Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true.

[PickelledEggs]

Hello
The Reason why I say "atheist are the Dumbest people"
there are more reasons than 1.  But mostly because most atheist have no belief in things they cant understand and/or only belief in the 5 recorded senses of the human being.

A little about me, I am a Christian but im sad to say im not a born again Christian, I truly hope I can get there one day soon, I battle with a lot of evil on a daily basis.  I also want to say that I am NOT the type of person that is a "google freak" and I do not squawk off like a parrot or just repeat things I have read or heard from people for the reason I have little faith in man. So most things I say is from organic thoughts and "nuggets" that I believe have come into my mind from asking in prayer "to let me see, and to let me hear" also asking for wisdom,knowledge and understanding. I am not saying in any way that I have it all figured out, I am far from that.

So now I hope you understand that I am not pretending to be something im not,Ill tell you that I have never been to church as a adult but I do pray many times a day everyday, I also have had a true experience with god,and I feel really bad that I still have not let myself be born again after such a experience with God.

Now lets get to some things. Ill start with atheist thinking it is so far fetched that there actually can be a heaven or a kingdom in the sky. Well this is short and sweet also a fact,......Wait for it...HAHA Its that we live in a kingdom in the sky people!! think about it.

Another thing Ill say before the replies come in and this isn't just for atheist but for most people is how people are gauging another mans intelligence or what people "Think" makes a person smart, is good grades, collage degrees, "Titles", spelling etc.  Im here to tell you that is a joke, all of the things I just listed off,no matter how good you are at them, Only means you lack a learning disability you see all normal humans can learn anything they want, so how can one be smart simply because they have learned something. when we all have that ability.
Smart is the inventors and people with the NEW great ideas, people that are having a different perspective than the masses, and if you truly cant see that there is a God then you are Truly a fool.
I tend to see the truth in "reading Between the lines" like science has truly accomplished nothing.

[mod]lol no.[/mod]

[hrdlr110]

That show the level of mind you have. You think this mobile is a big accomplishment? We don't need this shit. It was better times on earth prior to all the brain clogging devices.  It's why y'all have lost all comon sence and spirituality.
Do you think it's good for the brain to see all those unessacery comericals you really think you should know about tide cleaning agent? Science has accomplished nothing to do with life. Except that what they aren't allowed to say BC all scientist know God exist. It just fucks their career if they admit it.

It's really too bad supernatural doesn't exist. I'd love to be able identify people like this by their giant thought bubble containing a giant question mark.

[Baruch]

Can you elaborate?

I am quite elaborate, thanks, but this is a dead string.  On another string I agreed recently with another poster ... that numinous is a better word than natural/supernatural.  It is a matter of etymology and rhetoric.  Natural/supernatural is rhetorically charged.  It brings out the "its all black vs its all white" people.  Wittgenstein is correct, but centuries behind Zen, that words get in the way of thinking.  In fact thinking gets in the way of living.  Almost all words are part of false dichotomies, while being one side of a two sided coin.  Numinous has its own supposed opposite, but most people don't realize it, so less knee jerk reaction.  Numinous can be taken as a statement of personal psychology ... like when you enter a room, and you think someone is there, but there isn't (story by a great rabbi, borrowed without royalty payment).  And personal psychology is where I am at, not epistemology.

[Mr.Obvious]

I am quite elaborate, thanks, but this is a dead string.  On another string I agreed recently with another poster ... that numinous is a better word than natural/supernatural.  It is a matter of etymology and rhetoric.  Natural/supernatural is rhetorically charged.  It brings out the "its all black vs its all white" people.  Wittgenstein is correct, but centuries behind Zen, that words get in the way of thinking.  In fact thinking gets in the way of living.  Almost all words are part of false dichotomies, while being one side of a two sided coin.  Numinous has its own supposed opposite, but most people don't realize it, so less knee jerk reaction.  Numinous can be taken as a statement of personal psychology ... like when you enter a room, and you think someone is there, but there isn't (story by a great rabbi, borrowed without royalty payment).  And personal psychology is where I am at, not epistemology.

I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.

[Mike Cl]

I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.

Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means.  I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make.  Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it.  For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural.  Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.

[Mr.Obvious]

Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means.  I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make.  Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it.  For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural.  Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.

Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.

Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.

[Mike Cl]

Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.

Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.

In my experience, Baruch is not that easily offended.  Well, Mr Obvious, I was only saying you have the capacity to understand him.  He just takes some getting used to and after awhile, he makes very good sense.  But you really don't have to accept all that he says even if you do understand it. :))

[doorknob]

to quote Neils Bohr a highly regarded scientist " everything we call real is made up of things that cant be regarded as real" that's a fact.

