are a seed that fell by the wayside.

You're so afraid to read it and understand it for fear that it will make sense, that you refute it and run away without even reading it. How do you expect to debate anyone without any knowledge? You can't, and that's why you don't, just throw slurs and names at those you don't understand, like any small child without any ability to reason would do.

You very quickly lose your christian'ness when your proselytizing is dismissed as phony and tedious.

Are you working on commission?

 

[Newby]

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

That's why I pray daily for those such as Hollie, she fits each description, she's apparently been greatly hurt at some point in her life to hold such hate and animosity for those she is unable to understand or who are different from her, she greatly needs prayer.

And yet, for all your rhetoric and citing of slogans and cliches', you entered the thread with nothing more than juvenile name-calling.

Do any of you faux Christians ever read proof read your posts after your silly lectures to see what hypocrites you really are?

Slogans and cliches? Those are the words of Christ, yet you don't recognize them? I would have thought you knew it all by heart since you have such a passionate hate for it, how else can you refute it unless you know it and understand it? I simply said that I think you're psychotic, and an atheist, neither of which are 'name calling', just observations based on the blind hatefulness of your posts.

Behold, a sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and birds came and devoured them.
Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth.
But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away.
And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them.
But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Therefore hear the parable of the sower.
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.
Now he who received the seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

I'd say you received the seed by the wayside, and it is your choice to be of the first group that Christ described, as it is anyone's choice as to which group they will be a part of. If you want to debate Christians, then you need to learn and understand the Bible, the Bible prepares us for ones such as yourself. You need to debate the topic from some other point of reference other than hate, that gets you no where.

I'd suggest you save your proselytizing for a more receptive audience at the Kingdom Hall.

Yes, you further cement with your response that you are a seed that fell by the wayside.

You're so afraid to read it and understand it for fear that it will make sense, that you refute it and run away without even reading it. How do you expect to debate anyone without any knowledge? You can't, and that's why you don't, just throw slurs and names at those you don't understand, like any small child without any ability to reason would do.

You very quickly lose your christian'ness when your proselytizing is dismissed as phony and tedious.

Are you working on commission?

So Christ's words are 'phony and tedious'?

And what was 'un-Christian', I think that's the word you were looking for there, about my post?

 

[Hollie]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I don't even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We all know that at the very least they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist if God the Creator did not exist: the assertion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe that this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds and, perhaps, objectively speaking, on our souls?

I consistently hold that all a priori axioms of human cognition must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all of the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that could make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic (or the whackadoo, relativistic theist) pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I via some mysteriously esoteric/secret knowledge that he cannot put into evidence, something unknown to the rest of us, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

That silliness you cut and pasted has already been refuted in another thread.

Why cross-post such failed nonsense?

Where was it 'cut and pasted' from? Where was it 'refuted'?

Ask the cut and paster.

So you're making unsubstantiated claims once again, and you're unwilling to provide proof of your claim. Shocking!

You're once again angry and behaving very un-christian like. Ask the cut and paster where it came from.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I seek proof. God supposedly wants me to be saved. God alone knows exactly what proof I need to be convinced, yet doesn't provide said proof. Why? Why would God make me a skeptic and then damn me for my nature?

Oh, He's given you proof, along with plenty of evidence. You just don't believe it. That's all.