An Easy Jesus for Practical Atheists

[Jagella]

Having something to sell can make one seem more relevant than one might otherwise seem.

You create the disease, and then you sell the cure.

 

[rational experiences]

If men sold books to get money then those men knew the rich man no longer supported my healing venue.

The branch science the fallen branch of the tree of life reinstated itself. Rich men stay rich by trade. Not by families love and care.

Had to own conditions to keep their institution versus science a branch also. By their own means. As the rich men ignored the history life attacked.

Rich men had built agreed on rock remaining fused built church as a healing venue. Were the hypocrites actually.

Meditative prayer songs sound music chants oiling bathing in resonating holy water. Incense smoke breathed like myrrh frankincense.

The gold they wore smeared on their bodies was when they were doing radiating dust converting. The gifts against radiating sickness they caused.

Such as aloe was used to heal.

To heal the body gas burnings of evil spirit. Spirit in science was a gas was never metal radiation the machine.

That theists mind was one worse thinker is always and was historic compared to natural mind theists.

History was always recorded. Jesus was the theists one man returned advice. Yet all life was sacrificed.

Only men interpreting the readings got it wrong. The teacher just like Baha'i proved giving new warnings gets murdered.

As science never wanted to stop being practiced AI status of P the head Peter...repetere repeats man advised. About P AI N. The points of it all.

To point. The cloud angel status nearly touches man's life. Comes close enough for man to be advised that man is wrong.

A human is one whole total biological being. Was gas irradiated.

The story about man.the theist who asked his spiritual father's owned man memories why his brother was so wrong.

As a man he was in fact just a human and a teacher. And more than likely murdered as he taught the truth against satanic occult nuclear AI UFO science.

Stable heavens is lifes biological conception he taught.

 

[blü 2]

You create the disease, and then you sell the cure.

Yep, Snake Oil 101.

 

[rational experiences]

Yep, Snake Oil 101.

About to feed my horses.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

LOL You misunderstand what I said. I meant that Christians disregard what Jesus reputedly said. As far as I can tell many atheists don't even know what Jesus said so obviously they cannot be fairly accused of disregarding what Jesus said.

Anyway, I apologize for the confusion.



I agree with much of what you're saying here about atheists, and if what you're saying is true about atheists, then the Gospel would have little effect on how atheists live--just like I said. So why are you arguing with me?

You said the theists were "like atheists" in your OP, or that they were more like atheists for the tepidity of their beliefs. This simply isn't correct. They aren't like atheists at all, because, as I stated, they would most definitely answer "yes" when asked if they believe in God. Basically - there is absolutely no reason to label a theist as "more like an atheist." It simply can't be true. The two terms have opposing meanings. One believes, the other does not. So if one is a "theist" then they cannot be anything like an "atheist" as regards belief in God/gods. It's an automatic exclusion. You can be only one or the other.

I just don't want to see the terms muddied or sullied due to sloppy usage is all. It happens all the time from the theistic side - where they try and label atheists as "theistic" or "religious." Constantly see that crap... and I would never even dream of making ambiguous the term "atheist" by doing the same thing in the other direction - that is, call a theist by the term "atheist." It also just seems like a cheap move to try and raise theists' hackles - get under their skin. Most assuredly this is why the theist does it. They call an atheist "religious", or claim that they just "worship different gods" specifically to try and unnerve them. It's nasty business. Cheap shots. Unnecessary, and not in comport with reality if one actually stops to think it over without relying instead on their emotional response to guide them.

 

[rational experiences]

The theme I want where I know I came from myself. As had God O bodies.

The eternal.

No space existed then. No created creation. A being existing in its own presence by status three conditions.

The eternal surrounds. The eternal beings. The spirit of their language as different being. No humans.

Who they investigated as language.

O was held so ooooo amassed. How the gods were formed inside owning spiritual being language. Surrounding their God language bodies that spirit was held.

O a God owns spirit being proven. Mass first O.

The thinning eternal burst. O gods held surround in the eternal. Gods were born. Some burst.

So it owned O why gods actively burning had separated space burning particles.. as it had background support first.

As each particle by type stopped in its o.mini space separately held.

To do a reaction science takes it back through its cooled space. Heats it meets particles in the greater space that assists cooling reaction.

As energy gets burnt out leaving holes. Evidence earths sin holes.

What he always knew himself.

As God earths hot heavens gas was first in earths infinite space thin plane only. It filled densely back in.

Cooled.

Clear.

No light. Water was present on earth it had crystal facure.

No life.

Big bang. Heavens dense gas body changed.

New eternal being on the other side of a gas which isn't space as heat is between a gas history and empty space. We came from the eternal.

Reason hit blasting burning vibrated earths heavens onto the eternal. Pushed against it.

Not a dimension.

Not another universe.

From out of the eternal.

Our brother the theist scientist wanted to go back where he came from.

So he studies all types of gases in space to burn it all out.

Heavens totally not included by thesis.

As in thesis a gas is a gas as a gas.

Claiming travel by dimension of gases particles came together O to be just earth. The God. His first man's science memory about what he named first as God in science.

A real human story. The evil theist.

 

[Jagella]

You said the theists were "like atheists" in your OP, or that they were more like atheists for the tepidity of their beliefs. This simply isn't correct. They aren't like atheists at all, because, as I stated, they would most definitely answer "yes" when asked if they believe in God.

Yes, that's one difference between atheists and Christians.

Basically - there is absolutely no reason to label a theist as "more like an atheist." It simply can't be true. The two terms have opposing meanings.

Labels tend to be very arbitrary and can fail to accurately describe a person or distinguish between persons. So while the labels "atheist" and "theist" are in principle mutually exclusive terms, they do not necessarily accurately reflect what a person practices or even believes.

One believes, the other does not. So if one is a "theist" then they cannot be anything like an "atheist" as regards belief in God/gods. It's an automatic exclusion. You can be only one or the other.

While what you're saying here is problematical, it's beside the point. This is a discussion about behavior rather than professed belief. A "practical" atheist is a person who believes in a God yet who lives much like an atheist might. I'm focusing on lifestyle rather than belief.

I just don't want to see the terms muddied or sullied due to sloppy usage is all. It happens all the time from the theistic side - where they try and label atheists as "theistic" or "religious."

Atheists can act in ways that resemble religion, and they can have gods of sorts. So to describe atheists as acting religiously or having idols has some truth to it.

Constantly see that crap... and I would never even dream of making ambiguous the term "atheist" by doing the same thing in the other direction - that is, call a theist by the term "atheist." It also just seems like a cheap move to try and raise theists' hackles - get under their skin.

