Theories on Why Atheists are met with Hostility

[Hollie]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

I do. Your pointless one-liners are wholly inadequate to address it.

lol.....no little girl.....you are not rational......you complain that Christians today do not take the scriptures as literally as they did in the 1600s.......apparently that poses problems for you, because all your arguments are directed at the literal beliefs of the 1600s......that's why all you can come up with is a paste about 6000 year old earths.....

Your indefensible beliefs in a 6,000 year old earth are your issues to resolve, not mine.

Those literal, fundie beliefs that conflict with demonstrable science data are causing you problems with resolving biblical tales and fables. Your denial of manifest reality is not my concern until you seek to impose your fears and superstitions upon others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your fumbling is not going to defend your lies.

What lies?

Unlike you, I have been very careful not to say anything in this thread that is an actual claim unless I was refuting someone else. Therefore, none of my posts have been susceptible to attack on the basis of facts. Perhaps you saw a post where I screwed up in that goal, if so, feel free to post a link to it so everyone else can see it. If not, feel free to continue arguing with the voices in your head.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

You overlook the fact that you don't know what you're writing. There were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

As you claim otherwise, identify the historical character who claims to have seen De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

Being clueless is no excuse for your fabrication and falsehoods.

The first would have been the angels who rolled the rocks away......

Matthew 24
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ 8 Then they remembered his words

 

[Hollie]

No. I'm identifying that you lied about what you wrote.

You still haven't identified who saw De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

I don't recall saying I had the names of witnesses, perhaps you can point it out to me, like I pointed out where you said there were no accounts of the resurrection.

Or, perhaps, you prefer to pretend you won the debate by arguing with the voices in your head.

You're now hoping to sidestep your earlier claims as false and unsupportable.

And you're again reduced to lies in the hope of salvaging your bankrupt argument. I made no comment about any tale of resurrection. Typical, but you fundie cranks are as dishonest as a televangelist fleecing you sheep.

My comment was specifically worded to refute your ignorance about biblical tales and fables.

It's just remarkable how dishonest you fundie cranks really are.

 

[Hollie]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

You overlook the fact that you don't know what you're writing. There were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

As you claim otherwise, identify the historical character who claims to have seen De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

Being clueless is no excuse for your fabrication and falsehoods.

The first would have been the angels who rolled the rocks away......

Matthew 24
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ 8 Then they remembered his words

And so what? Do you believe people have seen Bigfoot because you read it in a book?

And as I noted, there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. Your bibles confirm it.

I suppose I should say "thanks" that you dismantled your argument for me.

So, thanks.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

I do. Your pointless one-liners are wholly inadequate to address it.

lol.....no little girl.....you are not rational......you complain that Christians today do not take the scriptures as literally as they did in the 1600s.......apparently that poses problems for you, because all your arguments are directed at the literal beliefs of the 1600s......that's why all you can come up with is a paste about 6000 year old earths.....

Your indefensible beliefs in a 6,000 year old earth are your issues to resolve, not mine.

Those literal, fundie beliefs that conflict with demonstrable science data are causing you problems with resolving biblical tales and fables. Your denial of manifest reality is not my concern until you seek to impose your fears and superstitions upon others.

you see, that's exactly what I'm talking about.....you know that I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth but you keep arguing with me as if I did......that's because its the only argument you're capable of winning.....sorry, but I suspected you would prove my point if I mentioned it.......you played into my hand exactly as I expected.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

You overlook the fact that you don't know what you're writing. There were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

As you claim otherwise, identify the historical character who claims to have seen De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

Being clueless is no excuse for your fabrication and falsehoods.

The first would have been the angels who rolled the rocks away......

Matthew 24
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ 8 Then they remembered his words

And so what? Do you believe people have seen Bigfoot because you read it in a book?

And as I noted, there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. Your bibles confirm it.

I suppose I should say "thanks" that you dismantled your argument for me.

