[WTD] "Belief" is NOT a virtue.

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
rat spit's picture
So, what I gathered from that

So, what I gathered from that is that, “God” is an “extension” (no pun intended) of Man’s penis.

How very Freudian. You know, for the longest time I was worried my mother might castrate me and now I have a cocaine addiction. Go figure, right?

Tin-Man's picture
@Rat Spit Re: "...and now I

@Rat Spit Re: "...and now I have a cocaine addiction. Go figure, right?"

C'mon now, Ratty. No need to be all dramatic. Everybody already knows it is just powdered sugar you are using for effect because you have an image and reputation to uphold. Speaking of which, have you tried mixing cinnamon with it yet? Talk about clearing the sinuses! YOWZA!... *look of sudden awkward awareness*.... Oh, uh, so I've been told, anyway.

Cognostic's picture
Gnostic Agnostic is an

Gnostic Agnostic is an oxymoron. You can be one or the other but not both. A bit like the word "oxymoron."

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: Gnostic Agnostic is an

RE: Gnostic Agnostic is an oxymoron. You can be one or the other but not both. A bit like the word "oxymoron."
_________________________________________________

Not oxymoron, just the plain type.

Question:
Can a person acknowledge they know not? Is this a form of knowledge: to acknowledge the absence of knowledge?

What I know, I know. <---knowledge
What I do not know, I do not know. <---acknowledgement of the absence of knowledge

So not an oxymoron, just a plain one failing to understand it is possible to both acknowledge (gnostic) a state of (lack of) knowledge (agnostic). One or the other is extremism: one can not be either all-knowing (less an all-knowing god) or all-not-knowing (though sometimes I wonder about "believers"). Being in the middle is not only recommended, it *is* that way regardless of what one "believes". Not acting in accordance with this axiom is begging a "belief" that one is something they are not, which can involve being superior to another. This is 'fascism' itself (see: Islam): the thing I fight against on behalf of the atheists and "unbelievers". I don't believe I am superior, because I know I am not. It takes a "believer" to "believe" one is superior, and they are necessarily dead wrong because each is equally surrounded at all times. Yang and yin (really: dichotomous dipole) is always true, as each to their own eye as they perceive. The primordial dichotomous dipole(s) relate to belief-based ignorance (black) and the light of truth (white) and the truth liberates. The problem is: one must look INSIDE, not OUTSIDE - and that is a choice which I can not make for others. I have my own will, they have theirs. If they are not willing, they are their own barrier (which is generally true regardless).

CyberLN's picture
I’m guessing you think of

I’m guessing you think of yourself as quite witty.

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: "Can a

@A Gnostic Agnostic: "Can a person acknowledge they know not? Is this a form of knowledge: to acknowledge the absence of knowledge?"

You are either dishonest or not very bright. You are confounding propositions.

1. Can a person acknowledge they know or not.
A. I acknowledge I know - Gnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
B. I acknowledge I do not know - Agnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Now you pull an equivocation fallacy.

What I know, I know. <---knowledge ------> BUT NOT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. YOU HAVE SHIFTED THE WORD KNOWLEDGE TO MEAN GENERAL INFORMATION. YOU EITHER BELIEVE GOD EXISTS OR YOU DO NOT.

What I do not know, I do not know. <---acknowledgement of the absence of knowledge -------> BUT NOT OF THE ABSENCE OF GOD. YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN A GOD OR YOU DO NOT. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PLAYING WORD GAMES. IT IS DISHONEST AND FRANKLY "IGNORANT" IF YOU ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THE SHIT YOU ARE SPEWING.

MORE BULLSHIT FOLLOWS: "One can not be all knowing."
NO SHIT BANANA BREATH. SO YOU ADMIT YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, A FIRST CAUSE, A FORCE, OR ANY OTHER MAGICAL ASSERTION!

MORE IGNORANT BULLSHIT TO COME: " Being in the middle is not only recommended," Do you ever read anything. Go to the home page and read the article on AR about Atheism and Agnosticism before you make your next inane comment.