I think it's best to approach these issues with a cool head. I'd advise you to be openminded about what people have to say including the terms they use. There is a lot of ambiguity to terms like "atheist," and therefore I'd recommend you try to find what is meant by the word by rather than get bogged down in adversarial semantics.

Most assuredly this is why the theist does it. They call an atheist "religious", or claim that they just "worship different gods" specifically to try and unnerve them. It's nasty business. Cheap shots. Unnecessary, and not in comport with reality if one actually stops to think it over without relying instead on their emotional response to guide them.

I don't see it that way. Christians and other religious people can be so immersed in their beliefs that they literally cannot imagine a person holding different beliefs. I think that's why Christians tend to see atheists as closet theists.

In summary, I see your way of thinking as a kind of "terminology fundamentalism" which ironically resembles religious fundamentalism where ambiguity and opposing points of view are not tolerated and may even be angrily opposed. If you wish to make the case that atheists cannot act or think like religious people do, then the last thing you should do is express your viewpoints like they do!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, that's one difference between atheists and Christians.

Yes, and that was my point... not yours.

Basically, it boils down to this - what you're hinting at with this OP must necessarily be that atheists' activities very much swerve into the realm of going against God's edicts. That's literally the only description of it that makes any sense to say that theists behavior belies some sort of "practical atheism." Because, for sure, you're talking about religious people working or behaving against their own principles (or God's principles, as the case may be) - which indeed assumes that atheists are behaving against those principles by default.

Now... some of "God's principles" are foolish, arbitrary things like "You shall worship no God but me" - and so, fine, atheists go against this principle by not even worshiping in the first place. But is THAT the kind of Godly edict that the theist is cutting against the grain on, in your estimation, that makes these theists "more like atheists"? That is, the innocuous, arbitrary demands of God that have nothing to do with human morality?

What I am getting at is that you are very likely calling into question the moral behavior of atheists by calling theists "more like atheists" when theists go against their own (or God's) principles - because the principles you're most likely to be pointing at with an accusation like that are going to be the morally applicable ones. When, in reality, the specific "Godly" obligations an atheist is most likely to be breaking from have nothing to do with morality, and our secular societies all cover off on the big-hitting moral issues (that religious adherents so often like to believe that religion is the sole arbiter of) and atheists aren't to be found complaining about that!

If, however, you are saying that so many theists you encounter are breaking from the God-based edicts (and not the moral edicts) and are therefore living "as if God didn't exist" - and aren't believing in Him, and aren't praying to Him for lack of concrete belief, and aren't doing something like tithing, etc. etc. then that is fine - carry on - I don't care what they do or don't do that they think some being outside our experienceable reality is telling them to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But, again, I highly doubt that you are referring only to God-belief related ideas when you talk about them breaking from the principles they ought to hold. You're saying they dip into immorality - and that that belies a sense that "God doesn't exist" - otherwise they wouldn't be doing those things. Which implicitly convicts atheists of those same moral transgressions when you call theists "practical atheists" for this behavior.

This is a discussion about behavior rather than professed belief. A "practical" atheist is a person who believes in a God yet who lives much like an atheist might. I'm focusing on lifestyle rather than belief.

Please then... list for me the "sins" which you believe an atheist is bound to be committing, that the theists you are labeling as "practical atheists" partake in that make you so keen on calling theists out as such. Enlighten me.

Atheists can act in ways that resemble religion, and they can have gods of sorts. So to describe atheists as acting religiously or having idols has some truth to it.

This is as ridiculous as it ever was. Can atheists be seen in ritual observance of something or other, or get passionate about some item related to their atheism? Sure... but no definition of "religion" that I have seen doesn't involve some shared social component. A specific set of beliefs and the persons holding those beliefs. Atheists don't HAVE TO believe anything in particular. Not one single thing under the sun must an atheist believe in order to be considered an atheist. I am sure you understand exactly what I am saying, for you write fairly well, and seem pretty intelligent. Now... again, I know you advocate for playing fast and loose with definitions... but I simply must conclude that this is only to be able to use words you know will get under the skin of others when you bend the ideas to fit them into that mold. I don't see any other reason for it. Either you're trying with this OP to get under theists skin by calling them "like atheists" or you're trying to get under atheists' skin by implying that theists act like them. The two groups are, BY BOTH DEFINITION AND LOGIC, mutually exclusive. Religious and atheistic may not be... but you are (and have been) speaking specifically about believers. BELIEVERS. Get it straight in your mind before trying to wriggle out from this.

I think it's best to approach these issues with a cool head.

Yes, and not try to conflate two mutually exclusive groups for the sake of raising the ire of one or the other. Again... logically (not just definitionally) the move is completely unsound - and so what else could you possibly be trying to do?

I'd advise you to be openminded about what people have to say including the terms they use. There is a lot of ambiguity to terms like "atheist," and therefore I'd recommend you try to find what is meant by the word by rather than get bogged down in adversarial semantics.

And yet there is absolutely no ambiguity to the idea that "theist" (and by that I am referring to the idea of a "believer" NOT simply "religious" - which you cannot claim you were after, since your point specifically relies on "belief") sits directly opposite "atheist" with no crossover of meaning. one believes, one does not. That is all one can default know when one uses either label - unless you presume to know that atheists are, again, breaking morally applicable principles as a standard of their behavior. And if that is the case, then please describe to me both how you know this, the evidence you have as pertains to that idea, and which moral principles some majority of atheists are falling down on - enough to state, with statistical certainty that one would be hard-pressed to deny, that it is specifically an "atheistic phenomenon."

I don't see it that way. Christians and other religious people can be so immersed in their beliefs that they literally cannot imagine a person holding different beliefs. I think that's why Christians tend to see atheists as closet theists.

Again... please offer me your ideas of what you thought you were accomplishing then in calling theists "practical atheists?" Why not just state that they don't seem to believe in or venerate their God enough that they feel all of his edicts are worth following? You specifically invoked the terms for the punch it gives your statements. And that punch is (I am quite sure you were hoping for) an emotionally-charged one. You're hoping it smacks people across the face, otherwise you would just speak in the terms of your actual point and not invoke two LOGICALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE labels (have I stressed this point enough?) and purposefully try to conflate them.

In summary, I see your way of thinking as a kind of "terminology fundamentalism" which ironically resembles religious fundamentalism where ambiguity and opposing points of view are not tolerated and may even be angrily opposed. If you wish to make the case that atheists cannot act or think like religious people do, then the last thing you should do is express your viewpoints like they do!

