Today, I thought I'd scout out some comments on the web to see if I were alone in my observations + "getting it". Were there any others out there, bright enough, intellectual enough, who notice the elementary school emotional level antics of atheists... not much better than wee little thuggies in the school restroom, waiting for somebody to walk in to bully them.
 |
Just post on a forum, and watch the thuggies pour out in droves, sporting their "highly evolved intellectualism" ... keyboard warriors. These little toughies must be confronted one on one, not in groups, to successfully expose just how inferior their working knowledge of science really is. High and mighty toughies. Oh, they are atheists, therefore they boast to have their little badge of intellectual superiority, just like the scarecrow received his ThD of Thinkology... and yet, the scarecrow is by far more intelligent and scientific in his reasoning than most atheists I've acquainted!
I clicked through on a funny little thread, and ironically, it was an Atheist who (not an Agnostic, nor a Deist or Theist) stepped up to the plate to state things as they truly are, so let's read on :
UncleMejija, Mar 26, 2012: The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience.UncleMejija said: I'm an atheist who ignores religious people almost completely, and so I have the clear sight to see the anger and overreaction most atheists harbor toward religious folks. The militancy of atheists is what's most disturbing. Let religious people relicize in peace.dunre646 said: you mean the ones that ask questions and give science lessons?
You have got to love the way he used that word, "Omniscience" with Atheism!
Here is an excerpt from Atheist, serial killer, mass-murderer Ted Bundy.
TED BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,..."
Oh the gasps and awe of his enlightened "intellectualism"...
You can read the entire quote at this link.
He sounds oh so enlightened, does he not? Such ostentatious verbiage,
"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.
But what Atheists and even Theists are failing to understand, is that Atheism, as was Ted Bundy's Atheism, was based on PHILOSOPHY. It was not based on the EMPIRICAL MATERIAL REALM. Science deals with empirical facts. Atheism is merely worthless, baseless philosophy.
I was involved personally in such a discussion with one of these Atheists some months ago. The atheist, attempting to make their self sound to be intellectual, claimed that they did "not believe in anything". They literally argued, they had no beliefs.
What an interesting claim! I asked them, "So you believe in nothing? Does that include not believing the sun will rise tomorrow?"
They concluded, to their own chagrin, "No" they did not "believe the sun will rise tomorrow."
Another, former atheist who just happened to be reading confirmed the way the reply was written and how he perceived the comment, was absurd, ridiculous... one who claims they do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow, has taken their argument to extremes, and out of the realm of rational thinking... needless to add, out of the realm of empirical science.
Precisely and why?
Because Atheism is PHILOSOPHY. Atheism is not Science.
I have consumed about forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three corners of the world, seeking the philosopher's stone called truth. I have consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine, Plato and Malebranche, and I still remain in ignorance. In all the crucibles of philosophers,there are perhaps two or three ounces of gold, but all the rest is caput moyuum, insipid mire, from which nothing can he extracted.
-- VOLTAIRE.It cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what body of definite truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid,:have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences.
I am not concerned with philosophy as such, since it seems to me to lead to no agreed and substantial results.
-- BERTRAND RUSSELL, The Problems of Philosophy, p. 239
- JOSEPH McCABE, Life and Morals in Ancient Greece and Rome, p 36.I consulted hundreds of students of mine, asking for their frank opinion. I accosted my colleagues, -scientists and philosophers. I went about the town, gathering information. One truth has been found, as a result: that we, professional philosophers, neither study nor teach problems of real worth and significance to our contemporaries. The ideas, or concepts to be more precise, we are concerned with are largely dead or empty.
-- PROF. RALPH B. WINN, College of The City of New York.
Yet many Atheists continue on unabated in the delusion, that this philosophical pseudo-intellectual drivel, Atheism, is somehow a form of Science. Atheism as science is a farce, only equivalent to their counterparts, "creation scientists".
Further in the thread, another atheist comments. (I'm sure they believed they were providing a witty, thought-provoking comment, however, I found the information quite old-news, boring and lacking in substance:
planes crashed into buildings by religious militants: 2
planes crashed into buildings by atheist militants: 0"
To which, let me remind others of a few facts:
Number of women slaughtered by one Atheist butcher, Ted Bundy, 30+ something. (Bundy confessed to 30 murders but authorities believe the true number of victims totaled over 100.)
