Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[rational experiences]

You would be spiritually safe if *I* never existed?

Wow. Judgmental much?

BTW, I'm a widow (female) with five kids, three daughters and two sons.

I honestly do not see where, at the moment, men are any more likely to be 'non-spiritual' than women are.

But then I could easily be reading you wrong. I seem to have a problem understanding your rhetoric.

The science history, artificial choice, artificial theory, artificial for just a machine activation, does not in any human reality own any of the natural bodies that his mind psyche first perused and told stories about to impose how to force change it.

Science itself never owned any LAWS.....the idea was how to apply force to incur change....which is not a LAW it is a male reasoning.

Why science taught that creation owned LAWS...or else creation would not even exist.

Science as a male group ideal said that they were of one mind and one self, yet they were multi males in a group history as original CULT ideal.

To form a group belief and enforce group action by a machine against natural history and natural Nature who could not define itself in a mind to say you own no rights to change natural. The exact same male mentality that is owned today and historically that destroys life on Earth just because they believe in how they think, their choices, their feelings, their motivation......which is why we hated you.

For you are not historically with the human family as a scientist consciously, yet you own a life body that allows you to destroy us. Makes no common sense in a human shared living experience.

 

[dianaiad]

The science history, artificial choice, artificial theory, artificial for just a machine activation, does not in any human reality own any of the natural bodies that his mind psyche first perused and told stories about to impose how to force change it.

Science itself never owned any LAWS.....the idea was how to apply force to incur change....which is not a LAW it is a male reasoning.

Why science taught that creation owned LAWS...or else creation would not even exist.

Science as a male group ideal said that they were of one mind and one self, yet they were multi males in a group history as original CULT ideal.

To form a group belief and enforce group action by a machine against natural history and natural Nature who could not define itself in a mind to say you own no rights to change natural. The exact same male mentality that is owned today and historically that destroys life on Earth just because they believe in how they think, their choices, their feelings, their motivation......which is why we hated you.

For you are not historically with the human family as a scientist consciously, yet you own a life body that allows you to destroy us. Makes no common sense in a human shared living experience.

I feel like this is hopeless, but...who is 'us,' and why am I not one of 'us?" Why am I one of the 'you' that the "us" would be more spiritually safe without?

 

[rational experiences]

I feel like this is hopeless, but...who is 'us,' and why am I not one of 'us?" Why am I one of the 'you' that the "us" would be more spiritually safe without?

Consciousness involves memory...and themes and historic stories, that are owned just as memory, themes and historic stories.

Without it being relative today....but is the motivating reasoning for being wrong.

Science history says, I looked at VISION...which is not physical.

Science today tried to convince everyone that science is not physical.

And wrote papers to try to coerce everyone and form is not physical because science defines everything.

so then you challenge the male and ask, so do you own the natural forces and laws historically?

No, not at all...talking about them does not give ownership.

Yet life on Earth talked about by that male who then gave self ownership and control...ie...Nature owns all food for humanity. Males then took over growing food and said, now I own it all...and you must pay me for it...that type of mentality.

Consciousness therefore says to science, you do not belong to us.....by physically being reality, you do.

So science by LAW looked at science not physically but by vision....and in that physical past, which was not occurring where he stood, in reality was a flooded Earth to tip mountain top, UFO mass metallic, stone irradiation/dematerialization, disintegration was UFO ark of wood...combustion/carbon attack Ark.

His answer was to cause the carbon/wooden Ark...yet it came by mass UFO metal...if you used intellect correctly.

So how was his science answer = and correct as science beginnings, why that theme was a part to the conscious bio natural life Teaching and only those minds and wisdom were allowed to read it....and not some irradiated Satanic destroyer male psyche?

Ever use reasoning and fact of self evidence and history?

The males first science answer was not RELATIVE.

So he did not get returned to that instance owning all causes....why so many humans wondered at the illogical studies about the flood in science theme.

Male teaching relativity said, relative means what you are related to historically....so then taught, and we are not God so we do not own the Laws of fusion and they are not relative to us.

Our relatives he taught...….Mother and Father who live with brother and sister, who have children who become cousins, who then infer to aunty and uncle, who infer to Grandfather and Grandmother.

