Atheists Can Be Peranoid

The hate group aspect of atheism is obvious. All we have to do is look at how they treat people. Here they accuse me of maknig hate speech statements because I say they have no data for their anecdotal attack on Christian Character.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists accuse me of hate speech.

N manning says:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-their-actions

Is this hate speech:

(Meta)"That's why I don't bother with God arguments anymore. I went on the kick about realization. That wasn't concrete enough to shut them up. I think atheists have a hugely irrational standard of what they would accept as proof. they don't want proof and they are not going to accept the facts."


I think so.

when I say that the assertion that Chrsitians evade responsibility for their actions has no data to back it up they allege this is hate speech.

Decypher says:

"Must be more hate speech!! And from a Christian!! Even the Christians hate the Christians now... Wow! Metacrock, things are even worse than you think!"

So far this is not very reasonable. they are talking ordinary arguments as hate speech for no real reason other than that I said them. Here's definitions of hate speech.

Definitions of hate speech

U.S. Legal.com

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

"Legal Definitions are provided for public use and knowledge. If you don't find a definition you need, please request it.

US Legal, Inc Provides legal information in the form of Question & Answers, Definitions, Articles, Blogs and Reporting on various subjects in the United States legal field. You can also find an attorney or buy legal forms for Pro Se representation. US Legal seeks to simplify and break down the barriers to legal information."


Dcionary:

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.



religion is specifically included in the targets for hate. hate speech can be dieted at religious people about their religion.

what is the point of saying that the whole Christian religion is based upon avoiding responsibility?

Decypher:

But do Christians have a whole religion based around them avoiding responsibility? Don't Christians want to "use Jesus" to get out of responsibility for their actions?
he doesn't use any stats, he doesn't have an data to base it on. It's his pinon based upon anecdotes, and he thinks this is not going to incite anger?

I find it extremely offensive an insulting it's a damned lie. Atheists have contracted an elaborate set of moral excuses to keep themselves from having to admit they are guilty of anything.

this is just an observation based upon looking at atheist arguments. every single one of them tries to deny the basis of sin or hurting someone or being wrong or having to make up for a wrong.

does any atheist on this board ever propose an ethical system where one must be sorry for what one has done and try to make up for it?

nothing is more bigoted than saying "all of this group is like this" despite having no evidence to back it up.

I added:

what we need to do is stop stereotyping each other and use research to valid constructive criticisms.

they went on to define this as more hate speech!

Javaman:

Drop the back-handed 'compliment' schtick along with the childish and uncalled-for false accusations, and you may be onto something.

what backhanded complement? to have a backhanded complement one must make the appearance of a complement. I sure can't see where I did that.

Atheists Can Be Peranoid

The hate group aspect of atheism is obvious. All we have to do is look at how they treat people. Here they accuse me of maknig hate speech statements because I say they have no data for their anecdotal attack on Christian Character.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists accuse me of hate speech.

N manning says:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-their-actions

Is this hate speech:

(Meta)"That's why I don't bother with God arguments anymore. I went on the kick about realization. That wasn't concrete enough to shut them up. I think atheists have a hugely irrational standard of what they would accept as proof. they don't want proof and they are not going to accept the facts."


I think so.

when I say that the assertion that Chrsitians evade responsibility for their actions has no data to back it up they allege this is hate speech.

Decypher says:

"Must be more hate speech!! And from a Christian!! Even the Christians hate the Christians now... Wow! Metacrock, things are even worse than you think!"

So far this is not very reasonable. they are talking ordinary arguments as hate speech for no real reason other than that I said them. Here's definitions of hate speech.

Definitions of hate speech

U.S. Legal.com

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

"Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."

"Legal Definitions are provided for public use and knowledge. If you don't find a definition you need, please request it.

US Legal, Inc Provides legal information in the form of Question & Answers, Definitions, Articles, Blogs and Reporting on various subjects in the United States legal field. You can also find an attorney or buy legal forms for Pro Se representation. US Legal seeks to simplify and break down the barriers to legal information."


Dcionary:

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.



religion is specifically included in the targets for hate. hate speech can be dieted at religious people about their religion.

what is the point of saying that the whole Christian religion is based upon avoiding responsibility?

Decypher:

But do Christians have a whole religion based around them avoiding responsibility? Don't Christians want to "use Jesus" to get out of responsibility for their actions?

he doesn't use any stats, he doesn't have an data to base it on. It's his pinon based upon anecdotes, and he thinks this is not going to incite anger?