Number of women slaughtered by creepy, twisted chauvenist pigs who claim to believe in God, but don't really believe that strongly because they've never had a prayer answered, never feared "God" while they were on their killing spree, so they seldom or never pray anyway, never bother going to church but called "xtian" anyway by those who don't know any better... (for instance, bring in the fake preacher, Jim Jones, a sworn Atheist and card carrying member of the Communist Party). Or perhaps some of those con-artists who falsely claim to "get jesus" after conviction hoping that a facade of religiosity will lend them a little credibility and a "get out of jail free card"... 100's....
Number of mass graves dug by Atheist Militants throughout Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere in the former USSR to bury 10,000's in a fell swoop (Communists) : dozens.
Number of gas chambers constructed by Atheist Militants (Communists): dozens.
Massive Manmade Famines to liquidate millions and organized by Atheists: Dozens. (See the Ukrainian Holodomor and Atheist Josef Stalin).
Another person, farther on in the thread states:
"Both sides have their angry zealous militant segments. Personally I just try to avoid talking debating religion in real life"To which the Atheist with the working brain, states:
"To an extent I agree, they have a lot of noisemakers on their side as well. And so let's continue having both sides yelling at each other and making fun of each other, and I'm sure everything will turn out for the better."
Another concludes,
"...I hope you people aren't like this off the internet. Picking fights about religion and trying to undermine those around you, because if you are then LOL @ you. Life is too short to be worrying about who is right and who is wrong."
So, I wondered if I were the only person on the internet that sees the IRONY, of how atheists boast, brag, spewing hubris of their "great enlightened minds" yet, when it comes right down to it; delivering the goods, the best they can do is blather a few juvenile simpleton insults.
But again, back to topic:
BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,"
Ted Bundy's Atheist mind was filled with Philosophical ramblings. What did Voltaire and other great thinkers in history say of Philosophy?? They concluded Philosophy has benefited fields of science, the humanities and otherwise, nothing! They fill books with rambling thoughts, and explain a lot of nothing substantial.
This is quite similar to an dispute that spawned between myself and another Atheist who argued, using philosophy not that much unlike Bundy's that based on such "value judgments" there was "nothing wrong with speeding," Yes, I suppose if you lived in a gravity-free environment in space without a risk of crashing into space junk or rogue meteorites, speeding would be indifferent. But such a hypothetical situation is only possible in the realm of Philosophy, not true Science. If you live in a world without trees, potholes, speed limits, police equipped with radar and tickets, then hypothetically, speeding might be considered perfectly moral.
However, the SCIENTIFIC MIND, takes a survey of REALITY, his own surroundings, empirical reality... and calculates how much it can get away with, without having one's lifestyle cramped.
COMMON SENSE tells me, if I speed, I might get away with it, one time. I might get away with it two times. And I might even slip by, without getting busted three times. But I'm less likely to get away with it the fourth, fifth and sixth time. Science and Mathematical Probability tell me, that it is not a matter of "If" I will get caught, but a matter of "When". Applying the Scientific Method, my hypothesis stands like this: "If I choose to speed, I might get caught and ticketed for several hundred dollars... my insurance policy rates will possibly skyrocket... in the REAL WORLD... the final outcome, such as in the event of a crash and killing somebody, may be far, far worse." But Atheists do not reason from empirical science, their "value judgment" is based in the PHILOSOPHICAL REALM, just like RELIGION. It seems REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES never apply to their value judgments. Such as not believing the sun will rise tomorrow? Believing it is perfectly fine to mass-murder? Believing it is perfectly moral to speed; drinking and driving?
So, all their meaningless rambling... what does one say to all of it?
"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.
Never cease amazement with how the human mind can justify and rationalize the most absurd and illogical of beliefs. Atheists scoff at creationists, for their refusal to embrace empirical fossil evidence and how the creationists delude themselves into denying what they can see with their own eyes; fossil layers that speak to gradual evolutionary progressions over millions of years. Yet, Atheists themselves are hypocrites because in their "highly enlightened state of philosophy" they refuse to acknowledge scientific facts and natural laws that establishes the FACT that the sun shall rise tomorrow, indeed. Or, for another Atheist, their philosophy enables them to rationalize why it is perfectly moral to drink and speed. Bundy's atheism helped him "think freely" and rationalize in his own mind why it was perfectly moral to murder.
Most of us have enough sense to know, if we kill somebody we will be arrested, and we will go to jail, we just might be executed.