So, thanks.

now Hollie you can't have it both ways......you asked me to identify a first hand witness and I did.....we both knew you were going to respond simply by saying you didn't believe it.......the only logical way for me to respond at this point is obviously "who gives a fuck".......there was a witness to him rising, as confirmed by the Bible passage I just quoted you......your response "there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. Your bibles confirm it" is an obvious lie.....now that obviously doesn't change the fact you don't believe it, and you are free to continue in your disbelief......but please be aware, that's all you've got......disbelief......

 

[Hollie]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

I do. Your pointless one-liners are wholly inadequate to address it.

lol.....no little girl.....you are not rational......you complain that Christians today do not take the scriptures as literally as they did in the 1600s.......apparently that poses problems for you, because all your arguments are directed at the literal beliefs of the 1600s......that's why all you can come up with is a paste about 6000 year old earths.....

Your indefensible beliefs in a 6,000 year old earth are your issues to resolve, not mine.

Those literal, fundie beliefs that conflict with demonstrable science data are causing you problems with resolving biblical tales and fables. Your denial of manifest reality is not my concern until you seek to impose your fears and superstitions upon others.

you see, that's exactly what I'm talking about.....you know that I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth but you keep arguing with me as if I did......that's because its the only argument you're capable of winning.....sorry, but I suspected you would prove my point if I mentioned it.......you played into my hand exactly as I expected.......

You see, that's what makes you such a buffoon. You're unwilling to acknowledge what you believe because you are utterly unable to defend your statements.

You exposed your own ignorance exactly and I expected.

 

[PostmodernProph]

face reality Hollie.....you aren't rational......you aren't honest......you aren't even clever enough to get away with your dishonesty......

 

[Hollie]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

You overlook the fact that you don't know what you're writing. There were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

As you claim otherwise, identify the historical character who claims to have seen De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

Being clueless is no excuse for your fabrication and falsehoods.

The first would have been the angels who rolled the rocks away......

Matthew 24
2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb,3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ 8 Then they remembered his words

And so what? Do you believe people have seen Bigfoot because you read it in a book?

And as I noted, there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. Your bibles confirm it.

I suppose I should say "thanks" that you dismantled your argument for me.

So, thanks.

now Hollie you can't have it both ways......you asked me to identify a first hand witness and I did.....we both knew you were going to respond simply by saying you didn't believe it.......the only logical way for me to respond at this point is obviously "who gives a fuck".......there was a witness to him rising, as confirmed by the Bible passage I just quoted you......your response "there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. Your bibles confirm it" is an obvious lie.....now that obviously doesn't change the fact you don't believe it, and you are free to continue in your disbelief......but please be aware, that's all you've got......disbelief......

What firsthand witness did you identify? Similar to the other crank, you have no issue with lies to further your dogma.

As I've noted repeatedly, there was no witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. The bible verses you posted confirmed my claim and refuted yours. Yet, you're so desperate to cling to your tales and fables, you will ignore what they convey in preference to what you so desperately want them to represent.

Truly, a desperate and pathetic pathology.

 

[PostmodernProph]

given that its still in the quotes accompanying your post, I won't bother repeating it......all you have to do is read it.....

 

[Hollie]

face reality Hollie.....you aren't rational......you aren't honest......you aren't even clever enough to get away with your dishonesty......

On the contrary, in spite of your lies, you have not identified a witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

How many times do I have to spell it out for you and the other liar?

A witness to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

You cut and pasted goofy bible verses of angels moving boulders. Seriously?

Couldn't it have been Bigfoot who moved the boulder?

 

[Hollie]

given that its still in the quotes accompanying your post, I won't bother repeating it......all you have to do is read it.....

All you have to do is make an attempt at being honest.

Yeah - that'll happen.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The hostility can also be based upon doubt.

Religion is about convincing yourself that God exists. But everyone is fallible and makes mistakes. What if theists have made a mistake about their belief? Going to houses of worship, studying holy books and praying won't make that doubt go away. It remains there because it is impossible to convince yourself to the point of removing all self doubt. In order for that to happen it must be stepped up to the level of brainwashing but that is not a conviction either.

