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.

 

The arrogance of the atheists

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The "style" is to address the laundry list you make in each post..like this one.

laundry list ? please clarify...
No need to, two paragraphs down you show you know exactly what I mean...the next break will show this to be true.




See, I have to break this apart to address the different aspects you bring up in a single post. You give a checklist and expect someone to sound sane without breaking it down

what you can not formulate a response from what you have read ? you must be a busy man


If you want a simple paragraph response, you need to choose one thing you want a response to. not say 14 different things at once.

kinda like you are doing now ?
Here...see...you do know what I am talking about...no clarification needed.



saying a lot of thought and opinions is how one holds a conversation in case you forgot. It is however very easy, actually alot easier to respond like this, specially when ones mindset is programmed the way yours is and one of the only ways you can respond to people.


Although I do not offhand know of any good points you have made that has been glossed over,

no I do not either but you would seem to claim that you do via your last response to me, but thats right you may not remember what you just said let me re-quote you

There is no real dillema here. I say things that go against your specific belief, you have proven time and time again you simply ignore those whom say things different than your mindset, so I would expect you to ignore anything I write.

so you would seem to imply something entirely different which goes against saying you do not know off hand any points I have made or good points at any rate.
Points are not belief based. If in a thread you remarked about some scientific discovery that brought into question some fundamental aspect of say, evolution, and it was an actual point...then tada, you made a good point. However, you have not, to my knowledge, ever made such debate as part of your motif. you use strawmen argument and bigotry to make your points. full opinions and hate speech is usually all you offer.




I will also admit that it is possible. Especially if you tried to make a point sandwiched in a bunch of other non-points, insults, bigot rants, etc.

yes thank you for acknowledgment and actually speaking truth for a change.
I always speak truth. I am glad you also accept the points you try to make are often sandwiched between non-points, insults, and bigot rants.





If your self sabotaging yourself, then ya...you only have yourself to blame.

self sabotage ? myself to blame ? oh that's a good one... I have heard that before
and from master trolls too I might add, it's getting rather lame.
If you heard it before, then one would suggest you may actually consider it. If everyone tell's you that your back tail light on your car is out, do you call everyone a troll, or do you look at your back tail light?




A troll...do you know what the net definition of a troll even is?

yes I do, you fit the definition pretty well... I guess everyone is a disinfo agent too then right ? even a response could be considered a trolling attempt as soon as one party does not agree.
I am not sure what "disinfo agents" have to do with trolling behavior. that is a catch-all phrase on ATS and other conspiracy forums to simply dismiss the other party verses try to rebuttle them. Not seeing the relevance.




Go do a quick google and read it. You will find you are all but a zen master at it, and in your own thread.

I did a search and what came up was MIMS and SFX, also various staff at ats

Interesting...I guess its good to have mainstream recognition. mind referencing the site that listed me, mms, and various staff at ATS then, would be interesting to see...and of course would help in starting the libel lawsuits.




Consider today when you had at least one of your alt's banned for being a minge

consider this.. I did it on purpose and posted in my own topic exposing myself clearly and out in the open about it simply to prove the point that i can be done... have you guys fixed that yet ?
ok, congratulations on proving...something.
Funny thing about multiple accounts. No matter where you go, there you are. As far as fixed yet. donno, ask a moderator. I was under the impression most forum websites had some simple security measures in place for that nonsense.




as you said, you created 6 other avi's last night for...whatever purpose

again I was proving a point in that thread and you know it, what do you not understand ? and why do you fear it ? I have only one username I wish to use and it is the one I am using now, you can not defeat it !
Yes yes...sure...you sure did show ATS what you can do. Your amazing.
And fear? fear what...fear a child being a child?




Agreeing with yourself in your threads, or whatever else purposes you have.

see this is why I tell you again, you are going in circles in your logic... this is why I call you MIMS brother, or actually the same person really.
Actually, these last three breaks your addressing one point. now -that- could have been summed up in a single response. if things relate, then answer the full relationship, not break apart every sentence. Your catching on, but still, only break apart the various points.

As far as you always saying MMS and myself are brothers or whatnot. Again, thanks. I find him highly intelligent in regards to evolutionary theory. He is far more updated than I am. He and I have disagreements in more general spiritual matters, but I will gladly be mistaken for people I respect in some fields. I hope to one day be also mistaken for hawkins, however, that will take a bit more studying in cosmology.

