It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


This needs to stop

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by korathin

You're at the wrong forum then.

Try the GodFearingSheep forum located somewhere on the interwebs, probably in its' nether regions, located around NAMBLA and other cultligions (cultish religions).

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:08 AM

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by korathin

You're at the wrong forum then.

Try the GodFearingSheep forum located somewhere on the interwebs, probably in its' nether regions, located around NAMBLA and other cultligions (cultish religions).

I didn't call all atheist's evil, just some that happen to be sociopaths. But the fact you associate "sociopathic atheist's will still harras you" with NAMBLA or cults I don't get. Well I guess there is a few explanations, but the simple fact is some things are true regardless if you believe in them or not.

Heck even if you follow the rationalizations of the "God Delusion" then that would imply that atheist's are genetically defective(if spirituality has it's origins in the biology of the brain).

I am merely just telling the OP it is a fool's errand.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:29 AM
They're called "Opinions".
Everyone has them. Everyone is welcome to them.
However, not everyone respects them.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by kerazeesicko

Most atheist's are sociopaths. All sociopaths do not have a conscience. Therefore it is likely some atheist's derive pleasure in harassing others, meaning it is pointless to ask them to play nice when they where born evil.

This is exactly the kind of post the OP was against, blanket statements not based in fact or reasoning, talk about irony. And you give ammunition to every atheist to portray all religious people as nut jobs, well done, no seriously well done


posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by notsofunnyguy
God does not exist.

To continue to believe in an imaginary figure is to continue to be ignorant, something we are supposed to not do on this site. Therefore, when I see a site promoting that ignorance, I'll probably pop in to the thread and remind people that they are being ignorant.

Have a nice day.

You state that your opinion is fact, god does not exist. And your proof? You are right about one thing though, the site is about "Deny Ignorance" funny it doesn't state "Deny Religion" it doesn't state "Deny Belief"

I know the soul exists, I have left my physical body, and travelled. Therefore my belief is not belief it is knowledge, knowledge by the way you do not have, therefore that makes you the ignorant one does it not?
Does my knowledge of the soul make me a Christian, or follow any other religion? No actually it doesn't I have no time for the bible and any organised religions, but that doesn't give me or you the right to try and belittle their beliefs.

Before you to to deny others ignorance, I suggest you get a little knowledge yourself and not just your "beliefs" which are just given to you parrot fashion by others. Unless you have spent time to study something, explored it with an open mind, you are speaking from ignorance for you are without knowledge, and you cannot Deny Ignorance in others when you are full of Ignorance yourself

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by notsofunnyguy

Welllllll, in terms of this thread topic--being annoyed may be a common reaction. Repetitious brief things tend to be annoying to many of us.

However, strong beliefs about ultimate issues are not likely to go away any time soon.

As long as individuals have the freedom to think for themselves, they will likely make choices about such issues with VERY STRONG emotional associations connected to those choices.

It is reasonable and natural that they will want to assert their beliefs--as is their right in a free society and a reasonably free context, forum.

Like beauty--to some degree, annoyance is in the eye of the beholder.

There is also the tendency to have a POLARITY RESPONSE when we are confronted with information 180 degrees opposite from a very strong conviction that we have a lot of intense emotions about.

And, many people have a POLARITY RESPONSE merely because of insecurities arising out of a significant degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

I don't know that there's a solution to the request/demand of the OP.

One can quickly jump past such phrases/assertions.

I don't think it would be fitting or reasonable to try and censor such assertions out of all posts--either voluntarily or by software.

I found my own responses to the OP, below, flooding out with fairly strong energy behind them.

The OP felt quite comfortable asserting his/her perspective on the matter . . . why shouldn't I feel just as strong and it just as fitting to respond in kind?


The text of The Book indicates that


I think God's perspective is more reliable. His Book has reliably taught me for most of my 64 years, very accurately about myself and about mankind . . . as well as about the world I find myself in.

