Monday, December 7, 2009

one of the stupidest things about atheists

They always equate spelling with intelligence. That takes a moron to do because it has nothing to with intelligence. The first and foremost thing they zero in on, since they can't answer my arguments and they can't disprove my research is my spelling. The always assume O you can't spell that means you are stupid. No dumb fuck It means you are stupid. Most dyslexics have above average IQ, Mine is 142. My brother and I are so smart the IQ testing people when we were six couldn't believe it. They said we were geniuses and everyone in the institute wanted to talk to us because we were so bright and amazing.

Then second stupid thing they do is tell me about spell checks. I've said this about a hundred thousand times, I use fire fox. If you aer not an idiot then you know fire fox has automatic spell check in the text box. But spell check doesn't do any good if you don't see the words right. I had the smarts to gt all the way to the end of Ph.D. work with bad spelling becuase I am smarter than you and I understood how to get around my limitations. Obviously you don't understand becuase you are stuck, Rex, as a little know nothing troll who can't think and the only thing you can do when you lose an argument is say "you can't spell." that shows me that you are a total fool.

the little loser send an email "thank for my comment ahhah laughs like I'm a sucker." who got the hits from ridiculing your comments sucker?


Before making sweeping generalisations about one third of the world's population, and assuming you actually want people to read your book, you might do well to spend "years researching" punctuation and basic grammar before anything else. Just a tip, but in English sentences start with a capital letter.
Atheists are not 1/3 of the world idiot. very very very far from it. they aer 3%. that's, just 3%.t that's nothing.

On the basic thrust of your argument, I would agree that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people, out there, who identify themselves as atheist simply because they are too lazy to get out of bed on a Sunday morning, or indeed think about any of "it" for themselves.
I don't think there are that many.




But if it is your intention to prove the larger philosophical tract of a-theism, per-se, merely a lazy means of persecuting the religious, I might argue you'd have to go a long way to find a more efficient means of achieving this; absolute hatred of other people's beliefs, than religion itself.
the purpose of this blog is to demonstrate that atheism is a hate group.I have done admirably. Almost every you say shows dire hatred. Anyone with any idea of what a hate group is can see immediately that atheism is one. It's all over this work I've been doing. I've proved it over and over and over again. That's not the purpose of my overall work on the net but for this blog it is.

23 comments:

Loren said...

"They always equate spelling with intelligence."

Why not start having even a little bit more humility? It will get you a LONG way. Random spelling errors seem like incompetence in writing to many people, like doing lots of mistyping. You don't see people ragging on lolcat spelling because it's systematic.

"Atheists are not 1/3 of the world idiot. very very very far from it. they aer 3%. that's, just 3%.t that's nothing."

I notice that your god, Jesus Christ, had forbidden name-calling.

I also note that the large majority of believers in gods believe in big-man gods, and sometimes big-woman ones, and not insubstantial ground-of-being ones.

Furthermore, the Bible nowhere states that the Biblical God is worshipped under numerous names, the way that Isis states in The Golden Ass that she's worshipped under numerous names. Metacrock, you'll like that book, at least if you can get over the blasphemy of a clearly-stated position.

Metacrock said...

"They always equate spelling with intelligence."

Why not start having even a little bit more humility? It will get you a LONG way. Random spelling errors seem like incompetence in writing to many people, like doing lots of mistyping. You don't see people ragging on lolcat spelling because it's systematic.


Meta:I know they do, but at one time blacks seemed lazy and stupid to most white people. That's the nature of prejudice. Most people are Rhodes scholars and they don't know that spelling is not a matter of intelligence.

I've explained this before I will not explain it again: I don't see the words like you do, so using spelling doesn't always help. period. end of issue.

spelling is a weapon for atheists becuase I have a spelling problem. They can't beat my arguments so they have to say something and that's all they can say. If I had dandruff and they could see it they would say dandruff is a sign of stupidity.


"Atheists are not 1/3 of the world idiot. very very very far from it. they aer 3%. that's, just 3%.t that's nothing."

I notice that your god, Jesus Christ, had forbidden name-calling.

for certain names.


I also note that the large majority of believers in gods believe in big-man gods, and sometimes big-woman ones, and not insubstantial ground-of-being ones.

Meta: that's horse shit. I've already shown that the Eastern Orthodox and all Christian mystics accept that.


Furthermore, the Bible nowhere states that the Biblical God is worshipped under numerous names, the way that Isis states in The Golden Ass that she's worshipped under numerous names.


Meta: sure it does. Acts 17:21-29 says God is working in all cutlures. In that same Passage Paul tells the Greeks "you are already worshiping the true god when you have an alter tot he unknown God, what you don't know the name of I am here to tell you about." that has to mean they had God by another name.

Romans 2:6-14 essentually says the same.




Metacrock, you'll like that book, at least if you can get over the blasphemy of a clearly-stated position.