I know you think that its some sort of weird insult when you compare my mindset to that of mms, or dawkins, or whoever else you personally don't like, but simply put. your opinion matters not, and if anything, I feel a bit silly being compared to someone whom had done alot more homework than I have about the subject. Still...I will accept it as a honor anyhow, and thanks again.





That is trolling mate

yes you do it all the time, and I realize you are doing it and can not help yourself
-yawns-




You cannot defend it, just man up and accept your not perfect...

there is no manning up, am I to consider this an act of trolling or an insult ?
A suggestion.




perhaps apologise for your behavior and try to start on a new foot.

I need no apology nor do I need to apologize to you... I have given apology to those whom have deserved it and that I may feel I have offended... if you have not had any real discussion with me why do I own you an apology ? are you dictating words whilst belittling here ?
not to me...but perhaps to the staff for your antics...or who knows...to your deitys or whatnot...either way, casting off the bad baggage and proclaiming to work only for positive discourse is typically a good thing once you can get out of the negative mindset.




But I reckon you enjoy your flame wars on ATS...getting you to drop your insane pride seems highly unlikely.

ok you seem to be getting mad here as I am going along doing my thing like you do... I do not understand all your direction of anger, is there something we may help you with ? all you need is some good love man and kindness to others.
Mad? heh...naa, I am slightly amused overall, a bit tired, and ultimately resigned that you either can't or won't see what is ever been said to you.




Actually, I think all my personal points are good...

what personal points ? have we had much discussion.. I have added you to my rivals after I have seen how you speak to others, nothing more to comment there.
I was talking in general...not about any discussion you or I have had. I meant, all my points in life...whenever I discuss anything, I think what my opinions and points I make are good ones...however, I do find out that my opinions on my valid and good points are just my own opinions and often do not reflect reality.

As far as the rivals thing...well, I am happy for you. you however have not made my rivals. That to me is a honor position of someone whom is my equal but on a different side of the coin. Someone I debate with and sometimes "win", sometimes "lose" with. I have had a couple rivals in the past from time to time...sadly, they all got banned over time for one reason or another.

You...are not my rival. Sorry...you don't qualify yet. not until you learn to debate artfully and articulately.





but you know what, a bit of humility and age has taught me that just because I think they are good points,

humility and age huh ? what this sounds like is that you think you know better than others or others should automatically respect you because of age or something ! epic fail right there...
Nope, Respect is earned. I am saying for my specific case, age has taught me to realize I may not always be right, and to always try and see things from a different view before responding. Understand the flow of the conversation the mind your speaking with, and the intent behind the words.
Wisdom...people aren't born with it.




doesn't mean they actually are good points

maybe not to you or by your definition, but who is to say ? its is all a matter of perception and not justt yours may I remind you.
Agreed...and keep in mind, that sentence your responding to is about my points may not always be good points. If some find them to be good and valid points, great..if others do not see it, well, then either its not to them, or I didn't articulate it well enough.





But keep in mind, "Atheists suck and need to die in fire"

please stop doing that and putting word in my mouth in front of oher with your fame here.. will you please dig out that exact topic in which I said anything like that ? all I have done was made fun of their style.
That was just a general example. No, I don't remember you using those words, however frankly, you haven't used words far from it. I was just saying that opinions are not good points...they are just opinions that do not need to be validated or answered.




is not an actual point...thats an opinion that does not need much addressing beyond a middle finger extended.

well don't get mad now SFX because you know you can no prove exactly what you said that I have told others in your quote directly above this one.
oh now the rest of this I will just laugh at, I must really have you working it huh ? hopefully I will be able to discredit this SaturnFX just as well as I have done to MIMS, don't slip up any more it is beginning to make you look bad.
One issue is that you are reading peoples posts with presupposed emotions attached to it. You have so far completely failed at attaching any relevant emotions towards my text...pretty much a direct miss each and every time. What you have done is assigned your own personal emotions to my text. This is far more a reflection on how your feeling than anything I am feeling.



oh and you are a liar, and a cheat btw... like we all don't know that by now

edit on 12/31/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


In what regards? Care to suggest how, or are you just the type of person whom wings random insults at people whom take time to respond to you...




