Theists: Why are you AFRAID to do any research?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

I am only responding "in kind".

Really? Let's take a look shall we?

What you said…

'OOOoooo, I am Arakish, I have already seen all thooose videos, I have already seen ALL THE VIDEOS. I understand religion better than any of YOU THEISTS. Stop being mean to me, I am the best, smartest, reasonable scientist out there. If only YOU THEISTS would pick up a book and educate yourself, the world would be a better place. I don't care what you are telling me about religion, YOU ARE WRONG because I've done all the research MYSELF. wah wah wah I am not rude, I only respond in due kind, except even when you are civil, I will still be rude. If you can't handle it, RUN!'

What I said…

I have already seen those videos. None of them show RD being arrogant. Angry, yes. Arrogant, NO!

Quit being so arrogant in trying to prove everything any atheist says is arrogant. That is arrogance incarnate.

Naah. Not bullying. Just you acting like a little whiney-ass baby with whiney-ass plea. You want to act like a little baby. Time for a spanking.

List of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist:

  1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state.
  4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. They LIE by using distorted and perveted data.
  7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. They LIE by changing the subject.
  13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

Notice the highlighted one.

Oh, and I do understand what arrogance means. One only needs to look at your posts.

I'm starting to feel like you don't understand the definition of 'arrogant'. And the fact that you are trying to turn it around on me with haughty accusations proves you ARE arrogant. I do not pretend to be superior to you. Why is it when you rattle off a bunch of baseless insults towards me, its' okay, but as soon as I merely suggest you are being arrogant, you flip your f'n mind? Kind of hypocritical, no?

Nope. Not at all. Just statements of the truth. Something no theists seems capable of handling. When faced with the truth, a theist will:

  1. LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
  2. LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
  3. LIE by believing inexorably everything they state.
  4. LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
  5. LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
  6. LIE by using distorted and perveted data.
  7. LIE by creating irrational excuses.
  8. LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
  9. LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
  10. LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
  11. LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
  12. LIE by changing the subject.
  13. LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
  14. LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

The above is the epitome of arrogance incarnate. And the one specific one you are MOST guilty of is #12. Look back at the OP Topic Title. And you are the one to derail the thread with your "changing the subject" statement of all atheists being arrogant, when the obverse is the actual truth.

HumbleThinker: "bunch of baseless insults towards me"

Excepting one, prove it.


arakish's picture
HumbleThinker: "My only point

HumbleThinker: "My only point with my comment was to suggest that Theists and Atheists BOTH are biased. I admit this of myself, obviously, I only hope you can recognize it in yourself."

Of course we are. However, theists are ultimate definition for bias, specifically confirmation bias. You have shown such in every post you have made so far. And the ultimate development of that confirmation bias is the narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) suffered by all theists. Your NPD comes from the very fact that theists assume they better than all other unbelievers due to the fact that they have presupposed assumption of going to some human-made make-believe fantasy land they call heaven. Whereas all unbelievers and other religious persons are doomed to the human-made make-believe horror land they call hell.

Theists, especially Christians, are taught during the brain-washing indoctrination processes to militantly defend their faith without question. They are taught to never think for themselves. They are taught to never seek other knowledge. They are taught to follow tyrannically dictated norms of fidelity which are imposed and trained to vomit conflicting ideas and to never consider their veracity. Theists are trained to react to ideas, and to reject them no matter what they are told, presented, and/or taught. They are taught to never question their beliefs. Militantly trained to maintain and preserve the faith. And, due to this designed abusive training and indoctrination process, they shall do so with apologetics, beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiny-ass pleas, and sometimes divinely-inspired violence. Worst of all, their conditioning is so ingrained that most never question why they need to defend their belief at all.