Meta:I was raised in a cult-like fundie chruch. I know all about that. The book you speak of When God becomes a drug is not about putting all religion. He does not say religion itself is a drug. Nor does he say that religion is addiction.

typical of atheists to take a book out of context. Atheists never know what they are reading.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Joe, I'm not sure why you decided to post your comment to Jim's blog, or why you did it on a completely unrelated post titled WearRadio.co.uk goes live!.

You began it by attacking him and I think he responded rather nicely given his lack of knowledge about your dyslexia. I would have ripped you a new asshole if I didn't know you and you came on my blog attacking me for no reason, off topic to boot.

When you go around randomly attacking atheist blogs you are no better than the atheist trolls that attack you at yours.

I'm trying to resist spewing a stream of obscenities here. You are a nice guy, stop being an asshole.

Metacrock said...

I don't understand why it would be precised as random? It looked like what I was responding to was a continuation of an attack on me.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

This is the first post I see you commenting on at his blog: http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/wearradio-co-uk-goes-live/#comment-5100

howgoodisthat said...

You posted a random comment describing me as something I am not under probably the first non-atheism post I've made in several months.

Of all the posts you could have picked to regurgitate your received opinion about me and the billions like me around the world, who are sick of people like you, you couldn't have picked a more off-topic post if you'd tried—which I'm beginning to suspect you probably did.

If you want to admit I am right to close the comments on the thread you chose to spam and open them again in a new topic so that everyone can see what is being said clearly, you'd find that I am more than happy to discuss a wide range of topics with you and no-doubt agree on a great many of them.

But as things currently stand you appear to be yet another troll for Jesus who isn't actually interested in learning anything—dyslexia or not.

howgoodisthat said...

On a housekeeping note, by the way, if you link to someone else's blog in the article body of a blogger or wordpress blog post, rather than simply copying and pasting what they've said, then the original author gets what's knows as a ping-back email saying that someone has linked to their site.

This gives everyone the chance to respond to what is being said about them and enables a free and open dialogue. Whereas in this case I had to manually check out your site to realise I was being talked about—and not in a fair or honest way.

If you have to cut and paste someone else's text it's only fair to include the entire selection. This shows you are keen to be as honest as possible. That is why I included your entire text when I created a new (on topic) post for your comments.

If you had included the full comment I posted to you on the blog itself, despite that it was in an off-topic post (and even then I gave you 1 week to reply before closing the comments) your readers would be able to see that I invited you to respond to a simple challenge—which I shall assume from the fact you haven't actually responded to this in this posting you have no intention of actually taking up.

Metacrock said...

I am mystified by that. What I say had my name in big letters and was something about his answer to me.

I think what happened was, you talking about my very first post days ago and I was talking about last night when I just posted and you emialed me.

that original first post I think there was a comment in that thread about me or something I said event though the thread wasn't about that. I am just guessing because I don't remember posting there the first time. But I don't think that's something I would do.

I would not just go stick a post in some irrelevant thread. There had to be something in there firs that made me think that was appropriate.

Metacrock said...

link

howgoodisthat said...

I've never come across a wordpress bug which posts comments to a thread other than the one it was intended for, but you appear to be trying to offer your apologies, so I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

a) there's plenty of time for us to disagree on far more important things at another time and b) you're using blogger.com—which rather suggests you're new to this and probably didn't intend to cause offence.

If that sounds condescending, consider it a lesson learned in making assumptions about people you never made the time to introduce yourself to properly. Good manners cost nothing.

Now, start again. What's all this about "atheism being a hate group"?

howgoodisthat said...

Meta, please feel free to comment on these stories from my blog:

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/did-jesus-really-exist/

http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/the-universal-constant-is-not-evidence-of-design/

ZDENNY said...

Metacrock: I have spent a lot of time talking with Jim.

He is not interested in conversation. He banned me from his site and all I ever did was interact with his post.

Atheists are not an open-minded group. I agree with you that the source of Atheism is anger which leads to hate. The root of Atheism is that they don't know the love of God in their life. As a result, they are unable to love those with whom they disagree.

Jim Gardner is really an evangelist for Atheism. He is driven by the idea that people who talk with Atheists find Atheism appealing so he seeks to convert you to a godless viewpoint.

The fact that you have used strong language rather than speaking the truth in love encourages him and makes him think you are a prime target for conversion.

Of course, Christians who know the love of God cannot be converted since our knowledge is certain. Jim is seeking to find those who are playing the religion game.

In Christ,

ZDENNY

Metacrock said...

Gardener's site is strange. I do suspect that he moved my post to some irrelevant place and then complained about it being there. But I can't prove it so no point in going on about that.

If he wants rational good nattered debate I'll give him one otherwise I don't see the point in talking to him.

I can see what he is, I saw it immediately; a ideologue.

Metacrock said...

I've never come across a wordpress bug which posts comments to a thread other than the one it was intended for, but you appear to be trying to offer your apologies, so I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Meta: Maybe I have Alzheimer. both of my parents did.