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Roguesheep
 




What I find amusing about atheists is that they seem obsessed with religion. For people that don't believe they seem to spend a lot of time discussing it.


Perhaps some atheists are simply obsessed with mocking religion. After all, there is some sort of shallow satisfaction in mockery. But perhaps some atheists are genuinely seeking answers/evidence that would satisfy their questions about the existence of God but finding none but the man-made dogmas of prominent religions, frustration seeps in and they resort to mocking the beliefs of others because they can't understand why people are so quick to put their trust in what others tell them without even questioning the doctrines.

As for the existence of God... well, we all possess life do we not? But we cannot perceive this life through any of our five senses. We cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell it but I think we will all agree that it is a fact that does not require our faith. Isn't the very life we have in us something that can be considered absurd in a scientific point of view? That is (and this is just my humble opinion) the image of God in us. God did not simply create us and then commanded us to recognize him without giving us enough proof of his existence. Our life testifies to that.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedish

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by jennybee35
 

Science is based on facts, and constantly progresses our understanding of the world around us. Religion is based on superstition and telling us what we can and can't do.

Well it is a fact that Jesus existed. It's a fact that there are hundreds of recorded instances of a solar eclipse at the time of His crucifixion.

Hundreds of recorded instances?
You mean the sun was eclipsed hundreds of times during the crucifixion?

Do you realise that the crucifixion, according to the bible, took place during the passover?
www.crivoice.org...
Do you realise that the passover takes place at the full moon?
www.helium.com...
Do you realise you cannot have a full solar eclipse during a full moon?
en.wikipedia.org...


Any tale of a full solar eclipse taking place when the moon is full is a lie.
But people who believe the graves opened up and the dead started wandering around will believe anything.






posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've never said that Isaac Newton or Calculus were unimportant.

you have clearly stated in the topic in which you choose to "bash" Christianity (what has the Catholic Church ever done to you) that Isaac Newton was wrong !
I can not believe I heard that coming from you, a man of science and one who considers Science his Religion... as stated in the (Music as an Expression of Religion) topic.
for someone who is out to defile other people and also contradict himself one more than one and numerous occasions how then are we supposed to take you seriously ?
I do not believe anyone out with your agenda and also ignorance of History is deemed very credible in many of the readers eyes anymore !
I can show you more examples if you like ?
you clearly stated Newton was Wrong !
totally unacceptable...


You worship Isaac Newton now do you, Cosmic?
Are you suggesting all Newton's findings were so perfect that nothing he wrote ever turned out to be incorrect in the light of more advanced knowledge?

I guarantee Newton was wrong somewhere.
He was bound to be.

You see, Cosmic, thinking people, even Atheistic thinking people, don't put science or scientists on pedestals. We don't worship them or regard them as infallible. Science is a matter of constant work to make new discoveries and settle old questions, continually increasing the definition and scope of the picture science draws of the natural world.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Your reply to the OP was riddled with arrogance. Granted, tone doesn't translate well on the internet, but there was a certain snobbish quality to it that I think is one of the problems the OP has with some of your persuasion.

But maybe that's just how I read it.


When the quality of the language used, the reasoning, and the information presented are higher than those of most posts, it's easy to imagine the poster is arrogant. However this is likely to only indicate the reader feels inferior when confronted with these posts.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

You yourself have participated in several that contained many examples of disregard for others. Here are some examples from this link

As arrogant as I find the highly religious moronic


Oh, dear, I cannot keep going.

How deceitful, taking a few words out of context like this.
Madness was replying to a poster who, like you, was calling him, as an atheist, arrogant, and had likened atheists to English teenage kafirs with bones through their noses.

"As arrogant" referred to the arrogance he was being accused of. Yet you choose to ignore the initial insults flung at him, which he patiently forbore to answer, and pick the one time he does let fly in response.

And then, after pretending you can find many examples of him speaking this way, you pretend you are stopping at one because you can't bear to go on.

Do you think you are serving Jesus by attacking people and lying in this way?
Did Jesus ever ask any Christian to attack those who don't believe?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
hmmm.... are there never any arrogance in any religion?



