Atheist!

[sr71plt]

According to your friends xssve, past-perfect, cantdog, Stella, sr71plt, Cloudy, DeeZire, and other atheist/liberals Aristotelian logic has been discredited and abandoned by progressives and has been replaced with a far more superior logic. You in fact say "That isn't any form of logic" referring to Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic is the only logic that conservatives defend.

Ummm, no. I never posted anything at all on this. Please provide a quote of where I have or stop the Amicusesque intellectual dishonesty.

And while you are at it, you still haven't quoted where I have posted any racist material either.

Or decided yet whether Christianity requires a belief in the divinity of Christ.

You seem to be way behind in your substantiation of your ramblings, wmrs2.

 

[wmrs2]

I would call that a subjective hypothesis - conversions occur both ways, I've witnessed it.

You, in fact are probably closer to converting ami to Christianity than I am to converting him to radical empiricism.

Actually, amicus's philosophy appears to me to be closer to Christianity's beliefs than many of those who claim to be Christians on this thread. I think he would not have to change any of his beliefs to become a Christian but only disregard the title of atheist. However, that is his choice and I am sure he has his reasons for believing what he does.

I take the same point of view that Jesus Christ had of those who did not follow after him. Christ said, "if they be not against us, they be for us" or something like that. I do admire how amicus adheres the principles of sound logic and maybe someday he will join me in my religious beliefs. I am not opposed to converting him away from the atheist's camp.

 

[xssve]

Radical Empiricism. It recognizes, among other things, that sentiment does play a large role in perception - women don't always mate according to who brings her the most meat, nor do men always pursue the woman with the biggest rack, etc., we tend to balance practical needs with social and emotional needs.

You, for example, have only wandered in here driven by an interesting but highly particular paraphilia, and much of your subsequent difficulties IMO, have resulted from being driven into a defensive stance over the fact that you didn't get the compassionate reception you might have expected.

I suggest you try the General BDSM board over at collarme.com, where you are more likely to get a more balanced reception and a wider variety of responses - they may not all be positive, but they shouldn't be uniformly negative either, and I think you'll find others who share your Christian beliefs as well.

Do yourself a favor though, and observe for a bit before jumping in - for one thing, tolerance for the peccadilloes of others is a significant factor in terms of maintaining cordial relationships, and is considered polite protocol in general. i.e., lay off the proselytizing or you will be booted, those forums are moderated.

i.e., confine it to your interests and don't tell them I sent you, you aren't going to make any conversions over there but you may find some other like minded people - what do you call that? Brotherhood or something?

You could find that here too if you had taken it slower.

 

[sr71plt]

Actually, amicus's philosophy appears to me to be closer to Christianity's beliefs than many of those who claim to be Christians on this thread. I think he would not have to change any of his beliefs to become a Christian but only disregard the title of atheist. However, that is his choice and I am sure he has his reasons for believing what he does.

I take the same point of view that Jesus Christ had of those who did not follow after him. Christ said, "if they be not against us, they be for us" or something like that. I do admire how amicus adheres the principles of sound logic and maybe someday he will join me in my religious beliefs. I am not opposed to converting him away from the atheist's camp.

I think we have no idea what Amicus's true beliefs are--that all of this discussion by him here is just to rattle other posters' cages. I see no intellectual honesty in him.

 

[xssve]

Fellowship, that's the word.

 

[xssve]

I think we have no idea what Amicus's true beliefs are--that all of this discussion by him here is just to rattle other posters' cages. I see no intellectual honesty in him.

Yeah, he just likes to pull chains, he's a foil at best - imagine my shock when I discovered he's a better writer than BFW.

 

[wmrs2]

I would call that a subjective hypothesis - conversions occur both ways, I've witnessed it.

You, in fact are probably closer to converting ami to Christianity than I am to converting him to radical empiricism.

I think we have no idea what Amicus's true beliefs are--that all of this discussion by him here is just to rattle other posters' cages. I see no intellectual honesty in him.

I can not judge his intellectual honesty but my comments were to his willingness to go wherever reasoning took him. I like that in a person.

 

[xssve]

I can not judge his intellectual honesty but my comments were to his willingness to go wherever reasoning took him. I like that in a person.

I do too, except that I find his reasoning highly subjective - one reasons from the postulates to the conclusion, not the other way around, and ami only reasons to where he's willing to go.