So, Mr. Theodore Bundy sought the answer to this burning question:
"...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited....I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human..."
Jan 24, 1989 - Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer, died today in the electric chair after a night of weeping and praying, just as the sun rose over the north... (L.A. Times)
Ah, the mysteries of the Universe! Perhaps Ted Bundy at long last "figured it out" for himself using his "highly intellectual mind" as he was having his psychotic self escorted to the electric chair. It is reported he was weeping and praying the night before his execution. And why? Because he did not want HIS RIGHTS, molested. Ted Bundy wanted people to respect HIS rights, his person, but he chose not to play the game by society's rules. Got to follow society's rules. Scientists follow rules. Science is filled with laws. That's simply how society works.
LAWS AND RULES. Constitutes but one further evidence against Atheism. The philosophy of Atheism is not founded on Science (empirical evidence, substantiated facts). Some atheists make a diligent attempt to sound pseudo-intellectual, yet much rambling does not constitute SCIENCE. Science seeks to define set and predetermined natural laws rather than outright defiance of such laws. Or, as the case with some Atheists, the outright disregard and trade off of law in lieu of one's personal philosophy, in an attempt insane attempt to redefine reality itself --in spite of law and social norms. Atheists do not seem to like laws. Atheist philosophies often tend to minimize the importance of law, minimize the inappropriateness when breaking laws or, simple rejection of law, empirical facts, etc, altogether.
LAW (from SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES)
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
WAS TED BUNDY A SCIENTIST? Perhaps any kind of "genius," by any stretch of the imagination?
All of Bundy's "Philosophical" nonsense was his downfall. He was in short supply of common sense and the same is true and quite typical of many Atheists.
Another example of illogical reasoning which Atheists have mocked and scoffed, was the mentally disturbed person who took a leap of faith into a lion den and presupposed God would protect him. He was protected by the Zoo's security only. How was this insanity in reasoning and judgment any worse than Atheist philosophy which suggests, it is moral to mass-murder (Ted Bundy), it is moral to drink and drive, it is perfectly "scientific" to deny all established empirical scientific facts, and shamefully profess, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow". How are these absurd, insane conclusions about the empirical world intellectually superior compared to the absurdities pointed out in any other religion?
In light of Bundy's atheist philosophical ramblings, it becomes so apparent... these atheist philosophies are no where based in SCIENCE; that is, using "Empirical Evidence" to prove a thing in reality. Real world facts and figures are discarded in lieu of whimsical fantasies and philosophical delusion.
As I said, I asked an Atheist who made the absurd claim they did not believe anything. I asked, "You don't believe in anything? Well then, do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?!"
They replied, "No".
The "Sun" and its patterns are EMPIRICAL. SCIENCE. Yes, the sun WILL INDEED (FACT) rise tomorrow. More than a simple hypothesis and greater than any "theory". It is established fact, demonstrable and repeatable. The sun SHALL rise tomorrow. This is not a matter of faith, yet the atheist was so desperate to philosophize why they "don't believe anything" they desperately deny scientifically established facts.
So, where are they deriving the notion that atheism is even remotely related to science?!
The process in which a conclusion is reached by an Atheist, is impossible to reconcile by all reasonable standards, with science, e.g., The Scientific Method. No scientific authority has proposed any reason for not believing, theorizing the sun will not rise tomorrow. Not one credible, peer reviewed document to substantiate their nonsense, not as much as a Farmer's Almanac, to support their absurd notion that "the sun will not rise tomorrow." But that's Atheism!
Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Science says "YES".
Yet, an Atheist would say, "I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow."
On that note, Atheism is unrelated to science.
And the Atheist who claims it is merely "subjective values" which dictate his choice to drink and drive, has a true problem to reconcile atheism as a "rational thinker" with his casual disregard of science and empirical facts. We know there are certain laws of physics, that dictate the faster you drive, chances dramatically increase of getting killed, killing somebody else, or at least, getting blue-lighted and ticketed.
Empirical science.
Much, much more than a mere hypothesis. It is against the laws of civilized society.
But science, the material realm, empirical facts, such as stop signs, speed limits, road laws, radar guns, are tossed out the window with increased "Atheist enlightenment." Not through Science, but through whimsical philosophical fantasies.