Rationally our conscious self says......Father and Mother less spiritual than us....for the baby gets born in an evolving Earth atmospheric history...becomes a higher spiritual life....as use of natural aware stories.

Father and Mother dies....baby child to adult feels abandoned...and left on a Planet travelling through space....why we tell ourselves fake stories.

Baby aware human adult conscious ideal...I was holier than my 2 human parents, via atmospheric evolution interactive cause.

 

[Heyo]

That's like saying everyone is A Christian when they are born.

I was just mirroring the claim of the OP to show how ridiculous it is.

 

[ChristineM]

OK It's my fault you couldn't provide evidence of what you claimed

What evidence do you want, a copy of the police report, pictures of the kids with a bus careering down on them, the priest denying knowledge when asked by the police.

You want to call me a liar then go ahead, but dont use ad hom and mockery its childish and pathetic.

 

[Darkforbid]

What evidence do you want, a copy of the police report, pictures of the kids with a bus careering down on them, the priest denying knowledge when asked by the police.

You want to call me a liar then go ahead, but dont use ad hom and mockery its childish and pathetic.

Thanks, a bus? How do you know the pastor saw everything?

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks, a bus? How do you know the pastor saw everything?

Yes you know a bus, those big double deck vehicles for transporting passengers... A bus

Priest, he stood in his church doorway not 30 feet away. One of my abiding memories as i went down was seeing him watching the attack thinking, thank goodness, someone can help... How wrong i was

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, you've certainly demonstrated again (and witness the many other posts from skeptic friends here) that you harbor animosity to God's people, which implies animosity toward our God.

Why wouldn't I have animosity towards people who worship and follow a doctrine that states that I, as a non-believer, deserve eternal punishment?

It's quite insulting and disturbing when you think about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very hard to have a decent, and smart discussion, if after an argument, we get : maybe you are in a matrix and all those B.S.

Such BS is brought up as analogy to your own claims, since they have the same merrit and the same type of underpinning argumentation / reasoning.

If you recognise such as BS, how come you don't recognise your own BS when it's pretty much the same logic in a different jacket?

But all those stupid arguments may not prevent a person from his/her moral obligation
Imagine in a trial: You robbed a bank and you are guilty. No judge, my brain was controlled by a computer.

Sounds like you don't understand the concept of analogy.

 

[Darkforbid]

Yes you know a bus, those big double deck vehicles for transporting passengers... A bus

Priest, he stood in his church doorway not 30 feet away. One of my abiding memories as i went down was seeing him watching the attack thinking, thank goodness, someone can help... How wrong i was

So as you went down, your focus wasn't on the bus bearing down on your kids or the attackers. It was on someone 30 feet away standing in a doorway. Like people focus on distance objects while falling, or that people focus into the distance while being attacked

 

[Heyo]

Why wouldn't I have animosity towards people who worship and follow a doctrine that states that I, as a non-believer, deserve eternal punishment?

It's quite insulting and disturbing when you think about it.

It's like them threatening to get their big brother. It would be disturbing if they had one and he'd come. But as I know that their big brother is only imagined it's pathetic at max.

 

[ChristineM]

So as you went down, your focus wasn't on the bus bearing down on your kids or the attackers. It was on someone 30 feet away standing in a doorway. Like people focus on distance objects while falling, or that people focus into the distance while being attacked

So you mind not telling me what happend, you were not there, you have no idea so stop guessing just to massage your own ego

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, you've certainly demonstrated again (and witness the many other posts from skeptic friends here) that you harbor animosity to God's people, which implies animosity toward our God.

The animosity is directed at you personally, and not for being one of "God's people," but for being hateful to atheists. They don't like you either, but not for being a theist. For being hateful to atheists.

You fired the first shot with your passive-aggressive comment, "atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature." Who's assaulting whom here?

Now you're complaining when people show you the same contempt that you've shown them, like an armed robber running to the police complaining about would-be victim returning fire, but you do it hiding behind your god. You're here to offend atheists, then claim that their negative reaction to you is unprovoked and undeserved

And apparently it is impossible for you to understand the very simple concept that atheists don't believe in gods, including "God."

Here's your assignment: Try to conceive of that. Try real hard. Think hard - "Atheists don't believe in gods, so I probably should stop posting as if I can't grasp that simple concept."

Very hard to have a decent, and smart discussion, if after an argument, we get : maybe you are in a matrix and all those B.S.