If you want to talk about KNOWLEDGE go to a frigging philosophy forum, Atheists are people that do not believe in god or gods. Agnostics are people that believe nothing can be known about god or gods. Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", and as it relates to God, having knowledge of God. You can not both have knowledge of God and assert it can not be known. THIS BY DEFINITION IS AN "OXYMORON."

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: You are either dishonest

RE: You are either dishonest or not very bright. You are confounding propositions.

1. Can a person acknowledge they know or not.
A. I acknowledge I know - Gnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
B. I acknowledge I do not know - Agnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
____________________________________

YOU are confounding propositions, and blaming me for what you are doing.
It's okay, it happens when a person is in a state of enmity. See Kayin and Abel.
You confounded 1. by adding "or" as in: one or the other. Remove "or".

1. Can a person acknowledge they know not.
A. I acknowledge I know - Gnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
B. I acknowledge I do not know - Agnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

The "SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD." part is where you are confused. Read what follows carefully and hopefully it will be clarified.
____________________________________

RE: What I know, I know. <---knowledge ------> BUT NOT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. YOU HAVE SHIFTED THE WORD KNOWLEDGE TO MEAN GENERAL INFORMATION.

Yes, about the existence of 'god' (taken as: all-knowing), which can be taken as (unknown) if not already "believed" in. Any/all knowledge of 'god' necessarily collapses into the dichotomous dipole of so-called good and evil (ie. all knowledge), which is precisely what elohim (ie. 'GOD') is defined by: possessing knowledge of good and evil. Note: NOT "belief" in knowledge of good and evil (which leads to polarization and death) as the "believers" "believe" they might/do have. When it comes to knowledge of good and evil, one either truly has (some of) it, or merely believes to have (some of) it and are dead wrong. Symbolically, these are the fruits of the respective trees: of living, and of death. I say some of it, as obviously all of it would be a/the all-knowing 'god' itself. As one becomes knowing, one becomes "like" 'god' in knowing good and evil, but not necessarily all-knowing (ie. 'GOD'). Each being is their own limitation (ie. ignorance) which is why, again, I keep stating 'I AM' is the only thing that can be "known". It's like this:

If god is all-knowing, as one approaches all-knowing, one approaches god.
If good and evil exist, as one approaches all-knowing, one approaches all knowledge of good and evil.

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
C knows they are both confused.

A and B are locked in conflict (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
C can be neutral "knowing" they are both evil (if so) and without conflict, or choose to entangle: by laughing at both, or trying to help both, or picking a side and playing one off the other like a cat-and-mouse. This is very common in geopolitics: a single hand playing two against one another.

Knowledge can entail knowing how not to become entangled in A/B in the first place, but rather dwell in C abstaining.
Ignorance can entail falling for A/B due to adopting a false belief (ie. eating a fruit from the forbidden tree).

So here is a poem:

O! You who "BELIEVE"
Do you not "KNOW"?

Do you like it? I know it will confuse the philosophers.

RE: YOU EITHER BELIEVE GOD EXISTS OR YOU DO NOT.

Wrong.

You can not test for something
without "knowing" 'something' about what it is.
The problem is in defining the word 'god'.
I know whether or not 'god' exists.
I do not know how others understand 'god',
as words are like labels - confusing.

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

If 'god' is all-knowing, and "belief" is required to confuse evil with good,
under what circumstances would an all-knowing god, who is all-knowing,
have BELIEVERS BELIEVE (ANYTHING)?

I return to the argument:

******
P1 'Belief' is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and/or vice versa.
P2 'Knowledge' is the agency required to reconcile evil with good, and/or vice versa.
C Belief is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.
******

and re-state:

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

and (ac)knowledge (of) what god is not, which reveals knowledge of good and evil without distortion.
____________________________________
RE: BUT NOT OF THE ABSENCE OF GOD. YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN A GOD OR YOU DO NOT. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PLAYING WORD GAMES. IT IS DISHONEST AND FRANKLY "IGNORANT" IF YOU ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THE SHIT YOU ARE SPEWING.

Think of a triangle again.
Place 'conscience' on the top apex and 'emotions' at the flat base.
As one is subject to their own emotions, their conscience is affected accordingly.
As one removes emotions, one tends towards conscience.
The flat base is dual: good/evil wherein emotions dwell.
The apex is clean: 'I am'.

