What do you have against people who don't believe in religion?

ATSers & readers, let me try to explain a few thoughts some other ways. All questions are rhetorical, not aimed specifically at anyone, if it sounds like it, disregard it. I'm not really asking questions, just using question marks to try to invoke a little thought about things from viewpoints. If it sounds rude, I apologize beforehand.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If they are not being honest with themselves, how can I assume they are being honest with me?

I'm confused. Why do you think atheists aren't being honest with themselves?

Why do I think atheists are not being honest with themselves?

Let me try to explain why I don't think atheists are being honest with themselves.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know you like to have fun with words and spelling, but I'm not buying that there's any real meaning behind this.

This is an example of why I do not think atheists are being honest with themselves. They claim to be an atheist and not a creationist, nor do they "buy into there being any real meaning behind words and spelling".

If you are an atheist, fine, but do not be a half ass atheist, follow your belief system to either it's origins or it's ends and explain the impossible (and demonstrable) by applying atheistic beliefs to atheistic beliefs.

How can an atheist claim to be an atheist without acknowleding and recognizing the simple paradox of the first lifeforms? Let an atheist apply enough empathy towards the first single cell lifeform. Where (allegedly) evolution began.

Can an atheist have enough intelligence and empathy to put themselves into the shoes of the first lone single cell entity?

Without any basis for reference and without any experience with intrapersonal relationships, or with intracellular communications, how did two identical same cells know which way the message was being sent, and which way to read the message that was being relayed?

When a macro-organism (large multicelled) like us stand face to face and we each raise our right hands we can acknowledge and recognize that they are both our right hands, even though they are on opposite sides. When we stand in front of a mirror and we raise our right hand and look in the mirror our right hand is on the same side.

How did a single cell lonely micro-organism after splitting and making an identical copy of itself know how to effectively communicate? Was the message being sent from left to right or from right to left? Was the message meant to be interpretted/read from right to left or from left to right? When was this paradox in communication ever corrected?

I am capable of providing thousands of examples of how language/words also contain truisms when reversed phonetically and/or mirror imaged, not because I invented them, but because they exist.

/ = reversed phoneticall or mirror imaged....

eden / nude
shower / rewash
boots / stood
feed / beef
trophy / effort
lad tough / football

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If they are not being honest with themselves, how can I assume they are being honest with me?

I'm confused. Why do you think atheists aren't being honest with themselves?

Why do I think atheists are not being honest with themselves?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know you like to have fun with words and spelling, but I'm not buying that there's any real meaning behind this.

Atheists should be required to follow their own logic to their own percieved origins. One cell. Alone sucks. Cell splits. Two identical cells, clones, carbon copies of eachother. Neither has experience at communication, neither has a basis for reference when knowing how to send the message or recieve the message, and which way to read the message. When and where was this paradox fixed? When did they learn how to communicate? Is communication still only left to right at all levels of internal communications? (rhetorical questions, I wasn't there either) ... but perhaps dormant genes still have this information within....

If atheists are truly an atheist then how do they explain how the first cell communicated effectively the first time with the second cell without information being encrypted and encoded in more than one direction, and why do you believe there is not a paradox or a conundrum in the form of malformed logic in this precept?

Atheists say they are atheists, yet avoid the consequences of what no intelligent design or intervention actually means at the single cell level, and/or first lifeform communication experience.

Anyone who says they are an atheist, yet disregards that language would be encrypted and encoded in more than one way, because somehow (miraculously?) two identical cells that were carbon copies of eachother knew how to communicate without any problems without experience or basis for reference doing so, even though this is a biological impossibility.

Atheism and the first singular lifeform communicating effectively with the second duplicate lifeform without mirror imaging and reverse communication happening does not make sense to me, perhaps an atheist can explain to me how two cells knew how to read eachother's messages correctly devoid of experience and previous knowledge of how to do it, coupled with the dillema that they were identical/same.

Maybe this makes sense, maybe this does not. Either way, I am just trying to explain some thoughts I entertain, not necessarily subscribe to.

Thanks to whomever bothered to read all this,
ET

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
I'm curious as to what you think and if you do have anything against people who are not religious why don't you support their beliefs in life. As an Atheist I have seen some crazy people who hate us for not believing in a Godly figure. Do you support people who are not religious or do you find it wrong? Why?

I do not have anything against atheists or anyone who believes differently than I do. I certainly don't hate anybody for that. It's sad that anyone would berate another for their beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'support.' I would not deny anyone the freedom to believe what they wish. However, I would hope that same freedom applies to me.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


I don't have anything against Atheists. I just have something against those who are anti-Theist, just like I have something against those who are anti-Atheist. I have something against those who write Theists off as idiots for simply having a few nutty beliefs. They do this rather than try to understand that pretty much everybody has quirks and a couple of cooky beliefs.

I strongly support anybody's worship of God, Allah, nothing, or a parking meter. I don't really care what people believe; I just don't like bigots.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
I'm curious as to what you think and if you do have anything against people who are not religious why don't you support their beliefs in life. As an Atheist I have seen some crazy people who hate us for not believing in a Godly figure. Do you support people who are not religious or do you find it wrong? Why?

I hate religion too. So I support people who can't stand religion, like myself.