Very hard to have an intelligent philosophical discussion with somebody unaware of the subject. This idea of philosophical doubt - doubt understood but not felt - is philosophy 101, Descartes.

But all those stupid arguments may not prevent a person from his/her moral obligation

You probably want to stop using the word stupid to describe arguments you can't understand. It's unbecoming and points back to you.

Did you study any philosophy in rabbinical school, or was it all theology?

 

[Heyo]

Did you study any philosophy in rabbinical school, or was it all theology?

Would it be more insulting to believe @Rabbi Daniel is really a rabbi or to not believe Rabbi Daniel is a rabbi because I have high regards of the education of rabbis?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course i do, they tried to kill my children.

They drove me from the church i loved.

Did their god belief try to kill my children? Did their god belief mock my disability? Sure the bible has him as a genocidal maniac who condones rape, slavery and theft but in real life was it their god belief Or was it Christians?

But feel free to twist the implication it in whatever way massages your ego, you usually do

Huh? God's people tried to kill your children? Whether you or your children have a disability, Christians are pro life. What are you speaking about?

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

I have a Rabbi's diploma and a college degree, and more. But I do admit that i didn't learn much philosophy, except in high school. I was more attracted by natural sciences.
But what difference does it make, anyway?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a Rabbi's diploma and a college degree, and more. But I do admit that i didn't learn much philosophy, except in high school. I was more attracted by natural sciences.
But what difference does it make, anyway?

One's education seldom has any bearing on the issue.
But it could shed light on how someone could doubt or
even deny the existence of atheists or atheism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why wouldn't I have animosity towards people who worship and follow a doctrine that states that I, as a non-believer, deserve eternal punishment?

It's quite insulting and disturbing when you think about it.

Because it is childish to hate people who adhere to a text. Mature Christians, for example, love even fundie Muslims who seek our deaths in jihad!

Because it is silly to not see the problem on its face, we don't just think YOU deserve Hell, we think WE deserve it too, and plead grace and the blood of the Savior for you.

Because it is childish to "have animosity" to people who offer you free gifts.

Because it is childish to hate people because of what they believe, just like its childish to hate people for their skin color or orientation!

 

[BilliardsBall]

The animosity is directed at you personally, and not for being one of "God's people," but for being hateful to atheists. They don't like you either, but not for being a theist. For being hateful to atheists.

You fired the first shot with your passive-aggressive comment, "atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature." Who's assaulting whom here?

Now you're complaining when people show you the same contempt that you've shown them, like an armed robber running to the police complaining about would-be victim returning fire, but you do it hiding behind your god. You're here to offend atheists, then claim that their negative reaction to you is unprovoked and undeserved

And apparently it is impossible for you to understand the very simple concept that atheists don't believe in gods, including "God."

Here's your assignment: Try to conceive of that. Try real hard. Think hard - "Atheists don't believe in gods, so I probably should stop posting as if I can't grasp that simple concept."



Very hard to have an intelligent philosophical discussion with somebody unaware of the subject. This idea of philosophical doubt - doubt understood but not felt - is philosophy 101, Descartes.



You probably want to stop using the word stupid to describe arguments you can't understand. It's unbecoming and points back to you.

Did you study any philosophy in rabbinical school, or was it all theology?

I think you should not conflate "passive-aggressive" with "hateful".

I think you should stop reading my mind to see whether or not I'm passive-aggressive, for example, I LOVE you despite your recent tirade directed at me, specifically, as you wrote!

And if I was reading your mind, I'd think you somewhere between passive-aggressive and hateful for spending time on a religious forum, when clearly all your posts are combative. I'd think you'd listen more and complain less, and if you were a person of peace, and feel I bring hate, you'd put me on ignore, rather than pour gas on every fire opportunity.

 

[Darkforbid]

So you mind not telling me what happend, you were not there, you have no idea so stop guessing just to massage your own ego

Like I said, just working with the fragments of information you've posted.

So how do we get from a alleged incident opposite a church to:

'Of course i do, they tried to kill my children.

They drove me from the church i loved.

Did their god belief try to kill my children? Did their god belief mock my disability? Sure the bible has him as a genocidal maniac who condones rape, slavery and theft but in real life was it their god belief Or was it Christians?'