Translation: emotions are a barrier to the reconciliation of good and evil (ie. knowledge; god) because one is subject to them. One has to remove themselves entirely (ie. what they "believe" they are) and get as close to a state of 'I am' as they can without allowing outside distortion in. Just be simple: 'I am' and no emotions.
____________________________________
RE:MORE BULLSHIT FOLLOWS: "One can not be all knowing."
NO SHIT BANANA BREATH. SO YOU ADMIT YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, A FIRST CAUSE, A FORCE, OR ANY OTHER MAGICAL ASSERTION!

Emotionalism again. The evidence is inside of yourself.

Take conscience as who/what/where/why/when/how
Take 'I am' as unknown.

Who are you?
What are you?
Where are you?
Why are you?
When are you?
How are you?
If you are?

If you don't know the who/what/where/why/when/how AND, PHILOSOPHERS, *IF* you are, how the hell are you supposed to know ANYTHING in relation to an (unknown).

KNOW. YOUR. SELF.
NO. OTHER. KNOWLEDGE.
It's axiomatic - each has their own responsibility to know what they are (not):

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

See? It's the same: knowing what one is not, and knowing what god is not, leaves one with whatever one/god is.

Will there be anything further, then?
____________________________________
RE: MORE IGNORANT BULLSHIT TO COME: " Being in the middle is not only recommended," Do you ever read anything. Go to the home page and read the article on AR about Atheism and Agnosticism before you make your next inane comment.

You wouldn't accuse another of what you are doing, would you?
____________________________________
RE: If you want to talk about KNOWLEDGE go to a frigging philosophy forum,

I did go to a philosophy forum. I argued against their handling of 'knowledge' and had two threads removed which dealt with:

i. Reconciliation of good and evil in relation to knowledge
ii. The original sin mapped as a framework which explains what we see

So they began censoring based on my objection to "All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.", kind of what some "philosophers" are doing here. I am sorry such people are confused about this (and understand the accusation seems the other way around from their perspective) but one must be in order to think in the first place. Philosophy is stagnated and dead, and the reason is they do not have a proper handling of "knowledge".
_____________________________________
RE: Atheists are people that do not believe in god or gods.
Right.
RE: Agnostics are people that believe nothing can be known about god or gods.
Wrong.
RE: Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", and as it relates to God, having knowledge of God.
Right - thank you for the Greek.
RE: You can not both have knowledge of God and assert it can not be known. THIS BY DEFINITION IS AN "OXYMORON."
Agnostic need not assert it definitely CAN NOT BE known. They may assert it is not known BY THEM.

Just take gnostic - having knowledge. What is the inverse? Agnostic - not having knowledge. Do either imply totality of knowledge (ie. is every gnostic all-knowing and/or every agnostic all-not-knowing)? No, this is absurd. One can both know, and know that they know not. It is acknowledging ones own limitations - here is my knowledge, here is my ignorance. Both are an acknowledgement as distinct from "BELIEF".

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: re: Do

@A Gnostic Agnostic: re: Do you ever get tired of being demonstrably WRONG? Do you ever get tired of your equivocation bullshit? We do.

You said: "RE: Agnostics are people that believe nothing can be known about god or gods. "Wrong."

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
Dictionary.com
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Webster
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

MORE INANE BULLSHIT AND PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE -
Does 'god' exist? <---bad question - THE ONLY QUESTION..
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad - PRESUPPOSES GOD EXISTS - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question - PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.

HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: Do you ever get tired of

RE: Do you ever get tired of being demonstrably WRONG? Do you ever get tired of your equivocation bullshit? We do.

No, being wrong about something is a good thing - it is a good time to improve. The only problem is, some people who have enmity and want others to *be* "WRONG" often fall into the trap of themselves being wrong about something, and will never admit it due to a blind pursuit of adversarial endeavors. This is a kind of madness that I will allude back to.

