The Need of the Atheist Hate Groupie to Mock and Ridicule

 I really can't figure out why atheists are angry when I compare them to Nazis? They are so much like Nazis you would think they try to be like them. They are filled with hate, they base their self esteem on a mythical superiority to a group of who bleieve things they can't understand,they make scape goats out of those they hate and blame all the ills of the wold on them. They want to destroy every vestage of ideas with which they disagree. I don't know how long we are going to tolerate these pests who are trying to destroy civilization.

For two weeks the same little group of troll hounded me by always resounding to everything i said with flip remarks and statements that showed utter contempt for me and everything I care about. When I tried to stand up to them others would come and go "it's your behavior." Because I answered them the way they talked to me, but I's my behavior that was at fault.


 here is a small sample from just one thread.


poster on CARM (troll) Diet Coke says

"wrong" that's the whole post just "wrong" to me, I'm wrong.

I say "No I'm rihgt" he says

I am right he says

No you are wrong.

I say: Meta:

ahahahahaha you really sit here and go "wrong"

"nu uh it's right"

Nu uh it's wrong

"hu uh it's right"

ect ect

wouldn't you?

ahahahahahaha and these guys can't see what you are up to?

 diet coke

You make a statement.

Your statement turns out to be wrong.

You whine.

Quelle surprise.

Meta:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

what turned out to be wrong? Is that why you spent the whole thread and failed to try even one single time to show scientific data that answered those questions?

Diet coke

Your assertion in the previous post. I can say this is wrong, because I am me and you are not.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

I think it's very very obvious that I succeeded totally and absolutely and you lost. you failed you lost you bit the dust big time.

Childish declaration of victory in a game only you're playing.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

you whine, all you do is whine. You whine because I wont give in to your bullying. "O he want let me bully him so unfair" that's all you talk about. all you do. whine because I don't given to your bullying.

Diet Coke

But, seriously. Do you honestly think your OP has any merit in it whatsoever?

"With no power comes no responsibility."

"It's just so stupid, isn't it? Beating your wife, I mean, it's your wife. It's like keying your own car."

but he was going "wrong" every time I said right.

Originally Posted by souper genyus

Yes, I know Meta. And, frankly, I would like it if there were more theologians and clergy that talked of these ideas to the average Christians. It seems as though there is a big gap between what the theologians and clergy know and believe about Christian teachings and what the average Christians know and believe about Christianity. My guess is that it is because of money--clergy need to preach to preach to the choir, and the choir loves a skydaddy.

I don't know if I wish that too. It seems rather dogmatic to say that Theologians must follow the pixies rather than the gnome. When one is conjuring up fantasies, there shouldn't be uniformity - and, as we see, there isn't.

Metacrock has more easily defensible definition of God because it is so minimal. Yes, if most clergy brought his idea of God to the public, we'd probably eradicate christianity in a generation. I'm not for that. That's just dogma and a new boss same as the old one.

What Metacrock is struggling with is that he is taking some of the most rarified and esoteric philosophers that many philosophers don't worship, just take some of the ideas, and try to find some way of turning a basic reality, or Necessary condition, into God. It is one big Ontological argument, but he refuses to see it. Basically, he says, "if God exists, by defnition he must be Necessary. Once we find what is Necessary, we find God - and then we can pile on all the other stuff."

But there is no reason to call what may exist as Necessary "God". It may simply be "Brute Fact" - of course, Metacrock will call that God too. It doesn't matter to him as long as the guttural noise is attributed to something real, anything!

Theists, IMO, should understand that the search for both of us is the same: we are trying to discover the nature of reality. Atheists simply don't need to tie it all up in a nice bow before they die and worship it.

Plus, if you really look into Metacrock's claims (and to be fair, they aren't his, but a collection of other peoples), you will see he has aligned himself with the most abstract and ill-defined group of philsophers and ideas. This, I believe, is the next Gap by Theists. To hide their God in ephemeral language so no one really understands it. It keeps God always beyond understanding - which is important when you are trying to dfend the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Being is being. The Ground of Being is a meaningless term. It doesn't help our understanding of anything. It's a metaphor, not a description.

Metacrock, provide an accurate definition of the God you believe in, not one aspect of the thing you are hoping to defend.

Don't nickle and dime us to death. Put it all out there.

I don't have to read things to know they are stupid they just are! don't confuse me with the facts.



Username (that's his name)

bs. You also add things to this definition. STOP being disingenuous! You add "Manifests in Jesus", "is conscious", "desires for Man to know something x", "has a Will", etc.

Metacrock, you are losing credibility throughout the net, and this isn't helping when you start with your "ground of being" crap, and then pile on stuff later.

Your argument is akin to "My dog exists. The definition of a dog is that it has 4 legs." so, people agree that surely your dog can exist since it has four legs, but then you say - "ah, now that you've accepted that, my dog also breathes fire, flies and is hunted by every Knight in the Kingdom!"

have you ever seen anyone so mother fucking stupid? He can't figure out how an arugment is built around a definition. So if you lend add something to it he thinks you are making stuff up because he's stupid to understand about extrapolating.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Its' just as simple as saying "this is a depiction of an idea" as opposed to saying "this is the literal truth of it."

you have no evdience at all that Crumb ever thought his illustrations where literal depictions of the actual nature of God.

Atheists don't think illustrations such as those depict the actual nature of God because there is no actual nature of God. By and large, we take the same stance that Crumb takes.

that's just a stupid like becasue in every other post they say how wrong it is and i'm cheating to not take the bible literally about a big man in the sky.


you can't argue with stupid people. you have to waste all your time trying to get some meaningless point across that's nothing but knit picking you never get to the important things and they see what you are saying. Just leave stupid people like atheists to their own hell bent devices, let them burn and good enough for them.