 

[sr71plt]

I do too, except that I find his reasoning highly subjective - one reasons from the postulates to the conclusion, not the other way around, and ami only reasons to where he's willing to go.

I rather think Amicus only reasons to where it will irritate another poster.

 

[xssve]

I rather think Amicus only reasons to where it will irritate another poster.

I've encountered it before with other Randists and the religious right. I believe it's the result of centripetalization marketing techniques designed to elicit a perpetual state of dissatisfaction that can be channeled towards convenient targets, wherever the "authoritative voice" leads, the Leopard, "the enemy", which simultaneously reinforces "ingroup" cohesion, while keeping political opposition occupied fighting off the resulting random attacks, difficult to counter since they have no sound logical basis, but consist mostly of sentimental emotional gibberish that mixes fact with fiction in a sort of intellectual taffy pull of confusion.

It generates intellectual tar babies that one is loathe to leave to their own devices, but often becomes stuck to if one allows oneself to become emotionally involved.

 

[xssve]

For instance, not being able to call liberals "evil", they are instead associated with "free thinking" and thence, to Hitler; guilt by association.

The only way to counter this propaganda is with a lengthy examination of the nature and history of reasoning, and the various traditions of free thinking that, humans being what they are, result in the same sectarian special interests that religion does - science and religion are both human institutions and heir to the same human frailties.

By that time, everyone is asleep, and unless your using that time to refine your own thinking on the subject, you've been sidelined from doing anything more productive.

 

[wmrs2]

Radical Empiricism. It recognizes, among other things, that sentiment does play a large role in perception - women don't always mate according to who brings her the most meat, nor do men always pursue the woman with the biggest rack, etc., we tend to balance practical needs with social and emotional needs.

You, for example, have only wandered in here driven by an interesting but highly particular paraphilia, and much of your subsequent difficulties IMO, have resulted from being driven into a defensive stance over the fact that you didn't get the compassionate reception you might have expected.

I suggest you try the General BDSM board over at collarme.com, where you are more likely to get a more balanced reception and a wider variety of responses - they may not all be positive, but they shouldn't be uniformly negative either, and I think you'll find others who share your Christian beliefs as well.

Do yourself a favor though, and observe for a bit before jumping in - for one thing, tolerance for the peccadilloes of others is a significant factor in terms of maintaining cordial relationships, and is considered polite protocol in general. i.e., lay off the proselytizing or you will be booted, those forums are moderated.

i.e., confine it to your interests and don't tell them I sent you, you aren't going to make any conversions over there but you may find some other like minded people - what do you call that? Brotherhood or something?

You could find that here too if you had taken it slower.

I do appreciate your observations about my sudden appearance on the AH. It is a correct observation that I have been driven into a defensive position and I agree it is largely due to strong opinions which really conflicts with the opinions of most people on AH.

I did expect a different reception. My real experience in writing is not in the area of erotica and that may be part of my problem, I have published in the area of mental health and Christian lifestyles but I would never share that with this forum. My writing in erotica is a play thing in which I attempt to give a sound psychological reason erotica is so appealing to humans. I wish that this could be shared with this forum but I just can not do this now. This does explain my clumsy threads and post about crucifixion, where I am actually fishing for extreme responses related to erotica where something might be learned about fetishes and sexual fantasy. I simply am not experienced in dealing with people who have strong fetishes, quirks, and sexual fantasies. I am experienced in the study of abnormal psychology.

To put it correctly, my interest is in discovering why people adopt the beliefs they do adopt. One thing discovered so far on this forum is that people do not adopt beliefs based on philosophical perceptions and logic, although their beliefs might be very logical and very philosophical. Like Sigmund Freud believed, one's philosophy and morals are designed to support the libido. The human ego just can not accept that its existence is based on the libido or the blind energy of lust. It is the role of the conscious or superego to place restraints on the id.

You summarize this conception of what human nature is like with this statement: we tend to balance practical needs with social and emotional needs. You do a good job analyzing me but you also do a good job of revealing to your conscious mind why you believe what you do. I suppose it is the same for all of us, that our beliefs are not based on logic but our beliefs are clocking devices to hide even from ourselves what we really think we are.

These clocking devices are so very visible in liberals, conservatives, Christians, atheist, and in those who hold strong religious, political, or social beliefs that people hold to be sacred. It has been my experience that to uncloak these devices brings about strong and unreasonable responses of a wild and vicious nature that people might not have been aware was part of their nature. A Christian telling an atheist that God hates him or a Stella threatening to leave Lit. Forum are two good examples of this type of rage that you are recently aware of. See, clocking devices do exist and once you understand these devices, it is possible to find thousands of examples on this forum alone.

