It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meta Conspiracy: Evidence of Conspiracy Ignored

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
My last post on the bad doctrine of "God only hates sin" demonstrates an interesting type of conspiracy I'll call meta-conspiracy. Conspiracies about conspiracies. One type of meta-conspiracy which I think we just observed was characterized by 'silence' or a general malaise - an unwillingness to confront the obvious.

This last post had a fairly provocative assertion; namely, that God did in fact hate certain people, types of people, and classes of people. It's in black and white and I attempted to provide an exhaustive set of references from the bible that showed this. The prevailing dogma is that he doesn't - which I believe is entirely false, a lie told by the enemies of God to sew confusion and complacency, and a doctrine of damnation because it waters down the serious trouble that most of us find ourselves in relative to our eternal relationship with God.

The post, while irrefutable to Christian and non-Christian, didn't generate much interest and I started wondering why. One would think that with the heavy debate about the nature of God with lesser topics, like "Why does God want man's foreskin" people would have jumped on something so contentious as my statement about God hating many of us.

Is it only topics of titillation and perversion that capture the audience? Is that really what's going on? Deny ignorance - bravo.

So, I'm going to assert that there are more conspiratorial forces at play here. When a topic of real importance to our eternal relationship with God comes up, and irrefutable evidence for it is given, it's largely ignored. Let's watch future topics with this in mind and see if meta-conspiracies are actually at play.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Ichabod]




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
The Supreme Being is all merciful. God is the Devil not the Supreme Being. God does hate or does have motives related to his self interest. The Supreme Being holds all the cards and is in the highest state of being which is the purest love and the highest quality of spirit. The Supreme Being does not directly operate but works through spirits such as the Devil to get the work of purification accomplished. What God does is really not important. God is the embodiment of imperfections and expresses them through the mind / universal mind. God is in general charge of these material worlds.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
So, I'm going to assert that there are more conspiratorial forces at play here. When a topic of real importance to our eternal relationship with God comes up, and irrefutable evidence for it is given, it's largely ignored. Let's watch future topics with this in mind and see if meta-conspiracies are actually at play.


i totally see what you are saying, but im not sure its a conspiratorial force that is responsible.

debating foreskin is easy because its doesnt have any real importance in the minds of the people debating. for atheists its a humorous way to claim religion is ridiculous. but it has no bearing on their lives. for christians, it is simply one more detail they feel they have to defend.

talking about whether god actually loves you or hates you, both having strong implications is something people do not WANT to talk about.

most people try to be religious until it interferes with their day to day life. this is why most of the time its a simple matter of debating what you want to believe. what happens when you are proven wrong? it implies you have to change. people dont like to be forced to do something they dont like to do.

take for example the argument that god´s love is unconditional. the single most politically correct BS assertion i have ever heard. the bible shows that some people god hates (like the scriptures you quoted), some scriptures show people being destroyed forever. from a biblical viewpoint, debate over. love is not unconditional. proven BandW from the pages of the bible.

yet why do people still assert the opposite? in short, it helps them sleep at night. they dont want to face the possibility that god does not approve the way they are living their life. its one of the hardest things to honestly meditate about. i know because i eventually had to be truthful with myself on many accounts. i didnt like it at all.

i blame it on self want, not conspiracy. people want to do things their way, but sometimes they subconsciously know its not the right way, so they hide it away so they cant see it.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by miriam0566]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I don't know. I always in my actual life and mind, apply the part about not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That ends this debate.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
A lack of interest in your post does not necessarily mean a conspiracy against you. There are a number of reasons why threads fail to go anywhere.

* wrong "slant" on the topic.
* wrong topic for a board
* lengthy post that is filled with quotes (only the avidly interested will read something long)
* it's a topic frequently discussed and people are more interested in the older threads.
* no controversial "hook" where people feel they are moved enough to argue for or against the point.
* no startlingly new piece of evidence
* evidence that is inconvenient for others to access (the "watch all 6 hours of this documentary and comment" kind of post)
* the absence of a debater who tends to argue points with you (nothing like a good argument to get threads moving.)
* it's presented in such a way that many think it sounds like a rant or sounds like trolling and so they avoid it.

I could, for instance, post a thread on a Christian board asking about my declawed cat's apparent need to paw at things like he's scratching on a scratching board (heck, I could post it here.) I'd get about 3 answers and no more, because it's the wrong place (I should ask on a cat lovers' board). Or I could ask for opinions on the Clovis Only theory and leave links to papers that are only accessible with a paid subscription and I'd get zero comments.