And you, HumbleThinker, have done nothing but provide further proof this theory is true.


shiningone's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

You seem a little obsessed with arrogance. I can't help thinking there is a bit of projecting going on here. I get the impression you feel most atheists are arrogant. How do you feel about most theists?
If an atheist is arrogant, at least they have some recourse to be so, on occasion, considering they have the laws that govern reality as their bases for comparison.
As far as I can see, the number of arrogant theists, far out way atheists, and the extreme to which they take that arrogant attitude is of such magnitude, atheist's arrogance, fails in comparison.
Take for example the punishment for not worshipping your god. ( I'm going to presume you are Christian, I'm new here ) An eternity of pain and suffering in hell. Not only that, but one of the benefits of being worthy to enter your heaven is the chance to, VIEW and relish in the pain and suffering of the condemned.
I have met many so called "Christians" and one thing stands out as the most apparent, is the assumed air of self importance based on their belief of superiority over the sinners.

HumbleThinker's picture


"You seem a little obsessed with arrogance. I can't help thinking there is a bit of projecting going on here."

Not sure why you would say that? I made ONE comment (maybe two) about arrogance the whole time I've been a part of this thread.

"I get the impression you feel most atheists are arrogant. How do you feel about most theists?"

I did not say 'most atheists' are arrogant. I was simply addressing @arakish in regards to arrogance. I understand everything exists on a spectrum, so of course there are atheists that are the opposite, just as there are theists that are.

I will admit, in respect to the rest of your comment, there are A SHIT-TON of theists that are arrogant. I mean, look that Westboro Baptist Church. Those people make my stomach churn. There are many hypocrites in religion. Can't honestly speak to any sort of numbers.

HumbleThinker's picture
Although just for fun, see

Although just for fun, see this comment made by @arakish, after a pretty docile comment I made to the OP.

"You theists are so full of it you just cannot smell the bullshit you diarrhea from your lips. C'mon dude. Show some respect for yourself."


arakish's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

Funny you should end this rant with a quote by one of the most arrogant scientists out there.

And what did I just say about theists?

Another interesting point is how a theist assumes the genuine and legitimate questions offered by an atheist is considered to be arrogance. I asked legitimate questions about what seems to me to be an actual fear of science and doing one's own research. And you call it arrogance? Now that is arrogance. And this is the same presupposed assumptions made by theists I have seen for over 50 years. We ask legitimate questions and theists assume it is arrogance because theists always rely on the presupposed assumptions and confirmation bias that religion, and specifically their own religious beliefs, are an ideology that is implicitly and explicitly protected from any and all criticism from both within and without.

Now please answer another question. Why is it considered arrogance when an atheist asks a legitimate question that has been proven again and again and again by theists who post here?

You theists are so full of it you just cannot smell the bullshit you diarrhea from your lips. C'mon dude. Show some respect for yourself.

I shall forever say us atheist cannot speak any truth without theists calling it a rant and arrogance.

Again, I'll ask my OP questions re-worded: "Why are you theists so damned afraid of the true truth."

And again, I paraphrase Richard Dawkins because your perfect proof of this quote: “Theists are rarely capable of distinguishing what they wish to be true from what is actual reality.

And I agree wholeheartedly about what Sheldon said in his post. Provide proof Richard Dawkins was EVER arrogant. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.


HumbleThinker's picture
I love how every comment you

I love how every comment you post just proves my point, and almost every comment you make is a contradiction to your last. No need to argue further.

arakish's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

I love how every comment you post just proves my point, and almost every comment you make is a contradiction to your last. No need to argue further.

Care to prove your presupposed assumption?

You are proof of how arrogant theists are. You make wild, hair-brained assumptions about anything any unbeliever states. Then you provide absolutely no proof and expect us to accept your preposterous claims. Now that is pure arrogance.


algebe's picture
@HumbleThinker one of the

@HumbleThinker one of the most arrogant scientists out there

In all the interviews and videos of him that I've seen, he comes across as very reasonable and humorous. Here's a very funny video of him reading some of the "fan mail" that he receives from theists. (E.g., " I hope you get sodomized by satanic monkeys in hell").

I can't imagine any major religious leader taking that kind of personal abuse with such good humor.

David Killens's picture
Yea, Dawkins is just as

Yea, Dawkins is just as arrogant as a televangelist or a Bishop.

Sarcasm intended.