No that's not a fact that's just a quote. Probably out of context too I'll bet. ]

This is just ridiculous at this point I'm making a statement and then you are going "na ah the opposite is true" Changing the meaning of words to suite your cause and using zero resources or references to back up your ancient beliefs.

One thing I'm really curious about. You don't believe words written in books yet ironically you believe in the bible of the christian god. Why is a book written by ancient desert people more reliable than science? I don't get it. You think sheep herders had all the answers? You certainly are strange.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I've been in an airplane and failed to see the sky people.. I probably wasn't paying attention. That's how us atheists are though..We are so dumb and don't look for sky people when we fly in airplanes..

[Unbeliever]

I swear there will come a day that I understand you baruch.
But it is not this day.

[Baruch]

Mr. Obvious, I would be willing to bet that you do understand what Baruch means.  I don't agree with his statement above, but I do see the point he is trying to make.  Oh, I can see that he does believe what he said--but I don't buy it.  For me, there is only natural--nothing, nothing at all is supernatural.  Which means to me that we have, at least, a shot of understanding all that happens to us and with us in this universe.

The problem is Pavlovian response to trigger words ... particularly with people who use dog avatars ;-)  Call it Fred.  Would you argue so much over mere terminology, if the word didn't mean anything additional to you?  But I am being sensitive to people like you ... some words simply can't be seen by most people as biased, though all words are.  The fact we choose one word over another, one sentence over another, is the very crux of our prejudice.

I don't mean supernatural, the way you do ... nor do I mean the same as you, when I say natural.  With each person, a word carries a lot of baggage, and unless we happen to carry the same baggage, we naturally call into artificial an unnecessary controversy.

[Unbeliever]

I guess there really are no philosophical problems, then, only language puzzles?

[Baruch]

Actually, i genuinely don't understand what he's saying from 'numinous has it own supposed opposite' and onwards... From what i do understand from baruch, it's clear we don't think alike on a lot of subjects, and that's fine. But i do often just not understand what he's saying. Which is fine too. And can even be amusing from time to time.

Baruch, if i offend, i apologise.

No problem.  As long as you don't bad mouth marzipan or chocolates (Belgian specialties, yes?).  I am rhetorical.  I am trying to avoid leading the OP off into the weeds over nouminal vs phenomenal.  It is like natural vs supernatural, but at right angles to it.  Again, as I posted to Mike CL .. it is also an attempt to avoid a trigger word.  I wouldn't want y'all to feel micro-aggressed ;-)

[Mike Cl]

The problem is Pavlovian response to trigger words ... particularly with people who use dog avatars ;-)  Call it Fred.  Would you argue so much over mere terminology, if the word didn't mean anything additional to you?  But I am being sensitive to people like you ... some words simply can't be seen by most people as biased, though all words are.  The fact we choose one word over another, one sentence over another, is the very crux of our prejudice.

I don't mean supernatural, the way you do ... nor do I mean the same as you, when I say natural.  With each person, a word carries a lot of baggage, and unless we happen to carry the same baggage, we naturally call into artificial an unnecessary controversy.

First, how do you know I chose a dog avatar?  I may have chosen a cat avatar?  And I hear what you said.  Yes, all I speak comes from me.  And I comprehend the world as I comprehend it; nobody else sees it as I do.  Nor as you do.  So, yes it is easy to see that all words, sentences and thoughts are bias laden.  For real communication to occur, I have to cut through my bias first--and find a way to cut through yours; which means you have to want to allow me to do that.  That is not the easiest thing to do, and the conditions have to be correct. 

I have been aware for quite some time what your bias are (well, to a small degree)--and I do think we have actually connected on ideas we agree on.  We have, from time to time, communicated.   In any case, I do find what you think and how you think to be, well, entertaining and at times enlightening.  And every now and again we can communicate.

[Mr.Obvious]

No problem.  As long as you don't bad mouth marzipan or chocolates (Belgian specialties, yes?).  I am rhetorical.  I am trying to avoid leading the OP off into the weeds over nouminal vs phenomenal.  It is like natural vs supernatural, but at right angles to it.  Again, as I posted to Mike CL .. it is also an attempt to avoid a trigger word.  I wouldn't want y'all to feel micro-aggressed ;-)

Marzipan a Belgian specialty? First time I heard that.
Also, 'micro-agression' is a trigger word for me as I got severly beat up by an ill-tempered little person. So yeah I'll thank you for avoiding that word around me in the future?
:p