This doesn't mean there's a conspiracy against these topics. It just means that I haven't found people interested in discussing them. It would be kind of silly for me to believe that the whole world (including government agents and people not on the Internet) are conspiring to prevent me from learning about my cat's odd behavior.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Uh - no kidding. I'm not simply whining that people didn't jump into the post. I'm certainly willing to admit that maybe it's just B-O-R-I-N-G, that folks are too complacent to care or debate, or that they just don't like my screen name.

For a conspiracy against sound doctrine to actually work you'd be hard-pressed to argue only against the doctrine. That would go to ground and be resolved quickly. A more likely strategy would be to convince people that the doctrine doesn't matter, e.g. that God doesn't exist, that his relationship with us irrelevant, that we are God, etc. This is often what I see happening on religious threads here. For instance, atheists pile on to attack the relevance of a topic rather than the doctrine and frequently drive the topic into a philosophical no-man's land. In some ways, Atheism could be considered a meta-conspiracy against God, i.e. God doesn't exist, therefore we don't talk about it.

There wasn't an attack on the previous topic - which surprised me. I would have expected Atheists to dive in with and explain how irrelevant God's hatred for us really is. So, why the silence? Maybe they can't tell which side I'm on - - - but I'm willing to believe that silence and ignoring me in this context actually could be part of the conspiracy against sound doctrine. After all, if you square up with the idea that God hates you, maybe that would actually get some people looking for the right solution. Couldn't have that now, could we?

Thus, my conjecture that something else is going on. Maybe somebody doesn't want us talking about God hating us. Would I have gotten the same reaction if I'd used the traditional line as pointed out by 'M' above, i.e. unconditional love?

BTW - thanks to 'M' for her response - keep fighting the good fight and finish the race!



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
There wasn't an attack on the previous topic - which surprised me. I would have expected Atheists to dive in with and explain how irrelevant God's hatred for us really is. So, why the silence?


TBH, speaking from my own perspective as an atheist, it's not even irrelevant. Just meaningless. It's about as meaningful as saying the great cosmic muffin likes my new shoes.

Perhaps the problem is that you misunderstand atheists and that many really couldn't give a fig about such things (e.g., is the muffin made of chocolate or blueberries? Does it prefer brown or black shoes?). You appear to complain that atheists would just say 'doesn't exist' and bring a thread off topic - but that's sort of the point, though, eh?

Why waste time discussing meaningless concepts? Might as well discuss the exquisite lace on the Emperor's underpants, lol.

However, if you want to waste time discussing the Emperor's finery, go for it. I'm sure there are enough fawning courtier's here to make it worthwhile. Whereas if you want to bait atheists, just ask around, I'm sure some here could give you pointers.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ichabod
 


You had a page and a half of replies on the thread prior to your creation of this thread. I'd love to get a page and a half of replies on any of the few threads I've created, even should it take an internet lifetime.

Your thesis on that thread is interesting and one I did feel inclined to return to when I have had appropriate time to reflect upon it. See, though I haven't replied yet, I am thinking about the issue. There's something I'll call "meta-interest", i.e. interest above that which may be immediately apparent.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Ok I'll bite. I believe in god but have a problem with the bible. The topic of whether god hates people is retarded. God does not "hate" anyone or any group of people. Strong words--but I will reply with why I feel this way and look forward to a reply to my points.

It's too easy to point to a specific quote from the bible and say this proves it. Here are the questions?

Is there a Meta-Conspiracy to not debate if god hates?

Is every sentence in the bible a direct quote from god?

Who's to say that some man with a political agenda and some power didn't decide what books were included in the bible?

Does the new testament contradict the old testament?

There are things in the bible that don't make any sense or appear to be written by men with political or ethnic agendas--as proof of some odd things in the bible, I call forth the story of Lot. Would a real god think this way or be this way? No

this does not disprove god or even christianity only that the bible has errors and unexplained oddities and expecially in the case of the old testament cannot be used to prove whether god hates anyone or group of people.

I could be wrong and I should probably do some research and start a thread on Lot--I find these issues are better argued one point at a time. all replies welcome of course and as always please excuse my grammer and spelling. Typing this one handed and in a hurry! lol



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I seen the thread, started to reply and then decided not too. Mostly because your thread was so far off in general for me to reply in an understandable way would have taken me a good length of time.

You seem to want to argue over only a single point of view. Meaning, your arguments are formed towards those who take things literal or are extreme "bible thumpers". Those like the westboro church deal you mention. Rather than taking the interpretations of things which could make some sense, you would rather use the worse interpretations to argue against(easier for you).