I find it extremely offensive an insulting it's a damned lie. Atheists have contracted an elaborate set of moral excuses to keep themselves from having to admit they are guilty of anything.

this is just an observation based upon looking at atheist arguments. every single one of them tries to deny the basis of sin or hurting someone or being wrong or having to make up for a wrong.

does any atheist on this board ever propose an ethical system where one must be sorry for what one has done and try to make up for it?

nothing is more bigoted than saying "all of this group is like this" despite having no evidence to back it up.

I added:

what we need to do is stop stereotyping each other and use research to valid constructive criticisms.

they went on to define this as more hate speech!

Javaman:

Drop the back-handed 'compliment' schtick along with the childish and uncalled-for false accusations, and you may be onto something.

what backhanded complement? to have a backhanded complement one must make the appearance of a complement. I sure can't see where I did that.

Category: Athesits Say the Dardest Things: Now I've heard it all.

On CARM The little attack dog "Blondie" (aka Steve Smith) is involved in trying to prove that Chrsitians have persecuted more people than communism did. He argues that he doesn't have to use documents to prove that Christians murdered thousandth of people because "everyone knows it."

see post 20

The simple fact that the Roman Empire went from pagan to Christian in one generation is proof of widespread persecution and murder. Lots of examples were listed in the OP and if you bother to do a little research you can find a lot more.

Then he accuses me of special pleading.

I would like to move on to serous articles but I just have to show some of these statements he's made becuase I can't believe how absurd they are. In trying to prove that Christians have persecuted more than atheists he actually tries to argue that Christians were in charge of communism!

post 20 again:

The communist/atheist argument is stupid. I'm glad you are not above resorting to the fundamentalist thinking you seem to hate more than anyone. Theists killed more people in the 20th century than atheists. This is assuming that the entire USSR was atheist. Given the fact that this was never the case and the majority of the USSR was always Christian your point is even more wrong.

This is the "simple fact?" The majority were Christians but that doesn't mean they were in charge of anything. They lived in an oligarchy, remember? At this point I was spitting milk through my nose. So he tries to explain how the figures it.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

that's a totally ridiculous statement. that's not proof of any kind. That requires that most of your assumptions you must prove in themselves before you can advance them as proof.

Blondie

Your ignorance of easily researched facts is not an argument.

You can either believe I have already looked it up or do it yourself.

So I'm supposed to just believe his word because he tells me to, and I"M SPECIAL PLEADING!??

Originally Posted by Metacrock

are you saying the non communist people of USSR had a big say in their movement?

Blindie:

No, I'm saying that theists killed a lot more people than atheists in the 20th century and this argument that fundamentalists like to bring up about atheist killings is just stupid. It is factually wrong. It shows how apologists just parrot these things without even bothering to think about them or look it up.

The fact about the USSR being mostly Christian is just icing on the cake.

icing on what cake? one on Mars!?? here' his most rational statement.

wonderboy:

"The Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 forced Stalin to enlist the Russian Orthodox Church as an ally to arouse Russian patriotism against foreign aggression. Russian Orthodox religious life experienced a revival: thousands of churches were reopened; there were 22,000 by the time Nikita Khrushchev came to power. The regime permitted religious publications, and church membership grew."

Like I said. This is just icing on the cake.

The fact is theists killed more people than atheists in the 20th century. Please stop saying otherwise. It just makes you look ignorant or dishonest.

So all the soldiers defending Stalin are Christians becuase the Orthodox chruch was asked to raise an army. That magically makes Chrsitians responsible for all of Stalin's murders? That's a hyperbolic and rhetorical question. Could he really be so dense as to think there's a comparison between people defending their country form attack by Nazis and Communists murdering people for their faith? They weren't murdering Nazis for their faith they were defending their country form invasion. They didn't do it because the chruch commanded them to but becasue they were forced to by Stalin.

This guy is truly living in his own private world if he thinks he can transform victims of Stalin's rule into murderers themselves because they fought in a war? This is the great genius who wants to prove that I'm so stupid I have no scholarship.

incredibly atheists are actually defending this guy. this shows how totally without honor they are. So totally sold out to hating Chrsitians they can't be honest about the mot obvious things.

asked if they agree that Chrsitians were in charge in the USSR
drugstar says:

humans are beings. god is the ground of being. therefore god killed them all.

others of them are going "I don't understand what you are saying." The famous HRG actually argues with Bondie that Christians were in charge of the USSR!


What's really funny is read the other thread I put up where I ask atheists in general if they agree. They are all hard at work avoiding admitting that he said crazy things.

Do athiests actually think they are another race from theists? They think we are sub human!

I put out a perfectly serous post about ethical theory. I wanted a serous discussion. they always disappoint on serious discussions because they are not cable of them.