Words have and/or are roots. These roots imply something; in the cases of gnosis, it is to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jnana

Such roots can be adopted into other languages and used (abused) such that they become confused. Evolved languages, such as English, may obscure what roots (originally) mean(t) and suffer being limited to what one "believes" a root/word to mean. It is for this reason I did not learn the Hebrew roots from the language, but rather from the gestures themselves.

As to "gnostic" and "agnostic" you are attempting to enforce/apply an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) that, rather than reflecting the essence of a root, is rather a reflection of the common usage of that root, of a particular people, based on a particular understanding (or lack of). I encountered this same problem within scriptures: the Qur'an uses Syriac roots (being passed off as "Arabic") which, when used by the Arabs, means something different to them (rather than what the root implies). It is without question that the latter did not understand the roots and/or desired them to mean what reflected their own worldview. This happens all throughout history: languages suffer deterioration such that the meaning of words reflects the integrity/respect of the ones using them. Again, hence my need to understand the roots based on gesture.

In my case, gnosis is taken to be knowing. The inverse is agnosis taken to be not knowing. You are attempting to enforce a limited usage-based "English" understanding reflecting such deterioration and attempting to apply it to me. It is not my own usage, and neither is it your position to do so. But I understand, you have an axe to grind. I do not call into question your handle 'Cognistic' because I assume it means something to you. I also do not call into question (by any means) you indicating you are a monkey behind a typewriter.
_______________________________
RE:MORE INANE BULLSHIT AND PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE -
Does 'god' exist? <---bad question - THE ONLY QUESTION..

I would ask if there was something wrong with you, but I already know the answer to that question.

"Does 'god' exist?" begs the question as to what 'god' is. You can not address the question of whether or not something exists until defining what that thing is and/or what characteristics (ie. "signatures") it might have. To do this, I read the root for the Hebrew word for 'god' which is elohim and searched for its characteristics.

RE: What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad - PRESUPPOSES GOD EXISTS - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.

No it doesn't - equivalent question: 'what is elohim'?

What is elohim? Do you know? Do you know the root? Have you read it?

RE: What is 'god' NOT? <---best question - PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.

If 'elohim' is known, what is 'elohim' not?

The presuppositions are inside of yourself.
______________________________
RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Circling back to the madness; it is *you* doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

This is the problem with enmity: accuser is the accused. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them, they rage and rage and rage.

Thank you Cognistic, you have helped me understand further that psychological projection is a product of enmity.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Agnos - "...some people

Re: Agnos - "...some people who have enmity and want others to *be* "WRONG" often fall into the trap of themselves being wrong about something, and will never admit it..."

He's right, you know? I'm almost certain I am wrong about many things most of the time, but I will never admit that to anybody.... *proof reading post before sending*... Oh, wait....

David Killens's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic

@A Gnostic Agnostic

"As to "gnostic" and "agnostic" you are attempting to enforce/apply an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) that, rather than reflecting the essence of a root, is rather a reflection of the common usage of that root, of a particular people, based on a particular understanding (or lack of)."

No matter how you attempt to redefine and change the meaning of any words, they still come out the same in the dictionary.

Please attempt to stick to the dictionary definitions instead of inventing your own language.

Cognostic's picture
@ an narrow English-based

@ an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) Wrong banana breath. Dictionaries do not give definitions but common usages. As you said, words change over time. If you are using some archaic form of a word, it is your responsibility to clearly define what you mean. You are in an ATHEIST FORUM. You have been called out numerous times on your bullshit misuse of words. Get with the program. We are not speaking LATIN or GREEK around here.;

RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: @ an narrow English-based

RE: @ an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) Wrong banana breath. Dictionaries do not give definitions but common usages. As you said, words change over time. If you are using some archaic form of a word, it is your responsibility to clearly define what you mean. You are in an ATHEIST FORUM. You have been called out numerous times on your bullshit misuse of words. Get with the program. We are not speaking LATIN or GREEK around here.;
______________________________

If dictionaries do not give definitions but common usages, and my name is unique (ie. opposite of "common") why would any assume my usage were common? Why would you assume anything? Are you a "believer"? Do you "believe" you are something you are not, such as... right?