What you think "god" is, and what I think "god" is are likely 2 different things. So if I had replied I would have had to spend the majority of my time giving you my basic understandings of things, otherwise you would think I was talking about something literal and totally different. You probably think god is external, that he is some invisible being in the clouds, or want to argue against people who think that way and make claims based on that. Where as god is internal and you are a small part of god yourself.

The bible IMO is not the "word of god", but has become a replacement for it. It is divinely inspired, but it is still the work of men from an understanding of that time. It still speaks alot of truth and there is understanding to be had.

You quoted single bible verses in your OP out of context to paint the context you wanted rather than the context actually given. Just not really interested in debating such a literal perspective. Much rather spend my time debating people who are on a level of trying to understand rather than trying those who focus on the literal.

Plus, it's not like such arguments don't happen all the time. Had the debates before, so I know how it's going to go.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Ichabod
There wasn't an attack on the previous topic - which surprised me. I would have expected Atheists to dive in with and explain how irrelevant God's hatred for us really is. So, why the silence?


TBH, speaking from my own perspective as an atheist, it's not even irrelevant. Just meaningless.

Perhaps the problem is that you misunderstand atheists and that many really couldn't give a fig about such things (e.g., is the muffin made of chocolate or blueberries? Does it prefer brown or black shoes?). You appear to complain that atheists would just say 'doesn't exist' and bring a thread off topic - but that's sort of the point, though, eh?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by melatonin]


I don't see 'senseless' as adding much to the concept of 'pertinence' since we're talking about God's hate. But maybe it warmed up your keyboard.

Atheists give enough of a 'fig' to respond to virtually every other post and I've seen plenty of keyboard burning from you on lesser topics. You're obviously going to deny this and make me take a byte count on past debates.

Personally, having spent 38 years as a devout atheist, I find this 'ho hum' defense rather lame. In fact, degenerating to 'cosmic muffin' sarcasm simply helps prove the meta-conspiracy. Why sarcasm? Why respond at all? Shouldn't you be busy achieving personal fulfillment and not responding to any debate on God - whether meta or other?

What you should have said was, "Yes, believers have so terrified themselves with the concept of God that they have to ditch much of their doctrine just to soothe their anxiety. They appear to be suffering some kind of self-denial neurosis."

But then again, I was one of the best atheists in the world. haha



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


What's the basis for your beliefs about God? You have some, did you make them up or are you quoting something other than the bible?



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Context, you mean like speaking to Moses in the wilderness while he directs over a million people somewhere? Or David or Solomon writing Psalms and Proverbs?

The 'out of context' argument is used too frequently and incorrectly to apply. We have terse, direct statements about what God hates and you're going to lean on that old saw that they're out of context? That's nearly as horrible as the 'Hebrew has tenses' argument I heard last month for our not be able to understand the bible without learning Hebrew and Greek.

Better to give me an example from the ones I provided.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
reply to post by badmedia
 


Context, you mean like speaking to Moses in the wilderness while he directs over a million people somewhere? Or David or Solomon writing Psalms and Proverbs?

The 'out of context' argument is used too frequently and incorrectly to apply. We have terse, direct statements about what God hates and you're going to lean on that old saw that they're out of context? That's nearly as horrible as the 'Hebrew has tenses' argument I heard last month for our not be able to understand the bible without learning Hebrew and Greek.

Better to give me an example from the ones I provided.


Context means the verses surrounding the quoted verses, rather than just a single verse here and there. It also means having a general and basic understanding of what "god" is, and the relationship between god and a person. In that thread, you put up a list of single verses from a variety of chapters.

This is not just something that "atheists" do, but also "Christians" and others as well. Everytime I try to debate with people like such, I end up spending hours and hours trying to put things into the correct context, while they just spend a short time quoting more things out of context. For every single quote you put down, I end up having to write paragraphs for.

Also, some of them I just plain out do not defend. As I do not think the bible is the "word of god". It is my opinion that if it sounds wrong/bad or isn't well understood that it is better to drop it than hold onto something that isn't properly understood.



Lev 20:23 - 'And you shall not walk in the statues of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them.' (the people, not the things they commit)


Here you go adding that he abhors the people, not the things they commit. When it says nothing about the people directly. This is not the only time this verse is mentioned in what it says. The verse is actually talking about those who serve nations rather than serving god.

Verse before:

22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

Related Passages:

Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

and

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

So what that verse is saying has nothing to do with god hating the "sinner" and not the "sin". That is has anything to do with the sinner and not the sin is context YOU have added.

All in all you seem to think that if "god" does anything that you do not want, or that isn't "kind" to the person, then he must hate that person. Which is ridiculous.