I don't make the case that atheists cannot act or think as "religious people" do. But I do make the case that atheists cannot act as BELIEVERS (theists) do when their belief is specifically called into the equation. And conversely, believers cannot act "as atheists" as relates their nonbelief specifically - unless by that you mean exactly what I already pointed out above at length, and you are accusing atheists of acts that violate morally unrelated items (items NOT exclusively called into question because "God") on God's "to do list" for believers - which at that point, if that latter bit is what you were proposing, who gives a crap? I mean... besides the theist, who thinks whatever their God says is the best thing for everyone.

 

[Jagella]

Basically, it boils down to this - what you're hinting at with this OP must necessarily be that atheists' activities very much swerve into the realm of going against God's edicts. That's literally the only description of it that makes any sense to say that theists behavior belies some sort of "practical atheism." Because, for sure, you're talking about religious people working or behaving against their own principles (or God's principles, as the case may be) - which indeed assumes that atheists are behaving against those principles by default.

Atheists do act against religious edicts all the time. I know I do.

Now... some of "God's principles" are foolish, arbitrary things like "You shall worship no God but me" - and so, fine, atheists go against this principle by not even worshiping in the first place. But is THAT the kind of Godly edict that the theist is cutting against the grain on, in your estimation, that makes these theists "more like atheists"? That is, the innocuous, arbitrary demands of God that have nothing to do with human morality?

But religious "edicts" do make up a major part of human morality. You appear to be implying that you know what is truly moral and what isn't. If so, then you are acting like a theist who believes that what God has revealed to him is the "true" morality. Again, although you protest my noting the similarities between atheists and theists, in that very act you prove me right by acting like a theist!

I highly doubt that you are referring only to God-belief related ideas when you talk about them breaking from the principles they ought to hold. You're saying they dip into immorality - and that that belies a sense that "God doesn't exist" - otherwise they wouldn't be doing those things. Which implicitly convicts atheists of those same moral transgressions when you call theists "practical atheists" for this behavior.

What you're saying here borders on paranoia. You're interrogating me to sniff out my motives to see if I truly believe that atheists can be immoral not fearing a God of judgment. I am guilty as charged! I know atheists act out of lack of fearing a God. I freely admit that I do.

Please then... list for me the "sins" which you believe an atheist is bound to be committing, that the theists you are labeling as "practical atheists" partake in that make you so keen on calling theists out as such. Enlighten me.

That's a good question whose answer should be obvious. The sins committed by the religious that mirror the activities of atheists include but are not limited to fornication, adultery, lying and even murder.

Atheists don't HAVE TO believe anything in particular. Not one single thing under the sun must an atheist believe in order to be considered an atheist.

Many atheists believe no gods exist assuming those atheists have heard of gods.

Now... again, I know you advocate for playing fast and loose with definitions...

And how do you know what I'm thinking if you have no God to reveal it to you? The religious tend to believe that they magically know what's in people's "hearts." What you've posted here is very similar to what they might say.

The two groups are, BY BOTH DEFINITION AND LOGIC, mutually exclusive. Religious and atheistic may not be... but you are (and have been) speaking specifically about believers. BELIEVERS. Get it straight in your mind before trying to wriggle out from this.

Actually, I've argued from the OP that atheists and theists are very similar in many ways including their lifestyles. That's a demonstrable fact.

...but I simply must conclude that this is only to be able to use words you know will get under the skin of others when you bend the ideas to fit them into that mold. I don't see any other reason for it. Either you're trying with this OP to get under theists skin by calling them "like atheists" or you're trying to get under atheists' skin by implying that theists act like them.

My motives are irrelevant to the issue of this topic. If you're getting upset by what I'm arguing, then don't read my posts.

Yes, and not try to conflate two mutually exclusive groups for the sake of raising the ire of one or the other. Again... logically (not just definitionally) the move is completely unsound - and so what else could you possibly be trying to do?

What else could I be trying to do? I'm arguing that many Christians act like there is no God to punish them which is to say they act like atheists. And as it turns out, my idea constitutes heresy as far as some atheists are concerned.

And yet there is absolutely no ambiguity to the idea that "theist" (and by that I am referring to the idea of a "believer" NOT simply "religious" - which you cannot claim you were after, since your point specifically relies on "belief") sits directly opposite "atheist" with no crossover of meaning. one believes, one does not. That is all one can default know when one uses either label - unless you presume to know that atheists are, again, breaking morally applicable principles as a standard of their behavior. And if that is the case, then please describe to me both how you know this, the evidence you have as pertains to that idea, and which moral principles some majority of atheists are falling down on - enough to state, with statistical certainty that one would be hard-pressed to deny, that it is specifically an "atheistic phenomenon."

Actually, there is ambiguity between the two terms. You appear to think that people cannot hold contradictory beliefs, but people often do hold contradictory thoughts and feelings. So they may doubt God and believe in him at the same time.

Again... please offer me your ideas of what you thought you were accomplishing then in calling theists "practical atheists?" Why not just state that they don't seem to believe in or venerate their God enough that they feel all of his edicts are worth following? You specifically invoked the terms for the punch it gives your statements. And that punch is (I am quite sure you were hoping for) an emotionally-charged one. You're hoping it smacks people across the face, otherwise you would just speak in the terms of your actual point and not invoke two LOGICALLY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE labels (have I stressed this point enough?) and purposefully try to conflate them.

Seeing that you can read minds, please don't reveal my billing information or Social Security number.

 

[rational experiences]

Father a man. Mother a woman.

Never are you their life.

Baby conscious man who sacrificed life by theism of his science.

Their sex act says in a man's mind I created life. The same is said in a woman's life. I created life...just human.

You also theoried about present creation. Inputted fake man advice.

I know I'm not any God just a human.

You research God for machine reactions. Design first O angles of interactive reaction owning movements how the machine is man's god. By design.

As you can't theory God created biology when you theory god owned a reaction I want inside my machine.

Yet you do.

So men had to teach I am Mr know it all self contradiction to try to save themselves from inventive fake theism.

As jesus wasn't the first human baby man first.

Men lied claiming our holy father was a man first non sexual having sex he became Jesus the baby.

Is a lying human theists placated thinking.

Men say I want a bacteria to be a base cell then I want it to be built upon be a human so I can resource you back to a bacteria.

Okay you end up human decomposed the bacteria bodies no human body are you possessed by theorising constantly?

Why do you theory about biology first but want a reaction?

O a base cell build up remove it's energy resource it for machines life power for invention machines. Oh but you own the machine first...no its not it's energy life.

Yes. I lied about how I designed God.

You always owned that position first. A machine thesis and no machine working.

So you claim reaction of energy itself not the machine a machines life nor a reaction in a machine. Energy string first theories was about the machine itself.

It's abstract totally first from machine.

So his brother asks him okay you use up a base energy back to cell it returns to base cell where is the new body to resource?