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
When the quality of the language used, the reasoning, and the information presented are higher than those of most posts, it's easy to imagine the poster is arrogant. However this is likely to only indicate the reader feels inferior when confronted with these posts.


This is what I find.

I personally use a type of posting style I have labeled "short tacks" (make your point in ten words of less). Of course that is not always possible. But the point is - stick to the point - avoid emotions or unnecessary wording. When I type a comment/response - - I go back over the text and remove every/any word that is not pertinent.

I have been called arrogant for my postings - - because I make statements that don't "soften the blow". I realize in "romantic countries/culture" this is totally unacceptable. But too bad - don't waste my time with filler words and emotional manipulation.

SWYM - - "say what you mean". Don't play manipulative games like "my feelings are hurt" or "you don't understand" or "its beyond your understanding" or "faith is something you just have to accept" or my favorite "look around you - God is everywhere".

I am not in a personal relationship with you. Your feelings are irrelevant to logic.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Re Jennybee35

I read the article you linked to, and found nothing profound in it. Just clichéed 'if you're not for me, you're against me' simplifications. The author playing out extremist positions against each other, and then pretending to be the 'objective' and 'neitral' spokesperson of 'her' side. And 'her' side is ofcourse 'slighted'

I think, I need to restate my own platform in this, before I continue. I'm not an atheist, actually I have personal and academic opinions, which 'ought' to make me side with critics of atheism, but instead I choose to go in the other direction, based on my amateur-interest in epistemology, which for me is the 'deepest' you can get in a search for 'reality' or 'truth'. At some point we all form a startingpoint, from where we relate to existence.

My, often strong, criticism of religionists (and assorted other ideologuers) is directed against the fringe-groups of ideology, who postulate claims of 'ultimate truth', and who in deed and doctrine have shown willingness to invade society; either using infiltration, brainwashing propaganda or violence.

I have especially two points, which I center on:

The academic perspective, where various constellations of basic epistemological models are used. Open-end models (flexible), closed models (doctrinally rigid); assumptive models, axiomatic models; models with an extremely narrow methodology (one, or at best a few 'tools' to test 'answers'), models with a more extensive methodology ('answers' have to pass a series of different tests by many 'tools', and the tools must be adapted); models with functional semantics, or models with rhetoric, scholastic or plain babbling.

Obviously (and especially) religionists are hard pressed in their competion against challengers. Religionists fight amongst their own crowd, they fight against other religions, they fight against political systems restricting their possibilities for invasive methods and not least, they fight against science.

This can manifest in a contest for a recognized place in co-sensus (winning public support) or for academic respectability. And as religionists haven't got many trumps on their hands (side-issue: What's evidence, proof, basis, communication, extent of model), there's a very strong tendency amongst extremists to hijack methods from competitors and present these deformed methods as 'the real thing'.

Whether it's done from complete ignorance or from calculated dishonesty, I find this alone so demeaning for those doing it, that any trust is out of the question a priori. I'm no intellectual snob, and I do not think intellect and/or education is the only or highest acchievement of a person, but I find loudmouthed know-it-all incompetence a sign of a rotten mindset.

My other perspective is the social context. If extremist religionists (or other extremists) can't 'win on points' on the academic scene, invasive tactics take over. And as the west increasingly is becoming secular (with diminished possibilities of open violence for the extremist), secondary methods are used. Creating white noise, infiltration, quantitative steamroller repetitions, derision of opponent attitudes/opinions (even the less aggressive ones), upside-down political arguments (we are oppressed, because we can't oppress) and, I have sadly noticed more and more on e.g. ATS, an almost febrile attitude of the worst I know of religionist extremism: "I'm right, because I'm right" argumentation.

At the "I'm right, because I'm right" point a stream of sermons, lectures, preachings, steady insults alternatively deflectionary maneuvers will follow, which with many words saying nothing just keeps opposition from ever getting to a point, which can challenge the extremist position.

Personally I can be rather sharp, sarcastic or join a piethrowing contest, but eventually this is too primitive. Some declaration on: "This is my basic startingpoint/platform for debate, this is my methodology, this is my way of evaluating 'evidence', this is my way of testing answers" will be necessary unless a debate developes into streetcorner preachers yelling at each other.