He has proven HIMSELF far beyond imaginary--more real and tangible in key respects than my body parts or the sun 'rising' daily. That's probably not explainable to someone who's not had such a RELATIONSHIP with HIM.

The GREEK manner of KNOWING what we think we KNOW is NOT the only reliable one.

The HEBREW phenomenological method is also reliable and productive.

A husband seeking to KNOW his wife by the GREEK method would likely not be greeted warmly as he set about to dissect his wife with a scalpel.

Much better and more fun to KNOW his wife in the HEBREW SENSE, manner of KNOWING 'AS Adam KNEW Eve and produced children thereby.

The book:

HEAVEN IS FOR REAL by Todd Burpo about 4 year old Colton Burpo's visit to Heaven during his surgery for a mis-diagnosed life threatening burst appendix is impossible to explain by a super rationalist perspective.

His not recognizing his unknown Grandfather's older pic but recognizing the younger pic close to the physical age he met him at--IN HEAVEN--is unexplainable, otherwise. So is his telling his mother that he had another sister. He had never been told of the daughter his mother had lost as a still-born baby. I don't think the mother even knew the lost child was a girl. She certainly didn't know that said Heaven residing daughter atypically had mother's hair color and looks.

Further, Colton recognized Akiana's painting of Jesus from her 4 year old Heavenly visitations as the only accurate one.

The same is true for PIPER's 90 MINUTES IN HEAVEN.

A super rationalist perspective lopps off rather arbitrarily a huge amount of data--rather irrationally, at that.

It declares rather arbitrarily that any data outside narrowly defined boundaries is inadmissable.

That's not very reasonable. That does not include massive amounts of data and reality.

That is an addiction to avoiding a TYPE I ERROR [believing something is there, when there is nothing there] to such a degree that it MAKES CERTAIN being victimized by a TYPE II ERROR [believing nothing is there, when there is something there].

BOTH types of error can be equally deadly.

That's not reasonable nor rational. That's not even scientific, in the strictest sense of the word.

THEREFORE, I think it is unreasonable, unfitting and BEING SEDUCED BY ignorance to avoid allowing phenomenological data into the discussion . . .

I think it is UNREASONABLE AND UNFITTING to try and excise out of any discussions data, assertions and feelings like the above--which relate to deeply held convictions and perspectives gathered and honed from extensive experiences as individuals and massive experience data from various cultures.

edit on 25/4/2011 by BO XIAN because: to add a ref related to topic

edit on 25/4/2011 by BO XIAN because: goofed--not familiar enough with this change in software . . . same reason as above.

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

Wellllllllll, that pushed a button about a pet peeve of mine . . .

Humans are complex critters . . .

ALL our cosmologies permeate our being, our thinking, our emotions.

That's true for THE RELIGION OF SCIENTISM of the super rationalists.

It's true for 'Fundamentalist Christians.'

It's true for everyone conscious with thoughts more complex than those of a lobotomized slug.


ALL OF US will perceive REALITY through our screen of our cosmology.

We CANNOT do otherwise.


ALL OF US will tend to comment OUT OF THAT cosmology screened and defined frame of reference. We can hardly do otherwise and offer any sort of robust comment on much of anything.

Sure, we can minimize IN YOUR FACE sorts of phrasing and word choices. However, the hyper-sensitive will still pick up on the cosmology substrate behind the comments. Some will reflexively still be annoyed or offended BECAUSE IT IS *DIFFERENT* from the perspective of their biases.

Whoooop T Do!

Welcome to reality.

Pretending that SUPER-RATIONALISM is the ONLY reasonable cosmological substrate from which to perceive reality and from which to common on reality

is NOT ONLY TYRANNICAL !!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque-ism,

it is ignorant, unscientific, exclusionist, arrogant, cheeky, parochial, haughty, cheap and unproductive toward maximized learning, understanding and perceiving.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in