And Ted Bundy. Complete and casual disregard for the EMPIRICAL realm. His Atheism helped him to "evolve to such a degree in his enlightened thinking" that he no longer understood what was wrong with murder? He could not grasp the simplest concepts that even elementary school children seem to understand? That if you commit crimes that are empirically written into empirical statutes on empirical law books and those who choose to break those empirical laws will get themselves brought before an empirical judge and jury and get handed an empirical verdict and sentencing. Death penalties are an empirical fact. If he didn't understand why it was wrong to trample on the rights of others? Then why was he so upset when they escorted him to the electric chair? According to Bundy's philosophy, it's pleasurable to kill others. So he should have been having a party the day he was executed. But instead he was weeping. His Atheist logic didn't hold up to the empirical.
ATHEISM REQUIRES A TOTAL DISCARD OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and basing "value judgments" on whimsical philosophy. Discard of empirical laws. Discard of the material realm, and dwelling in a state of delusions and wishful thinking.
How is this any different from any other religion?
If Atheism were rooted in "Science" then WHY do Atheists feel such need to cast off all empirical, established facts, and replacing with philosophical wishful thinking so they might unleash their inhibitions? Such stupid decisions ultimately get made, and therefore find themselves arrested by police, ticketed, locked in prison or worse and that's all the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I need, their belief system does not work for logical, rational, reason-minded people who prefer to make their lifestyle choices based on sound judgment.
Atheism is PHILOSOPHY, detached from all things empirical.
Therefore it is not science.
An Agnostic Responds: Atheism is a philosophy if they think they can prove what the ultimate explanation is for the cosmos, life, everything, but other kinds of atheists simply admit they don't think there's adequate proof of the Christian deity, the Biblical God, biblical inspiration, etc.
Atheism can also be a relative term, it can also mean simply that you don't believe in the god I do.
Like when Christians were called atheists for not worshipping the emperor or offering him incense.
Or when Christians called Thomas Paine an atheist, though he was a deist.
I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.
Genesis/Science: Atheism is merely a non-belief in existence of God.
WHO... what imbecile, made the extrapolation that it (atheism) is remotely representative of "Science"?
I have noted, Atheists tend to veer far off course from what is "empirical science" and into areas Science doesn't even permit debate, therefore such suppositions about the unknown are reduced to useless, worthless philosophical ramblings and nonsensical blathering.
Even the official definition of Agnostic, "...believes that nothing is known or can be known....or of anything beyond material phenomena..."
I sincerely APPRECIATE the writings that YOU DO, that are legitimately critical on issues of matter of fact about the Bible, such as Biblical error, Biblical fallacy, etc. Those topics are legitimately fair game for debate. You seem to have an innate ability to discern between 1) addressing the issue, and 2) attacking the person.
Yet far too often, Atheists are caught in discussions, outside the realm of simple "non-belief in God," and outright scathing, seething hatred of those who do not bear their philosophical views. Views which are far, far outside of the realm of science and all legitimate beliefs. Going so far as to behave as bad, or worse than any theist, as they pretend to possess an almost "psychic insight" with their great, "omniscient grasp of the cosmos" and "mystically enlightened on matters of the unknown," all of which is outside of the material realm and yet they boldly proclaim to possess "ultimate patent and packaged truth" on the spirit realm.
How odd. Only "religious" people... zealots... fanatics... do that. I have read the writings of numerous scientists, and not one of them ever claimed to have made a single discovery, for good or bad, pro or con, positive or negative on the matter of God's existence.
Do Atheists possess some insight knowledge, superior to that available to Science? I am highly skeptical when Atheists claim they have some "enlightened insight" about God, which, scientists have not been privy to. Frankly, they have merely proven to me just how ignorant they truly are.
The "conclusions" of Atheists t'was not derived by any scientific means, I can assure you of that! Yet, they call their pseudo-babbling rants, "Science" because they are simply just that ignorant and fail to even understand what science actually is.
ag·nos·tic
noun
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
Which is far better still than the idiot atheist, who made the public claim they "believed nothing," necessitating an outright denial of the sun's established patterns of sunrise and sunset. In contrast to those atheists who proclaim "sunrise is merely subjective," the Farmer's Almanac has sunrise and sunset, down to a science with the precise hour and minute the sun will rise and set. This science has been established, as matter of fact, dating back to the time of the Egyptians, perhaps even earlier. So, on what empirical foundation would an atheist claim, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow." Not one credible scientific authority has made such an extraordinary, absurd claim in any scientific publication or journal. No scientist has claimed that they expect the sun or earth to shift course due to a rogue meteorite or any other cosmic force. Absurd claims are made by Atheists, without as much as a single scrap of empirical evidence to found them! Yet, how quickly they ridicule a pseudo-babbler who claims "the earth is flat". Please enlighten me just how a belief in a flat Earth is any more absurd than an Atheist who boldly proclaims "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow"?