That's my second reason for preferring atheists. In general they seldom reach the low level of soapbox oration (it does happen though), if for nothing else from the knowledge that accosting strangers with vulgar-propaganda will backfire into a public stereotyping of: "One of them Jesus-freaks with an IQ of 60".

While contemporary western people maybe will find my longwindedness on epistemology over the top, growing education and the pragmatic observable advantages of a liberal society will make "I'm right, because I'm right" attitudes into something rather ridiculous for the unsaved individual. There are still die-hard extremists from all camps, who haven't discovered this, and the only thing they will bring about is to drag down the ideology they believe they represent.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil

I just have to tell you how impressed I am with your post.

Yeah - - I get we are not supposed to do that. But sometimes - - a post is so extraordinary it deems the recognition.

edit on 1-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I was trying to point out that it would be arrogant to assume that so many people are just wasting their money without proper reasons to. And, as nice of an individual as you seem to be, you don't seem to have a proper understanding of several scientific principles, some of which are amongst the most basic in their fields. However, I was simply putting things back on task, we're talking about arrogance here, not science.

There's a whole subforum devoted to the discussion of that sort of science, and other subforums devoted to other kinds of science.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've never said that Isaac Newton or Calculus were unimportant.


you have clearly stated in the topic in which you choose to "bash" Christianity (what has the Catholic Church ever done to you) that Isaac Newton was wrong !


About a few things, not everything. He was wrong about alchemy for one thing. I never said he was wrong about everything



I can not believe I heard that coming from you, a man of science and one who considers Science his Religion... as stated in the (Music as an Expression of Religion) topic.


I'm sorry, but now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never said science is my religion, I said the closest thing that can be found in me to a religion is an unbounded sense of wonder at the universe or something along those lines.



for someone who is out to defile other people and also contradict himself one more than one and numerous occasions how then are we supposed to take you seriously ?


Well, I've not contradicted myself, nor is my intention to 'defile' others. Unless you can actually point out specific instances where I've contradicted myself (and no, taking quotes that are from my first few years on here don't count, people can change their minds), I'd be quiet about that.



I do not believe anyone out with your agenda and also ignorance of History is deemed very credible in many of the readers eyes anymore !


My agenda is simply to give people a greater understanding of certain aspects of science and create more understanding between atheists and others. Now, you've also not proven my ignorance of history but have actually demonstrated it yourself, claiming that Darwin became disenchanted with religion following his daughter's death and wrote Origin of Species in a fit of amoral rage.



I can show you more examples if you like ?


I'm sorry, but you haven't even provided a single example, you just created a straw man.



you clearly stated Newton was Wrong !


On something, not everything. I never said he was wrong about everything, especially when it comes to science. However, I'm sure his theological ideas would most definitely clash with yours.



totally unacceptable...


Yes, your posts tend to be on several levels, but I'll be the first person to step up and say you have every right to make them, unless you violate the T&C.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Sorry for the delayed reply, but yes, I would love for you to help out with this. I'm just saying this publicly so I can no longer be accused of chickening out or any such nonsense.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote about SaturnFX:

["oh and you are a liar, and a cheat btw... like we all don't know that by now"]

In a modest way I guess, I'm one of the "we all" (there were no specifications on the concept 'we all') who "know", that Saturn is a liar and a cheat.

Obviously there must be something wrong with my self-insight, because I DON'T know this about Saturn. How lucky I am to have YOU, Artifact, to know this FOR me ABOUT me.

There's something called delusions of grandeur, and it may be the reason for your recurring habit of pronouncing yourself law, jury, judge of debates and the spokesman of an invented majority.

Quote from a later post:

["let me know... hopefully you will address them like a normal person and I will not have to respond to you like I have in my mass-quoted post using rhetorical MIMS & SFX style discussion."]

There are a handful of participants on ATS whom I admire for their clarity of style, reasoning, competence and knowledge. Sorry to say Artifact, you're not amongst them (because of your excessive rhetoric), whereas Madness and Saturn are.



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Re NewAgeMan

You wrote:

["Then again, perhaps the atheists at ATS are smarter and better informed than the likes of Laszlo and Haisch.."]

No, but most of those with even rudimentary knowledge of science would not so blatantly hijack and twist their ideas into a christian 'proof'.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join