I actually haven't had any contentions to the argument as of yet. I am still waiting for one, and in the meantime using you to elaborate and clarify other things I am still inquiring about internally. It's really interesting, look:

RE: RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Can I ask you (as I do not know): are you aware you are accusing another of what you are doing? Are you aware that you have literally copy-pasted this exact response fulfilling:

"...TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT."

and are effectively repeating the same nonsense? I can not tell if you are serious, or trolling. If you play the troll card, you will have one-upped me because I thought you were serious.

Back to the OP:

"Belief" itself seems to be the Edenic warning.

To believe, rather than to know (what not to believe) is ignorance.
To know what not to believe reconciles any/all ignorance.
If god is all-knowing, knowing all who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" tends towards god.

Getting close.

Cognostic's picture
RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU

RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sounds like a poorly written

Sounds like a poorly written chat bot, that has been paired with a New Age text generator.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: Agnos

@Nyar Re: Agnos

Yeah, I'm beginning to think more and more he is just some yo-yo who is simply generating a bunch of nonsense bullshit and then copying/pasting it. Ridiculous.

Cognostic's picture
I am disengaging: : HOW MANY

I am disengaging: : HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU

RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.
____________________

Okay, so admitted troll. Got it now, thanks - will report from now on.
Do you have anything to address about the OP?

RE: Sounds like a poorly written chat bot, that has been paired with a New Age text generator.
____________________

More spam - will be reporting from now on.
Do you have anything to address about the OP?

RE: Yeah, I'm beginning to think more and more he is just some yo-yo who is simply generating a bunch of nonsense bullshit and then copying/pasting it. Ridiculous.
____________________

More spam - will be reporting from now on.
Do you have anything to address about the OP?

Back on-topic: I will be reporting trolling and spam from now on (was not expecting on atheist forums) - please either address the contents of the OP or squeal and whine elsewhere. Generating hatred via sweeping slander and insults is just as pathetic a behavior as any religionist would do - worse considering religionists justify it with a god. Atheists really have no excuse here - same Canaanite mentality of attack! attack! attack! If another atheist is arguing in favor of atheists, and you attack the atheist arguing for your side, you are just as backwards as the "believers".

To the others silent reading: there are designated jihadist slander warriors that are employed to slander people such that the concerns they raise about Islam are heard by as few as possible. I suspect some of the frequent offenders to be this, and this is all they do is slander, slander and more slander. They are like cockroaches that feed from slandering for a living. It is a pathetic existence, but unfortunately I don't get to choose the reality, I just observe it for what it is.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ gnostic/aggie

@ gnostic/aggie

o the others silent reading: there are designated jihadist slander warriors that are employed to slander people such that the concerns they raise about Islam are heard by as few as possible. I suspect some of the frequent offenders to be this, and this is all they do is slander, slander and more slander. They are like cockroaches that feed from slandering for a living. It is a pathetic existence, but unfortunately I don't get to choose the reality, I just observe it for what it is.

Do you think that everyone on these forums is that stupid that they cannot see your Islamophobia? Nearly every post has some daft comment and derogatory comment about Islam.

Are you really so fucken stupid you do not realise you're on an ATHEIST site?

We do not (the active members) give a blue or purple fuck about any god or gods so your particular target for hate speech is totally fucking lost on most of us you fucking moron.

You have posted pages and pages of utter crap, nearly every post denigrating Islam...GFU! It would have the same effect (i.e none) if you denigrated xtians, zoroastrians, Yahzi... whatever, you intellectually stunted cockroach.

Now, try me...do I give a shit? Naaaw.

Give it up, we are just not buying into your nasty crappola.

Tin-Man's picture
@Agnos Re: "More spam - will

@Agnos Re: "More spam - will be reporting from now on.
Do you have anything to address about the OP?"

Matter of fact, now that you mention it, I believe I DO have a remark or two for the OP. Problem, though, is that I don't quite know how to say it. Or maybe I actually DO know how, but that I just believe I don't know that is causing the problem. Honestly, I just don't know... *shaking head in frustration*... Well, damn. Now I believe I will have to delay my intended response until I know for sure that I believe I will be able to relay what I believe I know accurately. Sorry to get your hopes up, but I believe I know you will understand it is in your best interest that I not make statements about belief until I believe I know for certain what I believe is true to the best of my knowledge. Otherwise, you might not believe me.