Calilasseia's picture
I for one, would love to know

I for one, would love to know how making an observation based upon data is "arrogant". I keep seeing assertions of this sort from supernaturalists, to the effect that critique of their public proclamations, no matter now absurd, laden with paradox or demonstrably wrong according to observational data, is purportedly "arrogant", whilst insisting in the next breath, that their demands that we should accept their assertions in the same uncritical manner that they do, somehow manages to escape the same charge.

But I'm used to supernaturalist double standards, so it no longer surprises me to see this rear its ugly head. It disappoints me to see such double standards repeatedly reappearing, telling me that supernaturalists seem either unwilling or incapable of learning the elementary concepts applicable, but experience has taught me that the cliché "familiarity breeds contempt" is wholly apposite here.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Agreed, nearly every theist I

Agreed, nearly every theist I have engaged with on these forums (and others) Has a distressing lack of knowledge about the history and origins of their faith/religion. Even when I sugar coat the facts, set them in taffy and lay them out in appetising ways the reluctance to actually do some hard work and research is damning.

Most often the correspondent will ignore any inconvenient facts and continue to misrepresent the current knowledge on a historical moment or person. It is frustrating, but over the 30 odd years I have been studying and researching the Early Christian period I have gotten used to abuse, damnation, being called a liar, and most commonly; blocked or just ignored.

I see the same attitude to the scientists on these forums in particular. Comments ignored or non scientific pages quickly googled and apologist nonsense spouted in defence of an indefensible position.

Nearly every atheist I have engaged with over the years has gladly listened and read my work, some do not accept my conclusions but at least they go look it up themselves and we have had stimulating conversations and agreed to differ in finer points. Theist, nope.Not one. Eventually they all pull out or start the needless invective again.

I have met a total of two convinced theists,that could openly discuss the sensitive subjects, one a Catholic, Jesuit trained priest and we discussed the origins of Catholicism honestly, repeatedly and over many many bottles of wine and cutthroat games of croquet. He was the exception of theists. I learnt a tremendous amount from him and miss him still. The other was an elderly, very learned historian, Benedictine Monk (anglican) and probably the nearest thing I have come across to someone embodying the Christian ideal.

Generally I have seen atheists admit to faults and errors, theists never. Arrogance seems to be their default position.

Calilasseia's picture
One of the major annoyances I

One of the major annoyances I encounter in various discoursive arenas such as this, is the manner in which, all too often, supernaturalists flagrantly abuse even the most elementary rules of discourse. The abundance of instances thereof, that I have observed elsewhere, cannot simply be attributed to mere ignorance, for if this were the case, being reminded of the proper application of those rules would see an immediate change in discoursive behaviour on the part of the supernaturalists in question. Instead, not only do the violations continue, but in some cases are pursued with renewed and even more duplicitous vigour.

The foundational rules governing the treatment of assertions, are frequently the rules most flagrantly violated, and said egregious discoursive conduct has, in other venues, all too often continued unabated, even after diligent effort has been expended explaining those foundational rules and their application. Though at least in the case of pedlars of "presuppositional apologetics", you know where you stand from the very start, as these people announce that they're going to regard themselves and their assertions as exempt from those rules of discourse, and as a corollary, it's a waste of time bothering to engage them directly, even if dismantling their canards possesses pedagogical value. Once again, many of us who recognise the value of proper, rigorous rules of discourse, find ourselves addressing the watching audience instead of the pedlar of apologetics, because said pedlar of apologetics hubristically regards himself and his favourite mythology, as being entitled to a raft of discoursive privileges not extended to, say, physics, chemistry or biology.

More sinister, on the other hand, are the apologists who pretend they are playing by the rules, but who, in reality, are adopting the presuppositionalist stance with regard to their fantasies. Creationists frequently fall into this camp, and the duplicity endemic to creationism, especially the professional, corporate version extant in the USA, is now voluminously documented. Another sinister group I've encountered are the neo-Thomists, the breed of Aquinas fanboys exemplified by Edward Feser, who combine knowing and wilful discoursive abuse, with sneering condescension and a taste for self-regard that borders on the Trumpian. This particular clique of apologists can usually be seen doing the rounds whenever LGBT rights or abortion are discussed, as this tends to be their favourite venue for mischief, though some of them will also dip their toes in the same waters as creationists if they become bored with misogyny and homophobia.