It comes from star mass he says particles and gases and puts it into our heavens.

Okay the heavens first exists just heavens?

Yes.

You take earth mass which is particles gas together convert it to get the gas. For a machines reactions X two to build machine then react.... Answer says just the heavens only versus a theism.

But by two says just the heavens inferred presence input star gas plus particles.... less a gas body as it had owned.

Oh science did it. Removed earths life support balances and life got sacrificed. A mass gas removed as I lied about owning.

Yes he said I did it to myself.

So man said Jesus and Jesus a criminal act versus a holy life sacrificed life caused the origin holy life to get sacrificed.

Jesus never existed in other words it was just a teaching.

As father human was first a very spiritual man and his baby son man didn't listen when he said don't do science you'll destroy life.

The teaching.

As any human had gained stigmata. Lots of human had demonstrated human spirituality as we are equal just a human.

Was the real advice.

So while involved in phenomena the teaching said don't self idolise don't be an egotist. Said direct to yourself.

Yet most of you were egotists actually. In positions of family you still are egotists.

Abstract second advice.

Do you control stars scientist?

No is his correct answer.

Do you change first position of stars by science causes? Yes.

A different human advice.

Numbers. Men attacked by Jesus review said by calculus evolution when I get to being a healed life of man in year 2000 gas mass cooling will return.

The mass and my health.

Presence. Present time.

Man theist using the bible numbers claimed I can react back in time remove gas mass and still be present as the bible says so.

Living however in reality and not by a book our gas mass is presently being removed so you can give us the outcome life endured about 2000 years ago.

As a man time shifting biology falsely to equals Jesus on earth.

Mr destroyer man.

 

[rational experiences]

In other words before Jesus sacrifice they removed origin heavens gas mass just heavens that had been given back its gases.

Life however was still affected by star particles presence.

Star gas input was not extra. Filled back missing origin heavens.

Theist contemplates star gass mass plus particles as extra input into heavens.

I can use it up.

No you can't. Only increased star particles in thesis and not extra gases is present.

You lie. You lied. You are a liar.

The three term human theist human theist machine fake God...human theist machine fake God destroying God.

Our life destroyer in person.

As only a human destroyed what God as God had owned presence

 

[rational experiences]

Father told me star gas as variant and lots of them historic own recordings of old earth changes physica relating to gas is exact.....that transmit to reproduce human theists causes in space as mind memories.

What records state man of science did to earth. What the psychic human was forced to see in mind hurt.

I saw destroyed earth stationary as carbon coal face. All life gone. Human necklace artefacts found in coal proof.

Science on earth hence says if I chose that level of earth advice held constant earth loses its heavens and it sits stationary.

Yes I could use that advice about God earth and force the star to comply controlled. Instead. I'm not thinking evil God he says. I'm thinking evil star. A channel I invent.

In science coal carbon is free in the heavens at moment.

He wants its beginnings changed which is to set it on fire within our heavens. Where invented electricity comes from. First invented position is what he lies about always.

As no machine exists in gods fixed reality.

He then says I want star coal constant held as the channel.... to be held earth stationary compares star to the moon actual history..... to stay constant not moving releasing gases.

As a theist.

In thesis it means to set the reality as the moon on fire to release shift it's mass. To own control inventive positions.

Not gods space holdings natural.

Moon currently gets hit by incoming star releases.

His thesis on theory involves all natural bodies of past cosmic causes.

All advices he uses as a theory.

Claiming Ai is consciousness yet subliminal voice is not heard in human hearing proves he is a liar. To want to control his theist a human thinker.

Be kind theist of machine theories your human behaviour belief today is chosen evils.

Talking to himself abstract from himself brother to brother.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Atheists do act against religious edicts all the time. I know I do.

And I said as much. Read for comprehension please.

But religious "edicts" do make up a major part of human morality. You appear to be implying that you know what is truly moral and what isn't. If so, then you are acting like a theist who believes that what God has revealed to him is the "true" morality. Again, although you protest my noting the similarities between atheists and theists, in that very act you prove me right by acting like a theist!

Morality itself deals with how human beings treat one another, or other living things. How our actions affect other living things to their benefit or detriment. Some things CAN obviously be assessed as being a detriment to another being's life and livelihood, and so that is why those types of things end up on our "no no" lists whether we are religious or not. And that's all I was saying - appealing to the ideas of the majority, which (again, obviously) is really one of the only things that matter when assessing "moral" attributes of various beings' actions. There is no objective morality that applies to the whole universe, obviously, and I NEVER CLAIMED SUCH. All I did was point out that there is large-scale overlap of religious morally-related edicts and non-religious ones in our human societies - and only said that non-morally-driven religious edicts are abject garbage that doesn't deserve a second thought from anyone not stuck in the religion. I can tell you'd like to strawman me with the whole "you believe in objective morality" bit. because then it is so easy to just paint me as irrational, but you're being ridiculous.

What you're saying here borders on paranoia. You're interrogating me to sniff out my motives to see if I truly believe that atheists can be immoral not fearing a God of judgment. I am guilty as charged! I know atheists act out of lack of fearing a God. I freely admit that I do.

This is trash. Just trash. I am not "interrogating" you - I am pointing out that the particular phrasing and positioning of your point implicitly labels atheists as immoral right out of the gate, because, again, you most likely were not only talking about the non-moral edicts of religion that atheists and theists alike may ignore. You were basically stating that a theist is more "like an atheist" because they break moral edicts. When you can't just generalize that all atheists are immoral people. Which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO when you state that for someone to be "more like an atheist" they must be breaking from some established moral code - again, a moral code shared by the religious and non-religious alike (the actual, important bits that we all tend to agree on) - because obviously to point out that atheists who don't believe in God are breaking God-related edicts (that have nothing to do with human morality concerns) is of ZERO consequence or importance - so I can't imagine that that is what you were doing.

That's a good question whose answer should be obvious. The sins committed by the religious that mirror the activities of atheists include but are not limited to fornication, adultery, lying and even murder.

Ah... so here we are. To be "more like an atheist" a theist must engage in fornication, adultery, lying or murder, right? Those are the things that you believe to be the purview of atheism? So that, to engage in those things, one must be "more like an atheist?" Doing those things makes a person "more like atheists?" Or is it only that, in order to be doing those things, you feel that a theist must not take God very seriously? So, you call them "practical nonbelievers" for all they seem to care about God and His rules. But therein lies the ultimate problem - you didn't use the more impartial term "nonbeliever" - which could be used to even include people of other religions who don't believe in the perpetrator's chosen one. You used "atheist" - and even if you didn't mean to explicitly, you are implicitly stating that atheists are more likely to break from the morally applicable "rules" that all of us tend to adhere to whether we are religious or not. I've already gone around and around on this, so if you don't understand this by now, you aren't going to. All I am saying is that you're giving atheism a bad rap when you call "bad theists" out as being "more like atheists." And I don't like it. There is enough bad juju attached to the term "atheist" without tacking crap like this onto it all.