 

[xssve]

I would agree with that, one is often not forced to examine ones own beliefs until challenged to do so.

It is my habit to take people at face value as much as possible, even when they are being disingenuous.

Paraphilia is a largely a form of adaptation to expectations, often formed during childhood; a bondage fetish is not much different from feeling it's one duty to be chained to a stove for the rest of ones life. Women in general, appear to adapt to male requirements, they appear to be more flexible.

In the end, nothing is really "abnormal", they are all strategies - BDSM for example fulfills many of the same social functions as Christian monogamy using a different approach, one that may satisfy a heightened need for sexual reinforcement (sexual desirability) among other things, under controlled conditions, absent the external reinforcements of community social controls that often have political goals incomparable with individual needs.

Many Men and Women who are BDSM submissives are often found in responsible roles in their public lives, it provides a role playing outlet away form the pressures of being social role models, and is often cathartic.

Even victims some rape and abuse survivors often find it a healthy outlet to play out on conflicting feelings they would otherwise be pressured to repress, under controlled conditions.

ETA: I'm a bit of an amateur psychologist myself as you can plainly see, but I make an effort not to second guess these things too closely, as I'm observing from a great distance; I only counsel concern if a paraphilia appears to spill over from neurosis management into psychosis that might lead to harm to oneself or others - what is called SSC in the mainstream BDSM community - Safe, Sane and Consensual. Even love is classified as a neurotic attachment and can lead to psychotic behavior.

That and I have a few paraphilias of my own.

"Common morality", unfortunately, relies on and generates enormous amounts of social pressure to conform to often unrealistic expectations of "purity" or obedience that occasionally spill over into neurosis, even filicide, as is suspected in the Andrea Yates case - her husband was a Quiverfull Baptist who essentially reduced her to a mechanism for churning out babies. Women are sexual and social beings as well as incubators, they aren't just convenient appendages, they're half the equation.

Witness the reaction every time another televangelist get's caught with his pants down, so to speak, there is a lot of denial going on under the lid.

Some people appear to be able to adapt to this with little stress, others not so well - to indulge in a little anthropomorphism, Mother Nature doesn't like to put all her eggs in one basket, she plays the odds.

In any population of organisms in a stable environment, the greatest reproductive rates will be found under and adapted to the most stable conditions. But some percentage of the population will be adapting to different environmental and/or social conditions, and when conditions change, as they often do, it's often center that bears the brunt and the marginal members who have the edge in adapting to the new conditions and contain the seeds of the emergence of a new population, which in turn will have it's marginal members.

This is the (somewhat condensed version) evolutionary argument against genocide, as it usually involves the most marginal members who in fact drive social and even genetic evolution - without them, the core population becomes static and vulnerable, incapable of defending itself against changing conditions. Modern medicine is substantially the result of Pagan (Witches) experimentation and pharmacological theory for instance, at a time when the Church forbade any but the most superficial inquiry.

Mass die-offs and ELE's (Extinction Level Events) are often the result - Armageddon, if you will, which in fact happens periodically with or without divine help.

All extinctions are the result of overspecialization: the Dinosaurs for example, specialized as browsers and predators, and had developed no methods to detect or alter the trajectory of a meteor.

Help any?

 

[wmrs2]

I think we have no idea what Amicus's true beliefs are--that all of this discussion by him here is just to rattle other posters' cages. I see no intellectual honesty in him.

Taking in consideration the experience I have had on AH, it seems that everybody on this forum likes to rattle other posters' cages.

If you are expecting intellectual honesty out of writers and authors, it can best be found on a different forum. I know that we all think of ourselves of being intellectually honest but it is a rare thing when any of us reach that lofty goal. For the sake of harmony and fellowship, it would be best that I not elaborate on examples of this.

 

[sr71plt]

I do appreciate your observations about my sudden appearance on the AH. It is a correct observation that I have been driven into a defensive position and I agree it is largely due to strong opinions which really conflicts with the opinions of most people on AH.

Let's see, posting out of the blue that you had a story about sex with a woman being crucifidied (which we've never seen, to my knowledge) and what did we think of that and later on declaring you had posted that to bait "liberals" on the forum was driving you into a defensive position?

Hmmmmmm.