So for theists who are honest with themselves there is always this nagging doubt and their hostility towards atheists stems from seeing their own doubts in the flesh, so to speak. The religion of theists claims that heathens suffer from all kinds of imaginary problems but in the flesh atheists are normal people leading normal lives. They are friendly, funny, open and giving. They care about others, make donations to good causes, volunteer to help the less fortunate and generally lead good lives.

And they doing all of this without any imaginary deity in their lives. They don't pray, congregate or proselytize. They don't pay tithes or claim that gay marriage will bring about the apocalypse.

Hostility towards atheists is not because they don't believe. Hostility towards atheists is because believers have a hard time dealing with their own self doubts when faced with the normality that is everyday atheism in my opinion.

You nailed it.

Back when I was a kid/young adult, I really did try to believe the strange tales of the supernatural. I just can't do it.

Can't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, ghosts and I can't believe in any of the various gods either.

I don't resent those who do believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, ghosts and/or a god. Nor do I want to hear about how and why they believe in those things. And, its for the same reason I seldom read the Conspiracy forum. I don't want to be insulting but reading that stuff kills brain cells.

So, keep it in your churches folks and you're welcome to it. I won't come in and harass you and I'd appreciate if you would grant me that same courtesy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well said, Luddly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're now hoping to sidestep your earlier claims as false and unsupportable.

And you're again reduced to lies in the hope of salvaging your bankrupt argument. I made no comment about any tale of resurrection. Typical, but you fundie cranks are as dishonest as a televangelist fleecing you sheep.

My comment was specifically worded to refute your ignorance about biblical tales and fables.

It's just remarkable how dishonest you fundie cranks really are.

Wrong again,. I am challenging you to link to the post in which I lied about something, the same way I linked to your post to prove you lied.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You nailed it.

Yes, he nailed the idiotic proposition that he actually knows what he is talking about. In fact, he nailed it so hard that only idiots believe it.

Back when I was a kid/young adult, I really did try to believe the strange tales of the supernatural. I just can't do it.

I never tried because I didn't see a reason to try to believe everything people said. That must be why I figured out that Santa didn't exist so early.

Can't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, ghosts and I can't believe in any of the various gods either.

Newsflash, your lack of ability to believe in no way proves you are right about anything.

I don't resent those who do believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, ghosts and/or a god. Nor do I want to hear about how and why they believe in those things. And, its for the same reason I seldom read the Conspiracy forum. I don't want to be insulting but reading that stuff kills brain cells.

Yet, here you are, proclaiming your lack of resentment with idiotic ramblings and stupid platitudes.

So, keep it in your churches folks and you're welcome to it. I won't come in and harass you and I'd appreciate if you would grant me that same courtesy.

Hate to break this to you, but people are free to stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and say whatever they want, the same way you are. Nothing you can do will force anyone to keep their beliefs in their churches, just like nothing they can do will force you to keep yours inside your house.

Then again, we already knew you were an idiot.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There are "verbatim" accounts of many things that are undemonstrated and false. "Verbatim" accounts of Bigfoot have no requirement for belief.

Secondly, your alleged "verbatim" accounts are no such thing. The accounts suffer many discrepancies, are second hand hearsay - of worse and are utterly absent substantiation.

You believe them because they were imposed upon you from an early age and you have never critically analyzed any of it.

I'm amazed at what you presume to know about my history, but being a perfect stranger, it's not surprising that you're wrong. I critically analyze everything. The Bible is no different, and I can say with complete confidence that it is the most accurate piece of antiquity we have. Science proves it, historians prove it, and archeologists love it's accuracy. Nothing has ever been uncovered that proves the Bible wrong.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ironic coming from someone who has just lied about the last 25 pages of posts!

lol, you must be hard of reading.