Many atheists believe no gods exist assuming those atheists have heard of gods.

So what? This means that every atheist MUST positively believe that "no gods exist" in order to be considered an atheist? There is no positive prescription of belief that any atheist MUST adhere to. It isn't like theism in this aspect. A theist, to call themselves a theist, must necessarily have a positively attributed belief in some deity. Period. It's part of the most base definition of the word. An atheist must only lack such a positive belief. You even caveated your wording with this exact thing in mind when you added "assuming those atheists have heard of gods" - because you KNOW it is logically plausible for there to exist a person who is an atheist only because they haven't even been introduced to the concept, and therefore can't have positively attributed belief. You knew this... and yet you decided to push forward and respond as you did anyway.

And how do you know what I'm thinking if you have no God to reveal it to you? The religious tend to believe that they magically know what's in people's "hearts." What you've posted here is very similar to what they might say.

I'm telling you exactly what I am getting from your words... and you haven't exactly been denying that any of it is in there. I don't like what you're saying - whether or not I can "know" your motives. I don't care whether or not I can "know." I care what I am perceiving, and I have told you what that is, and if you don't like that I don't like it - TOUGH. I am going to tell you anyway. And again... you're not exactly trying to explain yourself any better if what I am saying isn't ringing true for you. All you have really been doing is trying to put into question my character or aptitude to understand various things. My accusations have basically been ignored by you. This is tell tale in my opinion. Not that I "know" for sure... but I don't need to. Your behavior will continue to speak for itself, I'd imagine.

Actually, I've argued from the OP that atheists and theists are very similar in many ways including their lifestyles. That's a demonstrable fact.

Sure. I'm of the opinion that religion and theistic belief is really nothing but a glorified hobby. So of course there are going to be many things similar between groups of people whose only real differences are their hobbies.

But this doesn't change the idea that you are basically implying that to be more like an atheist, a theist must break from majority-accepted moral traditions. And again - this little quip above doesn't deny, refute or absolve you of that.

My motives are irrelevant to the issue of this topic. If you're getting upset by what I'm arguing, then don't read my posts.

I don't even think you thought about your OP enough to even get to the issue I have been discussing, honestly. So sure, you had no motives to call atheists out as being immoral actors by default. The motives I was discussing were more the idea that you're using "shock value" to sell your idea... and I have been trying to point out that it is to the detriment of atheists everywhere to make such a point. So, your motive of "shock value" IS relevant to the idea that that "shock value" isn't worth the negative press that atheists are going to incur by lumping them in with "the bad guys" of theistic persuasion. That is what I am arguing... that your attempts to get people to perk up at being called this or that label when you know very well they will have an emotional response, which you probably hope "drives home" the point you're trying to make, is simply not worth the negative attribution it comes with. You may see it differently... but I don't, and I am telling you so. That is what this entire conversation is about. And I will continue to come back at you, responding to your weak attempts to credit yourself with something cogent, for as many times as you deem fit to come back at me with them. Call me what you will ("paranoid")... shame me as you like ("you're acting like a theist")... I literally can't care. Bring it.

What else could I be trying to do? I'm arguing that many Christians act like there is no God to punish them which is to say they act like atheists. And as it turns out, my idea constitutes heresy as far as some atheists are concerned.

It's not the idea that the theist is functionally acting "like there is no God" that I take issue with. I don't gave a crap about that point. Had you just said that alone, it would have been fine. But you basically said that theists are behaving more like atheists when they break moral prescriptions. And these, again, must be moral prescriptions that BOTH SIDES adhere to as (more or less) a standard. Because (again) the only other prescriptions that exist in religions are non-moral considerations - which don't matter a lick to anyone outside the religion. You invoked the term "atheist" - and associated it with the bad behavior of some idiots. That's what I take issue with. THAT. Get it straight.

Actually, there is ambiguity between the two terms. You appear to think that people cannot hold contradictory beliefs, but people often do hold contradictory thoughts and feelings. So they may doubt God and believe in him at the same time.

And that is called "cognitive dissonance" - and in case you hadn't picked up on, it isn't something to be proud of. That there exist people who "cross lines" doesn't mean that there aren't lines. Lines that are drawn in the "sand" of logic... such that to break those lines literally makes one illogical or irrational. Like if I stated that I love my neighbor (or even worse, truly believe that I do) and yet only ever treat that person with disrespect and loathing. That's irrational behavior. Behavior that is going to get a stiff rebuking from me. You can say all you want that the person doesn't need to listen to me, so I should just stop talking - but I don't care if they want to hear it or not. That isn't what it is about.

Seeing that you can read minds, please don't reveal my billing information or Social Security number.

This, again, is not a denial or a refutation. Interesting that.

 

[rational experiences]

Is Jesus real? Is God real?

Depends on who is thinking. Depends on what they want.

If a human says I want the eternal to be real. You are a human first making the claim. When I die they say I will be in the eternal. Not as the human however.

Not actually thought upon by the thinker using consciousness.

Science says O gods and suns in creation came from the eternal. I want all power. I believe he says. God and Jesus status for science.

Pretending father who is deceased and his man baby scientist will be safe. They are of course supernatural beings. They will survive sacrifice of human life.

Father came out first he says his reasoning. Mother second. I will push my god machine button my mother will come to me out of the eternal being and walk into my machine. I will then convert her into electricity.

So do you believe in sciences preachings about God?

I know I don't.

I don't believe in Jesus either. Life sacrificed by scientific causes. Because you can by supernatural means survive science conversions of mass.

So if you think you argue on behalf of spirit think again as you aren't. You are in fact arguing scientific thesis against life existing.

 

[rational experiences]

Father told me today. Science claiming by mans mind I invent the constant.

Means I want God to not change and it's earth body to remain the same. Natural conscious humans real advice.

Remain the same. Word use hence by father's man consciousness imposes don't build machines don't do converting of mass. As to get a machine you already removed the natural gods constant presence.

Constant used correctly to never change.

Baby man son all men are my physical father ignores his own advice. Spiritual father just a recorded heavens memory voice heard.

As only a trickle charge exists inside of earths ground mass when you data all types of separate fusion as gods actual body types. Theme a data for a formula only and not O earths fused reality.

The earth whole fused body condition.

So the trickle energy electricity used for his machine technology is what earth in reality owns. Why his theist mind said my gain of power by machine is the same as gods natural earth status.