 

[sr71plt]

Taking in consideration the experience I have had on AH, it seems that everybody on this forum likes to rattle other posters' cages.

No, as I just posted, you entered the forum with the admitted purpose to rattle "liberal" posters with a shocking story concept.

That pretty much exempts you from any high ground here from the get go.

 

[wmrs2]

Ummm, no. I never posted anything at all on this. Please provide a quote of where I have or stop the Amicusesque intellectual dishonesty.

And while you are at it, you still haven't quoted where I have posted any racist material either.

Or decided yet whether Christianity requires a belief in the divinity of Christ.

You seem to be way behind in your substantiation of your ramblings, wmrs2.

From previous conversations you have had on this forum with other persons and from all those who have rebuffed my theist position, I concluded that you held the same point of view as the people referred to in the list of liberals I noted in the previous post of mine.

If I have misrepresented you as having this opinion and world view, it was not intended to be an insult but just a recognition. I would be interested to hear what your opinion is on the subject of Aristotelian logic. If I have classified you in an opinion group that you do not agree with, I apologize.

 

[sr71plt]

From previous conversations you have had on this forum with other persons and from all those who have rebuffed my theist position, I concluded that you held the same point of view as the people referred to in the list of liberals I noted in the previous post of mine.

If I have misrepresented you as having this opinion and world view, it was not intended to be an insult but just a recognition. I would be interested to hear what your opinion is on the subject of Aristotelian logic. If I have classified you in an opinion group that you do not agree with, I apologize.

That sounded pretty mealymouthed.

I have no opinion on Aristotelian logic--and have expressed none here (regardless of your dancing on the head of the pin on that). It's not my area of
expertise or interest.

So, stop fingering posters for what they haven't said in this foul and malicious Amicusian habit of lumping everyone who doesn't wag their head in agreement at your ramblings into one box.

 

[wmrs2]

Radical Empiricism. It recognizes, among other things, that sentiment does play a large role in perception - women don't always mate according to who brings her the most meat, nor do men always pursue the woman with the biggest rack, etc., we tend to balance practical needs with social and emotional needs.

You, for example, have only wandered in here driven by an interesting but highly particular paraphilia, and much of your subsequent difficulties IMO, have resulted from being driven into a defensive stance over the fact that you didn't get the compassionate reception you might have expected.

I suggest you try the General BDSM board over at collarme.com, where you are more likely to get a more balanced reception and a wider variety of responses - they may not all be positive, but they shouldn't be uniformly negative either, and I think you'll find others who share your Christian beliefs as well.

Do yourself a favor though, and observe for a bit before jumping in - for one thing, tolerance for the peccadilloes of others is a significant factor in terms of maintaining cordial relationships, and is considered polite protocol in general. i.e., lay off the proselytizing or you will be booted, those forums are moderated.

i.e., confine it to your interests and don't tell them I sent you, you aren't going to make any conversions over there but you may find some other like minded people - what do you call that? Brotherhood or something?

You could find that here too if you had taken it slower.

While other contributors are still in the pissing contest and trying to rescue their exposed libido and ego, I would like to continue my response to your very good observations.

Actually this statement is somewhat correct and somewhat misunderstood in light of my real purpose for coming to AH. The statement is:

You, for example, have only wandered in here driven by an interesting but highly particular paraphilia,

I did not just wonder in, actually I came with a plan, although at times I have been guilty of altering from the script. It was my plan from the beginning to firmly state my conservative beliefs for the purpose of getting the attention of those who were deeply entrenched in what they believed, not based on logic, but based strongly on their emotional state of mind. When you observe a way of life based on emotions or the libido , you easily can pop the cork. In sever cases where a person behaves in a lifestyle that they themselves think is correct, the result is a type of mental illness.

I had planned to tell somebody on the forum, an atheist, that the Bible actually teaches that God hates atheist. If one was truly an atheist based on what one believes, that person would not care what the Bible teaches. That God hates atheist is novel news even to many believers and the arrival of such news is upsetting. I knew that I would be challenged strongly and emotionally on this statement. I had no idea who would step forward to challenge me. Those with the most wounded ego stepped forward.

As I made many such strong statements, due to previous planning, the uncloaking devices sprung up throughout the AH. You could clearly see these devices and as the plot thickened, I had an excess of people who were good subjects to study. This explains my emphasis on "show and tell" and RABD. I was really trying to get at a bigger truth about the people on the AH. And I think I did. I just hope now that those who can really see themselves, exposed as they have been, will use this new scientific information to better their lives and reach that high goal of intellectual honesty.