Both claims are non-scientific and equally absurd drivel.
An Agnostic Responds: I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.
Genesis/Science: I wish to further elaborate on what you have stated above, because I know how Atheist trolls behave, and evidently, based on their behavior, also, think. In their wee, tiny minds, they read "...I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate..."
Picture Atheist, opening Bible, flips through pages with no reading comprehension involved. At best, he has memories of sunday school, 15 years ago... a couple verses he remembers, here or there, perhaps learned from a bumper sticker, however, beyond that, no real working knowledge of the Bible. Unlike a minority of Atheists such as Robert M. Price (a PhD in the New Testament).
Picture Atheist, closing Bible and tossing it.
Picture Atheist, booting computer and logging into troll youtube or another forum.
Picture Atheist, stalking theists and reading post by theist.
Picture Atheist, seeking anything in the theist's posts, that will provide half an excuse to personally attack theist and cyber-bully with a barrage of venom-filled menacing, mean-spirited bigotry.
Picture Atheist, posting lies about how "he has read the Bible," and "proven all things."
Picture Atheist arrogantly boasting his self-declared intellectual omniscience to all the world! Self declared in his religiousity, his "all knowing"-ness.
Picture Atheist cyber-bullying; ridiculing, harassing and berating others who do not share his narrow world view.
Picture Atheist chuckling in his delusion of superiority.
Picture Atheist typing insults, playing the part of a delusional keyboard warrior, how his atheism is only possible because of his great omniscient intellect. Although his true achievements in life have consisted of MAYBE completing a GED, delivering pizzas, playing Wii or XBox... and joining fellow thuggies who cyber-bully theists.
That is not science.
Anyone can criticize a book. It does not take science, to attack theists and ridicule a book. Even children in primary school don't always, 100%, like the "Curious George" Monkey Series. Not all children always like watching Sesame Street publications. Not all children want to watch Barney. Barney books will have a fair share of critics among preteens. This hardly qualifies one to say, "All critics of Barney are scientists!"
Farrell Till I suppose would have had the knowledge to approach the Bible in a truly "scientific manner" for critical analyses. Till, (B.A. English and M.A. English), who would've applied scientific principals. However, so have Norman Geisler and other experts trained in Theology. They also seem to arrive at different (subjective) conclusions. Farrell Till was educated in the English language, and made extensive studies of scripture... however, in the brief interactions I had with Till, I don't recall even him, ever making such an absurd proposition to boast providing anyone or myself with as much as one scrap of "empirical evidence" for the non-existence of God. He did tend to tear into scriptures, but that's not disproving "God's existence" through science.
Atheism is a personal and philosophical non-belief in God's existence. Since an individual can not use any established scientific method to determine the existence or non-existence of God, this confirms "Atheism" is not Science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, using scientific methods or science itself. Therefore, Atheism, as a belief, is not founded in Science.
An Agnostic Responds: I agree, "bullying" is the opposite of being calm, rational, or scientifically minded.
Neither are bullies worth your time.
Science/Genesis: How true.
An Agnostic Responds: As for the "God" question, it gets tricky because there's a wide spectrum of different definitions that could apply to an "infinite Being," or "ultimate Being-ness," whatever the heck "God" is.
I would say that Christians, Hindus, atheists, anyone, can practice science. That's the beauty of it.
As for differences in religious or philosophical beliefs, it looks like those differences will remain, just as have remained since the days of the earliest religions and philosophies.
Genesis/Science: By the same token, when Atheists claim they don't believe in God one must wonder, "Which God?" What kind of God are they denying exists?
I'm sure its not the same one I believe exists.
Einstein's definition of "God" and Gandhi's God and the Pope's gods and mine, are all different.
Right?
Dark matter and dark energy are empirical ... well at least, theoretically.
"...At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God..."
Pantheism
Since dark energy and dark matter are empirical, I believe it is the "material" or matter stuff, "God" is made of.
When Atheists deny the existence of MY God they must deny the existence of matter and substance in the empirical realm, because dark matter and dark energy are part of the "God" I believe exists.
My God exists.