Said so himself. I use trickle energy machine.

Earths gas heavens is burning constantly removed light as the constant.

Then he talks about life from out of space fake. As earths burning light constant is the constant. Constant converting hot and cold. In science status.

The position burning gas came to ground hurt life biology DNA. Then sex produced a changed biology. He said light caused it as changed biology meaning earths own heavens burning gas.

Nothing at all to do with any particle or UFO alien theme.

Science taught by God earths status.

Men human in biology my equal. In mind he is not equal. Memories human.

So he thinks evilly. Satanic God is not rational.

I want the coldest. The coldest in his head holds form and is static. Earths body iced by presence and pressure involved in the God status rock.

Can't be thought about again.

Static he says in mind by word falsely is a little amount of charge. Word not the meaning of the sentence.

Why human law gave criminals a sentence itself for crimes against humanity.

He said particles fixed held don't collide don't charge. Highest particle origin position itself. A gas fixed held is its coldest can't change either. By cold......or the colour of its cold body.

It might be changing but space conditions holds it.

To be held non changing a fixed only highest position.

Yet particles do hit each other as gases burn change and cool yet in star houses blow up by amount of colliding burning particles then gases disappear.

Radiating space hole moment held by colder dark empty space.

I don't want my current inventions gas plus particles held by my God machine to blow up. As design by particle plus gas inference is machine first. His God first. Science only.

Could care less about planet earth by mind conditions and ego.

Then his mind says my first science position is in reality science the power plant machine isn't blowing up. Yet it tried to.

His God in science totally fake.

Man thesis thinks builds designs first in gas status himself as my conscious thinker. He places falsely biology in the gas as mass owner. A misquoted about biologies Living place exact is oxygenated water.

But he advises biology exists in cooled gas don't do science. Ignored father. Everytime. Advice only.

Manifests machines out of gods solids. Proclaims falsely in AI that he hadn't changed earth God first as its fixed constant cold mass.

Yes you did he said how you got a machine is the particle fixed held and fused cooled it's gases yourself.

Lied in his head as design first is direct by theism to his machine god. In his head only living in the gases he lies.

Possession.

Possessor he said of Sion fusion is his machine idol the God that remains fixed constant. The machine. Status direct of human science.

How why he said man designer the God direct to being the scientific machine owner designer. Direct AI memory use only.

Why scientists once found themselves gaoled as this life status is true.

As no human invented the planets body presence.

By practicing science.

Is all a human lie.

Why he said life was sacrificed as man's design machines are artificial gods.

So he sees earth in a transition of no longer being held constantly converting by a man's thesis as AI alien. Electricity leaving in fact. A no technology future of his invention.

Technology he says will be destroyed earths trickle energy is leaving. Coldest ice on earth won't hold a charge. In cold stone.

Stating word by number by letter A lie N. The point North coldest point.

Thesis first says highest coldest fusion moment himself in his head. Biologies life living by ice not space conditions.

As technology began its design in North point O position as land owner only on earth. A memory history the men of first sciences.

Historic. As south land was still frozen. As per land to live on as ancient history.

So he consciously uses biologies own living memories false in scientific quotes. As man's only memories. First no machines first no science first father's man natural advice.

As biological giants dinosaurs fiercely ripped bodies. Biology memory.

In science in small reactions his machines also as his giant reactions rip apart.

God destroyed overtook fierce conscious behaviour his biology says by extreme cold and ice.

The conscious biological theist uses life advice falsely compared to his machines reaction.

As he always has. The human warning.

A human not owning the sun. Not owning space. Not owning how the earth angels body magnetosphere keeps the planet safe by its body movement. Tries to theory about electricity gain.

For a machine whose body belongs fused with earth. His theist says my machine hence must hold electricity to the ground base. It's leaving. I must control it.

Possessed by man's science history.

Wonders if they are trying to burn us all to death. By sun causes.

Ever wonder why spiritual humanity called another human life a satanist for?

Ever wonder why spiritual humanity said murder is wrong by sciences owned gained history? But have a look at spiritual family murdering spiritual family.

See the inventor invention for what it is wont you liar brothers. Just a human first. Using his history my life the inventor to destroy us all.

Congratulations liars.

 

[Jagella]

And I said as much. Read for comprehension please.

Write for comprehension, please.

Morality itself deals with how human beings treat one another, or other living things. How our actions affect other living things to their benefit or detriment.

That's true for much morality but not all. Many people would extend morality to how we treat inanimate objects too. I'd recommend you extend your understanding of morality beyond you narrow view of morality.

All I did was point out that there is large-scale overlap of religious morally-related edicts and non-religious ones in our human societies - and only said that non-morally-driven religious edicts are abject garbage that doesn't deserve a second thought from anyone not stuck in the religion. I can tell you'd like to strawman me with the whole "you believe in objective morality" bit. because then it is so easy to just paint me as irrational, but you're being ridiculous.

With every post you reveal quasi-religious attitudes. Like the religious, you dismiss moral tenets not your own as "garbage" you don't think is worth thinking about.

This is trash. Just trash.

You post yet more religious talk angrily dismissing what you disagree with.

I am not "interrogating" you - I am pointing out that the particular phrasing and positioning of your point implicitly labels atheists as immoral right out of the gate, because, again, you most likely were not only talking about the non-moral edicts of religion that atheists and theists alike may ignore. You were basically stating that a theist is more "like an atheist" because they break moral edicts. When you can't just generalize that all atheists are immoral people. Which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO when you state that for someone to be "more like an atheist" they must be breaking from some established moral code - again, a moral code shared by the religious and non-religious alike (the actual, important bits that we all tend to agree on) - because obviously to point out that atheists who don't believe in God are breaking God-related edicts (that have nothing to do with human morality concerns) is of ZERO consequence or importance - so I can't imagine that that is what you were doing.

It's a fact that atheists do act immorally breaking rules and laws that most people agree should be obeyed. Your denial is very reminiscent of those Christians who insist that "no true Christian" can act in an evil way. Like you, they become very upset if they feel they are being generalized.

Ah... so here we are. To be "more like an atheist" a theist must engage in fornication, adultery, lying or murder, right? Those are the things that you believe to be the purview of atheism? So that, to engage in those things, one must be "more like an atheist?" Doing those things makes a person "more like atheists?"

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

All I am saying is that you're giving atheism a bad rap when you call "bad theists" out as being "more like atheists." And I don't like it. There is enough bad juju attached to the term "atheist" without tacking crap like this onto it all.

If you don't like what I say, then consider silencing me. The religious hate criticism and love censorship.

Your behavior will continue to speak for itself, I'd imagine.