Cognostic's picture
RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU

RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
**RE: Do you think that

**RE: Do you think that everyone on these forums is that stupid that they cannot see your Islamophobia? Nearly every post has some daft comment and derogatory comment about Islam.
_________________________

"Islamophobia" is a fascist term manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood to stifle criticisms of Islam. It plays on the same principle pathology I have already talked about: projection. The real "phobia" is suffered by the House of Islam and being projected onto others who trigger it. Example:

Muslim: Glass of water, full of sediment called "Islamophobia".
Non-Muslim: Stir rod (speak truth).
Muslim: ISLAMOPHOBE! (projection / accuser is the accused)
(applies to anyone who worships a lie(s) as the sediment)

Non-Muslim states a fact(s):
i. The Qur'an is *not* the perfect word of any creator of any universe. It is evolved from Christian strophic hymns.
ii. Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad; all mosques built up to 100 years after the death of Muhammad is facing an entirely different city: Petra.
iii. Islam is responsible for more genocide than any other comparable state; 270 000 000+ and Muhammad/Hitler both committed genocide against Jews.

Is fearing a fascist dictator warlord a "phobia"? Irrational fear? One necessarily *must* be stupid to "believe" that.

So hundreds of millions of people are dead due to a single false "belief". If even a single one of these facts were exposed mainstream, the House of Islam would fall and perish as it should/will (eventually). You're here using the same fascist language in attempt to slander me as what the House of Islam is guilty of? What is next, call me an infidel (chastity)? How many concurrent women did Muhammad have? How many women was Adam (ie. "religion of Adam") given, accord to the first book of Moses "pbuh"? Why do Muhammadan men "believe" themselves entitled to more? What is the agency required to "believe" evil is good? Who are the *real* infidels?

The House of Islam religiously projects/condemns others for the iniquities of their own house. The House of Islam suffers "Islamophobia" and your use of it here indicates strongly that you are, in fact, a fascist. Sorry, but it is true - anyone who buys into the narrative that there even *can* be such a thing as "Islamophobia" is either unconscious retarded, or themselves a fascist whiner/squealer like the Muhammadans who worship their polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord idol (Islam is pure idol worship of a dead man). Greatest example for all of humanity! Reality: absolute worst.

It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good. Muslims are "believers" who "believe" a polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord is the greatest example for all of humanity, for all of time, and this is immutable. Sorry, you want the House of Islam for real Islamophobia - everything they blame on others is what they are themselves guilty of, it is the mark of Kayin / psychological projection. It is a mental disorder that causes hundreds of millions to die (blaming others for ones own iniquity - same as original sin). It results in socialism and now Nazism is returning. Islam is the root of both.

But, but, but... I'm an Islamophobe! Lol - do you people really have no idea what is going on outside? It's called "war" and I've studied Islamic warfare for just over 3 years. I can see their every move, and they hide like absolute cowards. The same qualities they "hate" Jews for, is what they themselves are, and this again leads back to projection.

Once you "know" projection, it is like a light in a dark room. You see everything in plain sight. Some have the mark, some do not.

**RE: Are you really so fucken stupid you do not realise you're on an ATHEIST site?
_________________________

You're mad. Same madness as Islam. Not different - exactly the same. Yes I do: that is why I tell the atheists what the problem with Islam is: it is the root of fascism and socialism, Nazi genocide against Jews are a shared trait between Muhammad and Hitler, among many others.

**RE: We do not (the active members) give a blue or purple fuck about any god or gods so your particular target for hate speech is totally fucking lost on most of us you fucking moron.
_________________________

"Hate speech" is another fascist expression. The hatred is inside of you - the problem is not that I stir, it is that you hate. The first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim who is indoctrinated into an "us vs. them" attitude from birth. The same attitude you have now. Not different.

By the way, again, if a person "believes" a lie, they will "hate" the truth, because the truth will appear to them as a lie.