If you want a debate, rational and in good will, fine. let's do it.

Metacrock said...

I figured it out. the reason the post went wrong is the way the site is structured. To get it to the right place you must clikc on the title of the post to go the actual page where that story is stored. I assumed that the comments at the bottom which I did not read would pertain to the same post showing at the top. but they do not. you have to go tot he specific page before you comment.

ZDENNY said...

The path to atheism is not through the mind; rather, it is through the heart. An atheist by definition is one who is driven by their lust for power, flesh or pride.

When you allow anger to build in your heart, it is just a matter of time before you can only see yourself and your circumstances.

I would simply remind you that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy and peace.

Anger has the opposite affect resulting in anger, hate and strife. The Bible for good reason admonishes believers to not let the Sun go down on your anger.

In my hundreds of discussion with Atheists, I have found the only thing they will respond to if they respond at all is love. As a result, always fill their life with a reason for the hope that is in you and do it in love.

Our goal is not to condemn them; rather, it is to introduce them to the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

Send me an e-mail sometime:
zdenny1@hotmail.com

In Christ,

ZDENNY

Metacrock said...

excellent advice

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"An atheist by definition is one who is driven by their lust for power, flesh or pride."

Wow, you make an arrogant, bigoted statement like that and call us prideful?

An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe God exists.

Crap like this is the reason I only read Meta's other blog and post on his forums.

I'd be willing to wager that the only thing ZDENNY and Meta have in common is a belief in God, if your the same conservative guy who posted at Jim's site.

Metacrock said...

"An atheist by definition is one who is driven by their lust for power, flesh or pride."

Wow, you make an arrogant, bigoted statement like that and call us prideful?

Now that you mention it. I meant to call him on that. I think that is an unfair comment. Because we have to distinguish "Dawkies" from regular atheists.

An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe God exists.

Crap like this is the reason I only read Meta's other blog and post on his forums.


Don't look now, but you are reading this one. I didn't say it. Don't blame me for saying that. I didn't!

I'd be willing to wager that the only thing ZDENNY and Meta have in common is a belief in God, if your the same conservative guy who posted at Jim's site.

I don't know anything about him. you are both welcome here but I do think we can do without that kind of blanket statement.

I' sorry I didn't ay something sooner. I had my mind on other things.

ZDENNY said...

Without the love of God, you are only left with the bubble of self that is unable to see beyond selfish interest.

All Atheist believe that love is reduced to lust. I haven't met an exception yet.

Love is only a good feeling. They call that good feeling love. However, if a person only does things for a good feeling, then it is only lust.

I think the statement is fair because Atheism doesn't allow for the reality of love. The love of God is made known through Jesus Christ.

The love of God causes Christians to love their neighbors and their enemies. It is the love of Christ that Christians follow and His love which transforms our lives.

I hope that clears up the statement; however, the path to atheism is through anger and the root of anger is lust.

In Christ

ZDENNY

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"Without the love of God, you are only left with the bubble of self that is unable to see beyond selfish interest."

I know plenty of atheists who live selflessly, not to mention members of other faiths.

"All Atheist believe that love is reduced to lust. I haven't met an exception yet."

I don't know any atheists that believe that. I sure don't. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you believe.

"Love is only a good feeling. They call that good feeling love. However, if a person only does things for a good feeling, then it is only lust."

I suppose this is building on your highly offensive "All Atheist believe that love is reduced to lust." theory. Love makes people feel good, sure, but it is profoundly more than a feeling.

"I think the statement is fair because Atheism doesn't allow for the reality of love. The love of God is made known through Jesus Christ."

Atheists don't believe Jesus is God, but that makes them no less capable of loving. What about Hindu's, Buddhists, or Jainists? Do they allow for the reality of love?

"The love of God causes Christians to love their neighbors and their enemies. It is the love of Christ that Christians follow and His love which transforms our lives."

Ghandi loved his neighbors and his enemies and he wasn't a Christian.

"the path to atheism is through anger and the root of anger is lust."

Anger has nothing to do with atheism, just because you can see some angry atheists In the world does not mean all atheists are angry. Your blanket statements make no sense.

Metacrock said...

It would be more loving to qualify our statements about people rather than making blanket statements and treating everyone as though they are all the same.

It's good to treat people the same in terms of rights and privileges, not so good in terms of criticisms.

Metacrock said...

"All Atheist believe that love is reduced to lust. I haven't met an exception yet."


hey come on man. if we are going to be loving we have to honest. I know atheists who don't believe that love is just lust. Case in point, a guy who used to post here: Hermit!

He had a pretty good take on love. Now weather he really lived up to it or not in his own life I can't say, not my place to say. I don't live up to my own take on love in real life.

He certainly did not think love was lust.

My criticism of atheists is about one segment of their movement and I have always qualified to say it's just one segment. I don't deem to judge their hearts but try to talk clinically about sociological factors that motivate their behavior.

I think that's more fair.