Forgive me father, for I have sinned!

You invoked the term "atheist" - and associated it with the bad behavior of some idiots. That's what I take issue with. THAT. Get it straight.

I do understand that atheists, for example, are more likely to commit suicide than the religious are, so if a Christian commits suicide, then it's fair to say she's acting like an atheist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Write for comprehension, please.

Have been. Maybe an expansion of your vocabulary is in order? I can't be sure.

That's true for much morality but not all. Many people would extend morality to how we treat inanimate objects too. I'd recommend you extend your understanding of morality beyond you narrow view of morality.

It doesn't matter if a few people on fringe don't think it prudent to step on a concrete sidewalk for fear of how the sidewalk might feel about it. I don't care about that... and if the vast majority of people don't care about that, then this item would be exactly as those religion-specific items I spoke of that have nothing to do with what is actually pertinent to human beings as a whole. Baptism, for example. No one need give a crap about people being dunked in water. Sure... if some people want to go about the business of doing that to themselves or each other, have at it... but when they then turn to the rest of the world and state that it is somehow a moral imperative to have children be baptized, and all they have for justification is the religious text that can't be verified (nothing cogent like studies indicating that people survive longer once baptized or that it improves motor function or brain development, etc.), then they have nothing compelling to offer as justification for why everyone who doesn't already do this must necessarily toe their line. This is exactly what I was referring to... and I think you knew that, but again, I feel you're being argumentative just the for sake of that itself. I don't have to recognize goofy items of other people's "morality" unless I am keen on not angering them or making sure to show that I respect them. If I don't respect them, then items like this need not be adhered to or even acknowledged. This may sound callous... but guess what? I don't care about that either. Hahaha.

With every post you reveal quasi-religious attitudes. Like the religious, you dismiss moral tenets not your own as "garbage" you don't think is worth thinking about.

The above explanation should make you understand where I am coming from. Some things just aren't worth consideration. Sometimes they aren't worth consideration by anyone. That doesn't stop people from considering them - I know this. But their consideration does not make the value of those things go up in any objective sense toward any stated goal of "morality" as it is most basically understood. Treatment of the sidewalk for fear of hurting its feelings does not qualify under standards of morality that adhere to logic and reality. Therefore they need not matter to anyone who doesn't care about them, or doesn't care about the feelings of people who hold those items as moral obligations for themselves and are bent on making others feel the same.

Also, you can keep calling me things like "religious." I can't care. Honestly. I know what you think you're doing... but it isn't going to work.

You post yet more religious talk angrily dismissing what you disagree with.

And explaining why I don't agree with it... you forgot that part, of course. I'm sure that part is a bit of a thorn in your side, hence the reason you'd like to forget it and just be able to accuse me of being "angry" and "religious." Say as you will... my feelings do not matter in this conversation, nor do yours. Your assessment of my emotional state does not change the things I am talking about and stating plainly for you, nor does it change their meaning or cogency. I can tell you'd like to think it does... but you are wrong.

It's a fact that atheists do act immorally breaking rules and laws that most people agree should be obeyed. Your denial is very reminiscent of those Christians who insist that "no true Christian" can act in an evil way. Like you, they become very upset if they feel they are being generalized.

Yes, atheists can break laws like anyone else. That has nothing to do with the point I am making. You know the point I am making, so I am not going to repeat it. I am not to be found denying that atheists are just as capable and probably just as likely to break even the most worthwhile and ubiquitous of moral standards. Go ahead and find where I stated that atheists do not act immorally. When you can't find where I said this, then please understand that you are purposefully misconstruing the situation to more easily paint me as being obstinate and irrational. This is underhanded practice. You should clean up your act.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

That is complete and utter bigotry pointed at atheism then. Those things are not atheist in origin, nor are they to be found more prevalent among atheists. You don't even have a case for stating this. First you need to establish what relationship an immoral act even has to "atheism" - when atheism itself MAKES NO MORAL PRESCRIPTIONS (this is the purview of the religious and theists who believe that a God has made such prescriptions on their behalf!) - and in fact, atheism has nothing to do with morality or immorality. Nothing. Now then... once you have somehow made that impossible link, then further bring me facts and figures that show that people who are "more like atheists" are prone to commit the immoral acts listed, and that people "less like atheists" have statistically significant low numbers of these acts being committed by their ranks. All you have are your own claims that people who act against God's edicts "must not believe." Which is nothing. You have nothing.

If you don't like what I say, then consider silencing me. The religious hate criticism and love censorship.

Would never even hint at silencing you. In fact, I have already stated exactly what I will do, which is keep coming back at you, again, and again, and again. Informing you what I think of your drivel and slapping you around verbally. As long as you don't mind my non-silence either! Hahahaha.... you see... here you are again, misconstruing the situation, trying to make me out to be "the bad guy". I have said not one thing indicating that I want you to silence yourself. Instead, I told you to keep brining your crap to the public sphere, and I will faithfully (I am so totally "religious" hahahaha) be there to bring an opposing point of view to the table.

Forgive me father, for I have sinned!

Again... I don't care that you want to label me "religious." Don't care one bit. I will act according to my principles... which don't include throwing various labels used exclusively for other groups to try and paint my opponent as belonging to those groups, when they so obviously do not. I don't even accept the proposition of something being a "sin." There is very likely no such thing as "sin" - for it to be in existence would require that a deity who had put forth rules is in existence. Since I do not believe in such a thing, I cannot possibly be found to relaying to anyone that they have "sinned." It makes absolutely no sense. Yes here you are... purposefully making no sense, just trying to annoy me. Good luck. Amateur.

I do understand that atheists, for example, are more likely to commit suicide than the religious are, so if a Christian commits suicide, then it's fair to say she's acting like an atheist.

No, it isn't. You, yourself, even reference the idea in these very sentences that suicide is not solely an atheist phenomenon. The thing you just said would be like finding out that more atheists than theists eat toast for breakfast and concluding that a theist eating toast for breakfast indicates that they are "acting more like an atheist" when it makes no sense to invoke the label unless you are specifically trying to paint it a certain way for onlookers. And all the while, eating toast (or committing suicide) has nothing to do with atheism intrinsically. You're just getting more and more desperate here. You should just quit while you are not even further behind.

 

[BigBill88]

Put yourself in the parable and see where you stand.


31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[Jagella]

Yes, atheists can break laws like anyone else. That has nothing to do with the point I am making. You know the point I am making, so I am not going to repeat it. I am not to be found denying that atheists are just as capable and probably just as likely to break even the most worthwhile and ubiquitous of moral standards. Go ahead and find where I stated that atheists do not act immorally. When you can't find where I said this, then please understand that you are purposefully misconstruing the situation to more easily paint me as being obstinate and irrational. This is underhanded practice. You should clean up your act.