 

[xssve]

In any case, you might find your time better spent dissecting impregnation fetishes like the Quiverfull's, rather than crudely trying to push a reconstructionist agenda in here.

I have never found Crucifixion fetishes common, in fact I never heard of it until you mentioned it. It's very specific, and you're unlikely to encounter it at Collarme.

 

[cloudy]

I did not just wonder in, actually I came with a plan, although at times I have been guilty of altering from the script. It was my plan from the beginning to firmly state my conservative beliefs for the purpose of getting the attention of those who were deeply entrenched in what they believed, not based on logic, but based strongly on their emotional state of mind. When you observe a way of life based on emotions or the libido , you easily can pop the cork. In sever cases where a person behaves in a lifestyle that they themselves think is correct, the result is a type of mental illness.

I had planned to tell somebody on the forum, an atheist, that the Bible actually teaches that God hates atheist. If one was truly an atheist based on what one believes, that person would not care what the Bible teaches. That God hates atheist is novel news even to many believers and the arrival of such news is upsetting. I knew that I would be challenged strongly and emotionally on this statement. I had no idea who would step forward to challenge me. Those with the most wounded ego stepped forward.

As I made many such strong statements, due to previous planning, the uncloaking devices sprung up throughout the AH. You could clearly see these devices and as the plot thickened, I had an excess of people who were good subjects to study. This explains my emphasis on "show and tell" and RABD. I was really trying to get at a bigger truth about the people on the AH. And I think I did. I just hope now that those who can really see themselves, exposed as they have been, will use this new scientific information to better their lives and reach that high goal of intellectual honesty.

What a pompous ass you are!

You know absolutely zero, nada, zilch about anyone here. If you had taken the time to get to know anyone here, you would know that we welcome all kinds: Christians, Jews, atheists...it doesn't matter to us what your faith is, or if you even have any.

But you came in here, thinking you know more about life itself than anyone else.

How dare you call yourself a Christian? You embody nothing that Christianity teaches. You're nothing but a supercilious little bitch; one so insecure that the only way you can make yourself feel better is by imagining that you're better, more intelligent, just more than anyone here.

Imagine away. I feel sorry for you.

 

[wmrs2]

No, as I just posted, you entered the forum with the admitted purpose to rattle "liberal" posters with a shocking story concept.

That pretty much exempts you from any high ground here from the get go.

I do not blame you for being in such a rage. I did not know that you were still pissing or I would have not opened the bathroom door.

 

[xssve]

We've all had bad experiences with non-consensual verbal abuse from self appointed Christian proselytizers, and your own "cloaking device" places you pretty firmly into that category.

God may not hate atheists, gender benders, and sexual adventurers, but plenty of people claiming to speak for "him" do.

I'm not even sure who I'm talking to this time, and I've mostly covered what I wanted to cover.

I don't believe the majority of Litizens are as OCD about it as you appear to be, as I said, there are plenty of Christians in here, and always have been as far as I know, the subject seldom comes up in such a contentious tone.

 

[wmrs2]

That sounded pretty mealymouthed.

I have no opinion on Aristotelian logic--and have expressed none here (regardless of your dancing on the head of the pin on that). It's not my area of
expertise or interest.

So, stop fingering posters for what they haven't said in this foul and malicious Amicusian habit of lumping everyone who doesn't wag their head in agreement at your ramblings into one box.

Here is some advice from my passed on mother, bless her heart.
Birds of a feather flock together.

Don't throw rocks into a pack of dogs because you'll probably hurt one of them.

When you finish pissing, put your dick away (that was for poor old dad.)

Think streight and you will not make so many mistakes. (She knew about Aristotelian logic too.)

When you are caught with your pants down, lay low and keep quit and people will act as if they did not see your red ass.

Well there is a lot more she "learned" me but that will do for awhile.

 

[sr71plt]

Here is some advice from my passed on mother, bless her heart.
Birds of a feather flock together.

Don't throw rocks into a pack of dogs because you'll probably hurt one of them.

When you finish pissing, put your dick away (that was for poor old dad.)

Think streight and you will not make so many mistakes. (She knew about Aristotelian logic too.)

When you are caught with your pants down, lay low and keep quit and people will act as if they did not see your red ass.

Well there is a lot more she "learned" me but that will do for awhile.

Sorry, you lose.