**RE: You have posted pages and pages of utter crap, nearly every post denigrating Islam...GFU! It would have the same effect (i.e none) if you denigrated xtians, zoroastrians, Yahzi... whatever, you intellectually stunted cockroach.
_________________________

Mad again. Do you understand how projection works? When a person is in a state of enmity, such as yourself, the source of it is stirring their own negative characteristics within themselves, resulting in a projection. It's not that which goes in, it is what comes out. What you are calling me, is actually a reflection of your own characteristics. Think mirror.

**RE: Now, try me...do I give a shit? Naaaw.
_________________________

I think that is your problem. You seem to care about yourself before others. I actually care that billions of people are suffering bullshit. You seem to care more about being a dick. You're not different than a religionist; in fact, you should "know" better for having less of a reason to be one - no god to point to as an excuse.

**RE: Give it up, we are just not buying into your nasty crappola.
_________________________

It's only meant for people to think for themselves instead of yielding to authority - such as fascist authorities that sell fascist propaganda which is eaten up by the unthinking. I'm so sorry you are succumb.
_________________________

RE: Matter of fact, now that you mention it, I believe I DO have a remark or two for the OP. Problem, though, is that I don't quite know how to say it. Or maybe I actually DO know how, but that I just believe I don't know that is causing the problem. Honestly, I just don't know... *shaking head in frustration*... Well, damn. Now I believe I will have to delay my intended response until I know for sure that I believe I will be able to relay what I believe I know accurately. Sorry to get your hopes up, but I believe I know you will understand it is in your best interest that I not make statements about belief until I believe I know for certain what I believe is true to the best of my knowledge. Otherwise, you might not believe me.

Hello Tin-Man. You can't "believe" you have a remark - you either do, or do not. You might "believe" it is a good one, but "belief" is the agency required to confuse good with bad, as you demonstrate.

Just an FYI I do not "believe" people, or in people. I either know them to a degree, or do not know them in any degree. See, I don't focus on people, I focus on the reasoning(s) they provide. Based on that reasoning, I infer the discipline of the conscience behind the being and how it is used to ask questions (conscience - self inquiry). People who do not use the conscience and/or dwell in emotionalism become angry mob people that lose their conscience entirely. I've not had a single *good* question come from anyone here, and it is just so boring to me that all the atheists have reduced themselves into the same stupor as the "believing" religionists.

Is there anyone here who can actually use the conscience without rhetoric and/or emotion?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Aggie

@ Aggie

Islamophobia" is a fascist term manufactured by the Muslim Brotherhood to stifle criticisms of Islam. It plays on the same principle pathology I have already talked about: projection. The real "phobia" is suffered by the House of Islam and being projected onto others who trigger it. Example:

*Rises from seat* *Mops Brow with red kerchief, looks in total disbelief at the defendants latest testimony* Raises eyebrow to judge*
"M'lud,Again, it appears, we have a defendant convicting himself from his own mouth. I move the case be dismissed without further noise and disturbance from the dock"

Judge: "Are you proposing another section 36c admission? This is becoming a habit with you Old Man"

*As your lordship pleases, and yes I think a Section 36 would be most appropriate in this case. The defendant's mental state is parlous and I do believe he would pose a threat to public safety if released back on to the streets to preach his irrational, and sometimes hateful opinions to the impressionable."

Judge; *laughing* "He won't find too many "impressionable" people here" *acknowledges obsequious snickers from the court*

"I will leave the question of his fate to the moderators as, to my mind he does border on the commandment against hate speech in his utterances. The rest of his testimony appears to be new age drivel pretending to be profound."

*As your Lordship pleases", *flicks gown, sets wig straight and sits down ignoring the whining from the dock*

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: HOW MANY

@A Gnostic Agnostic: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "THE DEFINITION OF

@Cog Re: "THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT."

Hey, don't take this the wrong way, but I believe you may be going insane. Granted, I don't KNOW you are going insane, because my inner self-consciousness has not relayed sufficient information to my outer self-awareness to allow me to make a definitive assessment of your supposed psychologically flawed condition. Keep in mind I am somewhat aware that it is almost certainly plausible that I know my belief could be wrong, in which case I know you have every right to not believe my non-assessment of what I believe about your mental status. I just want you to know I care. And even though you cannot truly KNOW that, please at least try to believe it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic - ..