Then there are the Muslim creationist wannabees, who think they'll secure an easy living for themselves if they jump on the Harun Yahya bandwagon, though criminal proceedings in Turkey appear to be having an impact on that particular collection of specimens. However, I still see a few of these active, and I can tell you right now, that they get very angry indeed, when you remind them of the fishing lures hilarity arising from that expensively produced piece of tat known as Atlas of Creation. Not only does money appear to be unable to buy taste in many cases (and if you check out some of Adnan Oktar's more sleazy activities, you'll find this applies to him in spades), but money appears to be insufficient to fund a proper education, in the case of this sector of the mythology fanboy universe. All too often, the Harun Yahya brigade exhibit even worse levels of functional illiteracy than the most methamphetamine-addled slave-state redneck, which actually constitutes a perverse sort of achievement, especially when you realise that this is accomplished without the use of mind-altering pharmaceuticals.

One cannot even offer in mitigation, the fact that there are major structural differences between Indo-European and Semitic/Turkic languages, as there are plenty of people from the requisite backgrounds who master both their native tongue and English with an enviable level of finesse. But, almost universally, the observable data extant thus far, points to a predilection for apologetics being associated with numerous malign traits, right across the vast span of cultural, geographical and ethnic diversity. At one part of the spectrum, we have the amateur fanboys, some of whom exhibit language use consonant with medically diagnosable cognitive impairment, and at the alternate end, we have the professional practitioners, in whom indolence and low mental functioning are replaced with the underhand skulduggery of the truly mercenary reprobate. Where language issues arise, this trend tends to be magnified, but is quantifiable even in native English speakers.

But of course, any pretence that apologetics is even remotely close to a proper academic discipline, is a notion that will be laughed at by anyone who has spent a decent amount of time paying attention in, say, mathematics and physics classes, where the levels of rigour extant would scare the shit out of the Hovinds and Osteens of this world. Frankly, apologetics is nothing more than the grand pretence, that ex recto fabrication and fantasy count for more than, say, General Relativity or Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and it's about time this rampant pretence was exposed for the sham that it is. If all you have to offer is apologetics, then you might as well admit from the start that you base your entire view of the world upon made up shit, because I know for a fact that if mythology fanboys had genuine evidence for their assertions, of the sort that physicists can bring to the table, or the sort of properly rigorous proof seen in pure mathematics, they would abandon apologetics faster than you could say "William Lane Craig", and he'd be trying to be seen to be the first in the queue, in the hope that no one remembered his embarrassing apologetic past.

Quite simply, apologetics is the go-to location for those not competent to be proper scientists or mathematicians, or for those whose venality makes them seek effortlessly lucrative careers. It's the home of the charlatan, the snake oil salesman, the practitioner of shell games with which to defraud the gullible, and the last thing that the pedlar thereof wants, is for any of this to be exposed. Hence the entirely synthetic cries of "arrogance", the tone policing, the deliberate false eqivalences and bad analogies, and all the other subterfuges with which they have bedazzled the easily led, in the hope that there are still sufficient people with non-functioning bullshit filters to keep the sham alive, and in some cases, to finance the McMansion, the collection of Bentleys and Lamborghinis, and the private jet.

arakish's picture
Bravo! Bravo! rmfr

Bravo! Bravo!


shiningone's picture
So, religious people talk

@ Calilasseia

So, religious people talk shit.

I'm new here, so I don't know you yet. Seeing as you claim to be an atheist I'm sure we share common perspectives. I don't mean to be rude, but your entire monologue seems self serving. I am no slouch intellectually, but it irritates me when people want to appear intellectual for the sake of appearing intellectual. Which you just demonstrated. You think the more words you use, in a variety of different ways people will think more highly of you.

algebe's picture


I read Calilasseia's post carefully. There are no words there that are not needed to make the points raised, and while some of the sentences are complex, they make perfect sense if read with care.

Perhaps the only fault in Calilasseia's writing is a failure to consider the attention span of some readers.