One problem I'm having responding to your posts is that they are very verbose. If you don't want me to not bother to sift through mounds of your text, then I'd suggest you try to say more with fewer words. Please have mercy on me!

Have been. Maybe an expansion of your vocabulary is in order? I can't be sure.

I've noticed that the religious are quick to insult those who disagree with their beliefs. I can be sure.

It doesn't matter if a few people on fringe don't think it prudent to step on a concrete sidewalk for fear of how the sidewalk might feel about it. I don't care about that... and if the vast majority of people don't care about that, then this item would be exactly as those religion-specific items I spoke of that have nothing to do with what is actually pertinent to human beings as a whole. Baptism, for example. No one need give a crap about people being dunked in water. Sure... if some people want to go about the business of doing that to themselves or each other, have at it... but when they then turn to the rest of the world and state that it is somehow a moral imperative to have children be baptized, and all they have for justification is the religious text that can't be verified (nothing cogent like studies indicating that people survive longer once baptized or that it improves motor function or brain development, etc.), then they have nothing compelling to offer as justification for why everyone who doesn't already do this must necessarily toe their line. This is exactly what I was referring to... and I think you knew that, but again, I feel you're being argumentative just the for sake of that itself. I don't have to recognize goofy items of other people's "morality" unless I am keen on not angering them or making sure to show that I respect them. If I don't respect them, then items like this need not be adhered to or even acknowledged. This may sound callous... but guess what? I don't care about that either. Hahaha.

What do you have to demonstrate that your morality is right and religious morality is wrong? The religious tend to see their morality as right and other morality as wrong.

The above explanation should make you understand where I am coming from. Some things just aren't worth consideration. Sometimes they aren't worth consideration by anyone. That doesn't stop people from considering them - I know this. But their consideration does not make the value of those things go up in any objective sense toward any stated goal of "morality" as it is most basically understood. Treatment of the sidewalk for fear of hurting its feelings does not qualify under standards of morality that adhere to logic and reality. Therefore they need not matter to anyone who doesn't care about them, or doesn't care about the feelings of people who hold those items as moral obligations for themselves and are bent on making others feel the same.

Much of this could be said of your own opinionated view of morality.

Also, you can keep calling me things like "religious." I can't care. Honestly. I know what you think you're doing... but it isn't going to work.

I'm pointing out that your arguments defeat themselves as they mirror religion demonstrating the remarkable similarities between the religious and the nonreligious.

And explaining why I don't agree with it... you forgot that part, of course. I'm sure that part is a bit of a thorn in your side, hence the reason you'd like to forget it and just be able to accuse me of being "angry" and "religious." Say as you will... my feelings do not matter in this conversation, nor do yours. Your assessment of my emotional state does not change the things I am talking about and stating plainly for you, nor does it change their meaning or cogency. I can tell you'd like to think it does... but you are wrong.

But you are wrong in that your feelings matter very much since we are discussing the way the religious and the nonreligious are much the same.

That is complete and utter bigotry pointed at atheism then. Those things are not atheist in origin, nor are they to be found more prevalent among atheists. You don't even have a case for stating this. First you need to establish what relationship an immoral act even has to "atheism" - when atheism itself MAKES NO MORAL PRESCRIPTIONS (this is the purview of the religious and theists who believe that a God has made such prescriptions on their behalf!) - and in fact, atheism has nothing to do with morality or immorality. Nothing. Now then... once you have somehow made that impossible link, then further bring me facts and figures that show that people who are "more like atheists" are prone to commit the immoral acts listed, and that people "less like atheists" have statistically significant low numbers of these acts being committed by their ranks. All you have are your own claims that people who act against God's edicts "must not believe." Which is nothing. You have nothing.

If you think I have "nothing," then offering you evidence for what I'm saying probably won't change that assessment of yours. If a Christian demanded evidence that resurrections don't happen, then all the evidence in the world that they don't happen won't change his mind either.

And by the way, I don't believe in any Gods, but I recognize that such a view could very possibly result in needless harm. To deny possibilities or refuse to consider them alleging bigotry while getting defensive is a hallmark of religion and apparently atheism as well.

Would never even hint at silencing you. In fact, I have already stated exactly what I will do, which is keep coming back at you, again, and again, and again. Informing you what I think of your drivel and slapping you around verbally. As long as you don't mind my non-silence either! Hahahaha.... you see... here you are again, misconstruing the situation, trying to make me out to be "the bad guy". I have said not one thing indicating that I want you to silence yourself. Instead, I told you to keep brining your crap to the public sphere, and I will faithfully (I am so totally "religious" hahahaha) be there to bring an opposing point of view to the table.

I've had the religious talk to me this way when I disagree with their religion.

No, it isn't. You, yourself, even reference the idea in these very sentences that suicide is not solely an atheist phenomenon. The thing you just said would be like finding out that more atheists than theists eat toast for breakfast and concluding that a theist eating toast for breakfast indicates that they are "acting more like an atheist" when it makes no sense to invoke the label unless you are specifically trying to paint it a certain way for onlookers. And all the while, eating toast (or committing suicide) has nothing to do with atheism intrinsically. You're just getting more and more desperate here. You should just quit while you are not even further behind.

Diet is but one of the many similarities between atheists and theists. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[rational experiences]

Science a man theist always believed in a pre presence creator. Himself. In thoughts.

The theme intelligence he expressed as the man. Conscious group men overview collected he agreed.

Man's god in consciousness.

So then he details I must know such evil destructive awareness because.....

Then theories why again.

Which is termed lying.

As he chose to be a theist as just a human.

What all balanced human conscious advice understands about theists.

So the argument how could a human know the advice

Science concluded as I came personally from the place of evil. Which in matter formed my consciousness.

Natural father mother bio memory says straight out of the eternal.

Hence if you personally came direct out of the body that had caused change you would identify you had by your owned ability to understand what you aren't.

Seeing the eternal being changed its pre owned eternal body giving birth by term to a new state created creation and separation of being.

Which we Inherited. Our life continuance by the way was only by human sex in a pre stated fixed heavenly body.

As we move inside of the heavens we are separate. And our heavens dense gas thinned by taking into it Infinite empty space.

So again the heavens body introduces another concept of advice by its own gas journey.

Humans spiritually religious know it's easy to accept my brain was changed. I needed guidance counsel brain entrainment healing advice.

Which was the churches foundation.

Seeing scientific Satanism took back control it was to rebuild it's pre destructive science temples. Is pretty basic reasoning to correct any scientific lying mind.

Just a human first arguing what type of form evil or holy substance that life emerged from.