Things atheists do to drive me up the wall.

 


Pretending to be free of resentment and animosity then showing it in all that they say.

I put up several of these comments the other day. atheists insisting that they never feared hell and never resented religion for hell. then they say stuff like:


 Fanghur

No god that isn't evil and morally bankrupt wold care whether we believe in it or not. It would consider only how good, loving and generous we were in our lives, not whether we were gullible or not.

 

 Originally Posted by Nonprofit

 Or angered god by worshiping the wrong one or the right one in the wrong way, or for worshipping him at all... infinite possibilities and why the Wager is childish.

 Meta you are the one who is ludicrously silly. There is zero reason the third posit is impossible. That you would even take Pascal's wager seriously is just.... well just a pure facepalm.

Won't you be suprised if lose your "wager" and god condemns you for having faith and failing his test.

 after my smart come backs nonprofit uses this:

Originally Posted by Nonprofit

Why do you hate god so much meta? Why do you seek to lead people astray?

 Not an Atheist:

There's no one who fears Hell while simultaneously claiming Hell doesn't exist.

 Deist:

 This is an extremely dumb OP. Atheists don't fear something they don't believe in. They play the adult game of Lets Pretend and discuss hell AS IF it existed, only to show how ludicrous the notion is. There's no shortage of thread ideas, Meta. this one stinks more than burning flesh.

 Already this tells us that they didn't read the whole op. They totally missed the paragraph:

Meta:

 Now atheists will say "I don't fear hell." You may not at this point. AT tome time you did and it's the remembering of it that creates even a stronger sense of resentment. Knowing that it's something you can outgrow just bakes belief seem all the more pathetic; but that only applies to belief based upon a fear of hell. True belief in God is not based upon a fear of hell.

 Even when I explained this


 Originally Posted by RunnerFive

Saying "you are wrong" in bold doesn't make it so.

Are we to just take your word on how we think and feel?

I have been an atheist my entire life. I've never feared hell, because I never believed in it.

 add this one form yesterday:


Originally Posted by User55

Evilushun doesn't care about Mrs. Frog, as long as her genes are preserved. Survival of the fittest genetic configurations. That's life. Deal with it, or live a life wasted on fantasy. If there is a God, He would be disappointed in you though.

 Hey I'm not bitter and filled with hate just because those low life scum are too stupid to understand my arguments. Yes I'm saying they try to hide thier feelings but htey come out in the animocity of thier wrods.

Begging the question and playing the "you can't prove God exists card" every time they lose an argument.

 I have seen this numerous times. I see it today. I'm talking about something that does not involve the existence of God. Of course it's always there in my world view and it's a basic assumption I made but its' not the immediate issue. For example question does Occam rule out MV. we dont have to discuss the existence of God at all for that. It did come up tangential in issues of "beyond necessity" but didn't have to.

when certain atheists get behind the 8 ball arguemnt wise they run run run back to square one and assert "well you can't prove the existence of God."

now to be fair there is one way that it might be fair to bring it up, that's comparing the idea that MV requires empirical proof then why doesn't God? The simplest answer would be because atheists demand empirical proof of God and everything else so they have to give it. At least the atheists who make those kinds of demands all the time have to. I don't make such demands so why should I?

yet I find atheists begging the question by saying: "God doesn't exist so it doesn't matter you rule out MV, becuase God's not there anyway." That is evoking the ultimate point of dispute ( you don't know that god exist it's just a hunch what you theorize it's your feeling but it's not a fact). you assert doubt as a form of proof, you use the issue in dispute to prove your position in the dispute that is begging the question.

The dispute is not actually about the existence of God in this particular case an atheist brought that in then begging the question with the assertion that "I don't believe in God so therefore, there' no proof of God."

It's not valid to run back to the primary disbelief and assert it as though it saves you from being wrong on other matters.

It's not right to evoke the point in dispute as though it proves your position on the matter to assert it without resolving the arguemnt first.


 This tells me that they hold out belief in God as the ultimate stupidity. They see that as the fail safe to fall back on when they are losing, which is most of the time. It's bot to be a warped psychology.