A Gnostic Agnostic - ...anyone who buys into the narrative that there even *can* be such a thing as "Islamophobia" is either unconscious retarded, or themselves a fascist whiner/squealer...

Wow that is pretty harsh. Especially since in the very next paragraph; you went on to acknowledge that Islamophobia is a real thing:

A Gnostic Agnostic - ...you want the House of Islam for real Islamophobia...

So according to what you have told us, you are either: retarded or a fascist whiner/squealer.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: Wow that is pretty harsh.

RE: Wow that is pretty harsh. Especially since in the very next paragraph; you went on to acknowledge that Islamophobia is a real thing:
______________________________

It is absolutely real. But, it is inverted/upside-down. Try to get rid of the emotions for 30 seconds and use your conscience only.

Take a triangle with an area of 100(%):

Top 5% = House of Islam (ie. Muslim Brotherhood)
Bottom 95% = "Believing" Muslim
Call these H and M resp.

There are two kinds of fear happening here: rational and irrational.

H has a RATIONAL fear:
-Qur'an is man-made (exposed=collapse)
-Petra scandal (exposed=collapse)

whereas M has an IRRATIONAL fear (of Allah/Islam).

The nature of the M/E Canaanite-derived religions is to scapegoat/project their own iniquities (ie. of the "tribe") onto others. This is a pathology in Christianity with Jesus being the scapegoat for all of the sins of the world, and a pathology in Islam to project/condemn their adversaries as being guilty of what Islam wants off of itself. It will do this to take the focus off of itself and on to others: accuser is the accused.

A is guilty of (x). A is drawing attention about (x).
A accuses B of (x) in front of C, who is a gullible "believer".
C "believes" A and condemns B for (x) which A is guilty of.

This is how witch mobs work. Look at the United states:

A=Democrats/House of Islam
B=Republicans/West
C="Believers" who hate instead of think

The internal nature of the top 5% is constant fear, thus they use fear to control their own people (same pathology as Muhammad). This is a conscious process.
The internal nature of the bottom 95% is also constant fear, but as with the glass analogy, Muslims pathologically project their own internal state (ie. phobia) as being caused by an outside source. Therefor, despite themselves having an irrational fear of (criticisms of) Islam, they blame whoever is stirring it up in them. The Palestinians do this constantly: blame others for what they are guilty of.

So this entire "phobia" business is actually suffered by the "believing" Muslims (who are the first victims of Islam) and the term is used by the top 5% to silence criticisms of Islam by condemning others for their own state of being (ie. fear). They will always, always blame others for their own internal state. That is the mental illness of Islam: projection. Once you see it, you see it for life.

RE: So according to what you have told us, you are either: retarded or a fascist whiner/squealer.
_____________________

No, however that might be what you want me to be because it suits your "narrative". A fascist whiner/squealer is exactly what Old man shouts... is. Retarded is what Islam is. It is stuck in the 7th century trying to make the Qur'an-based sharia the global law, and this is where all of the hatred/divisiveness is coming from. Most people don't see it because they buy into the hatred and turn into zombies that attack on command. They are trying to destroy the United States from within, and Canada is being invaded under Justin Trudeau who was literally picked up off the streets by these people.

If you understand projection, you will understand geopolitics. Always ask upon any accusation: are they projecting? If there is enmity, it will always be yes. If there is no enmity, the accusation may have a degree or more of soundness to it. But once there is enmity... seriously might as well just look into a mirror. It's that obvious.

CyberLN's picture
Gnostic Agnostic,

Gnostic Agnostic,

Will you be including a nice balsamic vinaigrette with all the word salad you’ve been serving?

Tin-Man's picture
@Cyber

@Cyber

I'm just happy I had my butterknife recently refurbished. Customized handle, slightly wider blade, and an extra-dull edge. Ol' Agnos has been helping me break it in quite nicely... *grin*...

Nyarlathotep's picture
CyberLN - Will you be

CyberLN - Will you be including a nice balsamic vinaigrette with all the word salad you’ve been serving?

Eww, never understood why some people think vinegar is food!

Pages

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.