Honest question - Do you have any kids? I love my kids, and because I love them I must punish them when needed. The parent who does not punish their child does no service to that child. I love my kids, but that doesn't' mean I have to love everything they do, it doesn't mean they can do whatever they want without receiving punishment from me, and just because I punish them doesn't mean I no longer love them. I still love my kids and I only punish them for their own good, but I do hate it when they do "bad" things they shouldn't be doing.

I guess according to you if I tell me kids - if you disobey me and go do something bad - I am going to punish you hardcore it means I suddenly do not love my kids? I guess it's going to suddenly means I hate my kids, not what they do? Again, that is ridiculous.

And for you to take the verse above and to turn where "god" is telling you what to do and what not to do(you only quoted the 2nd part) into meaning he hates the sinner is just plain out taking it out of context.

Now I have only addressed the very first verse you put in that thread, and look at how much I have had to type just to put that 1 verse into it's correct context. THAT is why I didn't bother replying to your thread. You need to first understand the context of things before you can understand what is being said. And I would have to spend the majority of the time showing you these kinds of things.

I'd be happy to talk about the verses with the proper context and understanding behind them. But I've completely lost interest in debating people who only want to allow the worse contexts they can find, which I come across frequently. First understand the relationship between the father(god) and the son(you), then you can maybe understand what is being said properly.

On a side note, I do have to thank you for 1 thing though. Someone was recently telling me that god says to "keep his statues" in arguments for christians having things like cross's and other fake idols. I didn't know what they were talking about exactly, but thanks to the verse you quoted I can see that person obviously didn't understand that the verse meant a list of commandments/laws rather than physical statues. So thanks for that bit.










[edit on 30-3-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Ichabod
 


I responded to your other post and I shall respond again.




Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [elder: or, greater] [younger: or, lesser] 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


This clearly shows God hates some, but is he not all knowing all powerful and all that? God hated Esau in the womb BEFORE HE HAD DONE ANY WRONG OR RIGHT, this means he knew Esau's soul and he hated him before he sinned. So much for the dogma of God hates the sin and not the sinner...

As for why most Christians refuse these verses has been covered I think in this thread. It would REQUIRE CHANGE and people don't like change. Particularly change that changes their lifestyle or something they enjoy, so they make up their own reasons for their actions.

I actually do believe the Bible (KJV) is the actual inerrant WORD of GOD, so you know where I sit before I tell you where I stand...

Edited for another example...

Easter is coming, and everything about it in the Bible says it is an Abomination to God and to not do it, but where do you find many Easter Egg Hunts on that Sunday? People enjoy their Easter festivities for whatever reason and they use those reasons to rationalize doing what God forbade. What I find is people will take the parts or parts of parts of the Bible they like and use them to their advantage, but bury their heads in the sand as soon as their actions are called into question Biblicaly. That is when they start declaring parts of the Bible wrong or the words of man, when it interferes with their lifestyle...

Now if Easter is an Abomination unto the LORD, do you think he hates those that do it in his name??? Only God knows that answer, but I could surmise!

[edit on 3/30/2009 by theindependentjournal]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I think your post goes more to show that Paul's writings aren't valid than God hates the sinner.

Unless you are to suggest that god hates himself.

The verses he quoted in lev before actually generally tell people to do the opposite of what Romans says to do. Romans says that all authority on earth is of god and should be followed. Lev and the verse he quoted(in context) says that such things are what god "hates" and should not be followed.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I think your post goes more to show that Paul's writings aren't valid than God hates the sinner.

Unless you are to suggest that god hates himself.

The verses he quoted in lev before actually generally tell people to do the opposite of what Romans says to do. Romans says that all authority on earth is of god and should be followed. Lev and the verse he quoted(in context) says that such things are what god "hates" and should not be followed.


psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

end of debate



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ichabod
I don't see 'senseless' as adding much to the concept of 'pertinence' since we're talking about God's hate. But maybe it warmed up your keyboard.


K.


Atheists give enough of a 'fig' to respond to virtually every other post and I've seen plenty of keyboard burning from you on lesser topics. You're obviously going to deny this and make me take a byte count on past debates.


Can only really speak for myself, but if you are whining about hordes of other atheists not responding, I gave one potential explanation. Sorry you don't like it.

Beauty and meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, for instance, you might think better understanding the lace on the emperor's underpants is one of the burning questions of humanity. I think it's meaningless. In other cases, what you see as a 'lesser topic' is not so for me.

I'm pretty crap at making topics myself, but what's the problem? There are particular ways to get attention and copious responses here, but I'd rather not use them.


