AnnaAgainstAtheist trolling - 2/21/2009

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Visiting the same video, "GREAT ATHEIST QUOTES," I find that Anna has
returned - after fleeing the questions put to her, yesterday.

We see more of the same, that is, a series of assertions that
demonstrate willful ignorance.

I started: Well, Anna, at it again, I see, posting the same
assertions and avoiding questions. But, my, my, my, you've been busy
overnight, haven't you? So much trolling over so long a period!

But let's get started, shall we?

I'm going to expose you, again, Anna, along with your superficial and
silly assertions, and you will be shown to be a shrill, hateful,
narcissistic, but ignorant theist who has neither the knowledge nor
the maturity to participate in any reasonable debate.

And I will record our exchanges and file them in the Google Group.

Let's get started with what appears to be are response to
"damianpoirier" on what I assume are atheist "articles of faith."

I have already exposed your fallacious reasoning when it comes to the
use of faith in these contexts, Anna, and how human faith manifests
itself in different forms. While insisting, in your daily temper
tantrums, that atheism is a religion and that atheists have beliefs
and faith, you fail to understand that one can believe something
without having a religious mindset toward it, and one can have faith
in something because of a mind toward evidence and natural (and
verifiable) occurrence.

Humans can quite readily believe things because the have evidence for
them, Anna. Silly girl that you are, you want to insist that a lack
of a belief in God is a belief that there is no God. That is a
belief, according to you, while trying to insist that it is the same
kind of belief that there is a God, as believed by you and, as you say
billions more.

Likewise, Anna, it is possible to have faith in something because
there is evidence for that something that is objective and can be
presented quite readily to anyone. Humans have faith in the sunrise
because they have observed that the sun comes up every day of their
lives. That's the classic example. It is not a blind faith, as is
yours. It does not assume or believe, without evidence or, often,
contrary to evidence.

Believing that natural law has influence and having faith that the sun
will rise is not the same as believing in God or having faith in those
things attributed to him. None of that is supported by evidence or
observation.

Now, that is all pretty simple, straight-forward, and even generally
understood by anyone with the smallest bit of introspective intellect,
but it seems to be a complete mystery to you and many of your likewise
shallow-thinking religious allies. As I said, human belief takes on m
any forms, and humans haeve different kinds of faith. To equate those
with your beliefs and your kind of faith is to forward an
exceptionally poor argument that is easily refuted.

Your silly prattlings have already scrolled to the second page of the
comment section and will soon be lost by YouTube's poor mechanisms, so
let me get to the specifics:

"1 the idea that the universe is RATIONAL"

This is an alleged "article fo faith" and yet, as an atheist, I don't
share it. I'm not even clear what you mean by "RATIONAL" when it
comes to the universe, which is not sentient.

Define "RATIONAL" in the context of your claims, Anna.

Not being a cosmologist, Anna, I can say from my knowledge that the
universe behaves in ways that rational people can understand, through
the application of natrural laws, natural processes, and, probably,
things that we clearly do not yet understand. It's interesting that
you claim that "OBEYS LAWS" is another aspect of the universe that is
an article of faith, since we do understand that it acts in
accordance with natural laws that we know about, but there's still no
evidence for God.

You claim that the "articles of faith" come from "CHRISTIAN
THEOLOGY." In fact, historically, we know that they do not, and that
modern science did not arise from Christianity. Christianity, in
fact, was an oppressive influence on science. Just ask Galileo.

Historically, Anna, we know that the greatest achievements in science
did not truly begin until the period following the Dark Ages and
extending the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment -
all periods during which the Christian hegemony over Europe was
*decreasing*. As the Church lost its ability to repress, science and
human knowledge increased.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

"get redhumbed and spammed out by narrowminded self-elected nazi-like
atheist censors"

Anna, having an opinion rendered of your comments is not censorship
and hardly even qualifies when compared to the fact that you will not
even allow certain postings on your channel page. For example, I
challenged you, again, to a debate, and you refused to allow that
comment to post.

Nothing is stopping you from posting. You are not being censored,
foolish child.

I'll say it, again, Anna, no one is preventing you from commenting.
You are not being censored. That some don't think much of what you
have to say and so down-rate your comments is not censorship. That
YouTube scrolls comments away from the first page or subsequent pages,
frustrating your juvenile need for attention, is not censorship.

Grow up, child.

Comparing the YouTube mechanisms to Hitler's behaviors is, indeed, to
compare completely different situations, but I would expect no less of
you, Anna, a teenager who has no understanding of either issue and yet
revels in her narcissism. Your claims are demonstrably incorrect - not
"ACCURATE" at all, and as long as you behave in this fashion, you'll
continue to be exposed.

Thank you for showing everyone what rampant religionism does to
people, as a shining example of that influence.

These claims of Anna's have scrolled away:

"HOW CAN A COW BECOME A WHALE?"

Anna, you'll get no points for using the arguments of idiot
creationists such as Duane Gish to buttress your arguments. No
evolutionary scientist makes the claim that cows become whales. It's a
silly, straw man argument, but using it demonstrates your complete
ignorance of whale evolution.

"HOW CAN INANIMATE MATTER EVOLVE INTO HUMANS?"

Inanmiate matter didn't evolve into humans, Anna. Humans evolved from
previous populations of living forms which did so, in turn. Those
lineages are well-supported by significant evidence.

How life originated is still a mystery, and the explanations for it
are compelling. Readers are directed to the videos of user PotHoler54
for a "made simple" explanation that, regardless, will sail right over
Anna's head.