Some posters like to keep their comments brief and simple. Others like to write essays. We're all free to take the TLDR route.

Tin-Man's picture
@shiningone Re: To Cali -

@shiningone Re: To Cali - "I don't mean to be rude, but your entire monologue seems self serving."

Awww... Gee, were some of the words too big for you? It's okay. No need to be ashamed. Personally, I like Cali's style. Normally I am not a fan of reading such long posts, but his writing style and command of language keeps me captivated. And, for what it is worth, I have yet to see anything "self serving" in any of his posts.

Re: "...but it irritates me when people want to appear intellectual for the sake of appearing intellectual."

I do helieve I will allow the irony of that statement to speak for itself.... *shaking head in amusement*... *chuckle*...

arakish's picture
@ shiningone

@ shiningone

And sometimes it takes an essay to fully formulate one's thoughts and get a point across without confusion. Ask some of the others here. They'll tell you I have written some really long essays.


Meepwned's picture


I had the same reaction, however I took a step back and re-read. I do not think that their intention was to use alot of big words simply to seem smart.

They are smart. To be able to construct sentences, that contain those wordos and still be coherent, is not easily achieved unless you are, indeed, smart.

Often times when someone uses language in a way that is unusual or at an intellectually higher standard, we assume things about it, without proper evidence.

shiningone's picture
Hi Meepwned

Hi Meepwned

I am not suggesting they are not smart. They just want everyone else to acknowledge it. I can write a similar example.

CyberLN's picture
shiningone, please provide us

shiningone, please provide us the specific evidence that would definitively demonstrate that Calilasseia ’wants everyone to acknowledge it.”

shiningone's picture
@ CyberLN

@ CyberLN

It's just my opinion.

CyberLN's picture
Ah...ok...then my advice

Ah...ok...then my advice would be that it would be helpful then to site your opinions as such when making statements that can be considered assertions.

Calilasseia's picture
Apparently, the concept


Apparently, the concept escaped you, that if I am going to present a critique castigating others for harbouring bad ideas and failing to exercise diligence in the presentation thereof, I would look faintly ridiculous if I repeated the offences I am critiquing.

It's precisely because I care about ideas, and the proper rules of discourse, that I expend some effort here. If you think this is done for the purposes of ego buffing, then I could far more easily achieve that, by emulating some of the pretentiousness of Feser, who is probably a far better example of grandiloquence as a pose.

shiningone's picture
Yeah, ok. I know a

Yeah, ok. I know a bullshitter when I see one. Or if you like, I know a Sesquipedalian when I see one.

Calilasseia's picture
Do explain to us all how

Do explain to us all how observationally drawn conclusions are "bullshit". Only this is the sort of assertion I see frequently being peddled by supernaturalists, when they seek to lower evidential standards in order to admit their fabrications.

Grinseed's picture
I had to look that word up

I had to look that word up (sesquipedalian) and the irony burns. Cal expresses himself very precisely to ensure the clearest meaning possible in his writing. He communicates. A fundamental requirement in his area of expertise. Its a lost art in an age of SMS-speak and dwindling attention spans.

Tin-Man's picture
@shiningone Re: "Yeah, ok.

@shiningone Re: "Yeah, ok. I know a bullshitter when I see one."

Ummmmm..... Does anybody have an irony meter I can borrow for awhile? Mine just exploded for some odd reason.... *scratching head in confusion*....

Tin-Man's picture
@Cali Re: "Apparently, the

@Cali Re: "Apparently, the concept escaped you..." (and everything that followed)

KA...... BOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!....... *mushroom cloud forms on the horizon*..... I am loving this shit!.... *laughing with glee*..... Dude, if language is becoming a lost art, then you - good sir - are a Rembrandt. I'm taking notes, dammit!.... *scribbling furiously on notepad*....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


Love your stuff. Pithy, on point and accurate. I can even understand your sciency posts...thank you! As regards the more pungent remarks...oh yes, love that command of English.

And your put downs are masterly arts of understatement...*blushes and giggles like a fanboy*

(Edit for autocorrect)


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.