Personally, having spent 38 years as a devout atheist, I find this 'ho hum' defense rather lame. In fact, degenerating to 'cosmic muffin' sarcasm simply helps prove the meta-conspiracy. Why sarcasm? Why respond at all? Shouldn't you be busy achieving personal fulfillment and not responding to any debate on God - whether meta or other?


This wasn't a debate on god. This was really you complaining that you didn't get the attention you thought your topic deserved, and atheists were eventually noted specifically, whilst attempting to wrap it up as a conspiracy.

The 'sarcasm' might just give you the potential to see it from my perspective. There is also a difference between the question 'does the cosmic muffin exist?' and 'is the cosmic muffin made of chocolate or blueberry?' or 'does the cosmic muffin hate broccoli?'. The latter are meaningless to me, and discussing the former is rather tedious, but not entirely meaningless.


What you should have said was, "Yes, believers have so terrified themselves with the concept of God that they have to ditch much of their doctrine just to soothe their anxiety. They appear to be suffering some kind of self-denial neurosis."


Perhaps. But I would doubt all believers see things that way.


But then again, I was one of the best atheists in the world. haha


lol, probably not.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by Ichabod
reply to post by badmedia
 


Context, you mean like speaking to Moses in the wilderness while he directs over a million people somewhere? Or David or Solomon writing Psalms and Proverbs?

The 'out of context' argument is used too frequently and incorrectly to apply. We have terse, direct statements about what God hates and you're going to lean on that old saw that they're out of context? That's nearly as horrible as the 'Hebrew has tenses' argument I heard last month for our not be able to understand the bible without learning Hebrew and Greek.

Better to give me an example from the ones I provided.




Lev 20:23 - 'And you shall not walk in the statues of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them.' (the people, not the things they commit)


Here you go adding that he abhors the people, not the things they commit. When it says nothing about the people directly. This is not the only time this verse is mentioned in what it says. The verse is actually talking about those who serve nations rather than serving god.

Verse before:

22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.

Related Passages:

Leviticus 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

and

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

So what that verse is saying has nothing to do with god hating the "sinner" and not the "sin". That is has anything to do with the sinner and not the sin is context YOU have added.

Honest question - Do you have any kids? I love my kids, and because I love them I must punish them when needed. The parent who does not punish their child does no service to that child. I love my kids, but that doesn't' mean I have to love everything they do, it doesn't mean they can do whatever they want without receiving punishment from me, and just because I punish them doesn't mean I no longer love them. I still love my kids and I only punish them for their own good, but I do hate it when they do "bad" things they shouldn't be doing.


In my parenthetical I was simply pointing out the use of "them."

Nothing you provided by way of context refutes that God is saying here that he hates "them" - those who are being cast out before you. Who do you think "them" is that he's talking about? They are sinners by definition whether the context is that he's relating that to the Hebrews not to follow "them" or whether he's talking to "them" who he abhors. You can't understand this? It doesn't take your context to understand this. Your context only provides more ammo to show that God does this carefully, that he explains the consequences, and isn't capricious.

It's totally different than merely saying "I hate ."

At any rate, I do have kids. I love them just like you do and I punish, correct, and chastise them just like you do. That's actually irrelevant to this discussion because I didn't say that God's hate for some people was mutually exclusive from the fact that he loved them also. For instance, that he was willing to sacrifice his son so that "all" may live. Unless you want to narrow "all" based on some context to a chosen few.

Be honest here - love and hate are not mutually exclusive and we see this all the time in our own lives.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You might enjoy arguing, for instance, about what constitutes God rather than what God's behaviors are?

What kind of an atheist are you? Atheists say there is no God - so why would you engage in a discussion about one facet of God rather than another? Are you just getting your exercise? What's the matter, not enough physics to go study to exercise your intellect and move the world forward? No further contributions to neo-Darwinian theory left - got that all wrapped up have we? Surely, you have something better to do - and this comes from someone who was astonished that more atheists didn't jump into my post! Why? Because atheists as a class aren't true to their convictions as evidenced by their behavior.

The problem with argumentative atheists is that their "care" hangs out like a shirttail that needs tucking. Stop caring, and I'll believe you're an atheist. You've got much better things to be doing, like procreating, and getting on top of the crab pile, and grabbing all the gusto you can. Start serving self and stop serving others by trying to keep them from the self-delusion of God. I suppose you'll claim that your heroics are actually self-serving, in that by your argumentation against God you will help create a better society for yourself (and your descendants who in general you should not give a damn about if you believe in evolution) even though all historical examples are entirely to the contrary. Hmm - where was the last atheist society? Would you say the last atheist society was a net positive or negative for its people? 'Gulag' makes fascinating reading.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join