Originally Posted by Asimov

Why are you so racist?

I'm not reading the rest of your garbage if you don't stop being a prejudiced and condescending wanker.

here's what he quoted by me:


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

One big mistake I think is being made all the time by both atheists and theists is the assumption that morality and ethics is like a science that can "discovered" in nature rather than "formulated" (what simplistic atheists thinkers would call "made up").

racist? Ok here is another version of Orwellian lanagued used by atheists. if you disproved their arguments and show that there's a fundametnal flaw and you don't accept their privilaged postion then you are a "racists."

has nothing to do with race. it has nothing to do with anything I believe. its' just like calling me a moron or a "silly dingo" or something except it carries this lying connotation,

that's one of them most dissenter and satanic and lying tactics I've seen. to actually try and clerestory any postie feeling anyone could have for me just becuase you can't answer my argument that's low as you can get.

you know people will not bother to find the truth. they wont go looking for posts to see if I say things absinthe races. they will assume your lie means I don't like other races.

how do you know I'm not black? It's slander it's ruining my reputation over a lie.

this is an example of the atheist [B][I]newspeak[/I][/B] there change the meaning of accepted words to fit their own definition, but use the connotation of the word to slander the opponent. We have seen them do this with words like 'delusion" (changed to mean anyone who thinks something they don't agree with, but used for the connotation of mental illness).

In the quote above where he quoted me he light linked "simplistic atheist" so he's saying I'm a racist because I see through atheists. So atheists now become like persecuted black people and to disagree with their views is to be a "racist."


here is the original post. I defy you to find anything racist in it!

One big mistake I think is being made all the time by both atheists and theists is the assumption that morality and ethics is like a science that can "discovered" in nature rather than "formulated" (what simplistic atheists thinkers would call "made up").

This mistake is brought on by theists who have no careful in their use of language. in saying that God makes moral law objective by writing its truth into the fabric of reality it's part of the truth of the created order, they convey the impression that there's soemthing objective n the subject matter than can be "discovered."

God's character is love. So God's laws are based upon love. organisms are created in such a way that when they become complex enough in their minds (ie what the bible would call "spirit") they develop moral concepts because they develop the capacity for agope--the highest form of love.

That doesn't mean you can find some love gene that makes people moral or that you can look in a microscope and find the love floating around in the chromosomes.

The fact is morality is based upon relative values. These values are developed by humans and they are a admixture of cultural constructs and the propensity of the complex moral motions that come from having complex brains and the capacity to love that is woven into the universe in some way we don't get.

Values are cultural constructs they are Ralina and they can't be proved to be other wise. Nor do we need ot prove them so.


we do not need scientific proof that being good is valid and being evil is evil. All we really need is an understanding of those terms and how the values we hold are tied to the transcendent category of truth. That is gained easily enough by reading Tilliich's Systematic Theology.

It can also be gained logically as the obvious consequent of believe in a loving God. That's why the moral argument is a good for God's existence, and its' why one should believe, becuase we have the moral motions that can't be expalined other wise without taking out the moral thinking that makes the motions moral.

Reducing to genetics or biology defeats the purpose of moral thinking. Yet we have the motions, The only real meaning that can be derived that makes sense is to retaliation that has to do with the transcendent category and the depth of being. Ie God.

The theory space monkey talks about just trades in the obvious and wrongly concludes that becasue values are relative then there must not be anything to them.

Originally Posted by Sazz View Post

Racist? I... don't see race in this.

Asmiov

Racism isn't just about skin colour.

MFFJM2 first says it is racism

Yes, it is. Racism is exactly about the bias/discrimination of one race against another because of perceived differences in racial characteristics, and asserted superiority by one race over another. Just as sexism is about gender differences.

then, probalby realizing he can't prove it back peddles to give "racism" his own little new connotation.

I will defend Metacrock that I have never noticed a propensity for racial bias in his writing, and thus he is not guilty in my view of this charge. His bias is of a far more neurotic nature, because it is not based on race or gender or age, but whether someone agrees with him. Those who agree are geniuses, but still not as smart as Meta. Those that disagree are dolts, or worse.

Hermit chimes in:

You're the one thinks it's OK to call atheists "not fully human." Get that beam out of your eye...

He knows that's a lie because I said at the time (when we were disputing about the Bishop saying atheist aren't fully human, I said "If I thought that's what he meant I would be on your side" if I thought he really said they are not human. On other occasions I denounced that position and he knows that.

this is typical of atheist hate group tactics to lie and slander the personality involved when can't win arguemnts.