Atheist!

[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.

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.

You must have missed my discussion about Freud. Again, your rage at me is an excellent example of an uncloaking response. But your venting is good. It will make you feel less depressed about life.

You do hit the nail on the head in this statement:the only way you can make yourself feel better is by imagining that you're better, more intelligent, just more than anyone here.

I am retired now but I was really good at dissecting peoples' mental state. I just wish that I could do more to help you.

 

[cloudy]

You must have missed my discuss about Freud. Again, your rage at me is an excellent example of an uncloaking response. But your venting is good. It will make you feel less depressed about life.

You do hit the nail on the head in this statement:the only way you can make yourself feel better is by imagining that you're better, more intelligent, just more than anyone here.

I am retired now but I was really good at dissecting peoples' mental state. I just wish that I could do more to help you.

I don't need help, poser. I live a very fulfilled life, thank you.

Please don't mistake anything I said for rage, or even for hate. I don't hate you; I pity you.

 

[wmrs2]

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.

Would you be surprised to know, with my strong Christian beliefs, I have been thrown off Christian forums. One time a young lady was obsessing about having thoughts about sex. All the Christians told her to keep praying and refraining from masturbating. I told her to relax and enjoy her thoughts because the desire for sex was normal and God gave us these desires so people would want to be married. They kicked me off the Christian forum because I was not Christian enough to advise young people. See, Christian proselytizers also suffer from the wrath of uncloaked rages.

I agree with you, at times Christian people can really dish out the animosity in their most sanctimonious and loving ways. It is easy to see that in the Christians but it takes a little more effort to bring this trait out in authors, most of whom are experts in one field or another. But, I am trying.

 

[xssve]

I don't need help, poser. I live a very fulfilled life, thank you.

Please don't mistake anything I said for rage, or even for hate. I don't hate you; I pity you.

Lemme guess, you have to be either a Dog or a Dragon in Chinese astrology, definitely metal.

 

[xssve]

See, Christian proselytizers also suffer from the wrath of uncloaked rages.

Do tell, cloaked ones as well.

I agree with you, at times Christian people can really dish out the animosity in their most sanctimonious and loving ways. It is easy to see that in the Christians but it takes a little more effort to bring this trait out in authors, most of whom are experts in one field or another. But, I am trying.

I detect little love, the whole motherhood fetish tends to produce sexless disciplinarians, and a lot of clogged pipes, resulting in frustrated acting out. Throw in media brainwashing and you have a fine recipe for a mass obsessive compulsive disorder.

Read my signature line.

There probably are people in need of therapy in here, could say that about any group of people, but relaxing and having fun is good therapy for anybody, and this is not the place to hang a shingle or exercise your savior complex.

I suggest you try your luck on the general board although I suspect you'll not find a warm reception for it anywhere on this site.

 

[wmrs2]

Sorry, you lose.

That only proves that in a pissing contest, it is an advantage to having a dick.

 

[sr71plt]

That only proves that in a pissing contest, it is an advantage to having a dick.

I agree, but as your latest personality change claimed you were an old black woman, though, I hardly see where this works out to your advantage.

And, oh, what Christian language.

 

[cloudy]

Lemme guess, you have to be either a Dog or a Dragon in Chinese astrology, definitely metal.

I think its Ox, actually, but a metal subcategory.

eta: yep, just checked. Metal Ox.

 

[wmrs2]

I agree, but as your latest personality change claimed you were an old black woman, though, I hardly see where this works out to your advantage.

And, oh, what Christian language.

You were the dick to which I was making reference.
Keep pissing, the stream will first weaken and then stop, you will be empty.

 

[sr71plt]

You were the dick to which I was making reference.
Keep pissing, the stream will first weaken and then stop, you will be empty.

You seem more than a little rattled. Not very Christian of you, my dear church lady, to be using such language.

What, the new phase of your "plan" to "show us" is not to even pretend to be Christian anymore?

 

[xssve]

I think its Ox, actually, but a metal subcategory.

eta: yep, just checked. Metal Ox.

Figures, stubborn.

 

[cloudy]

Figures, stubborn.

Indeed.

 

[kendo1]

I believe in the Easter Bunny.

 

[cloudy]

I believe in the Easter Bunny.

I believe in sexy Scots with growly accents.

 

[kendo1]

I believe in sexy Scots with growly accents.

You've met the wife?

 

[cloudy]

You've met the wife?

Is her voice like yours?

 

[kendo1]

Is her voice like yours?

Deeper.
It's the hairy legs that are scary.

No, to be honest. Just your typical Edinburgh accent.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm still waiting for the crucifixion fiction to drop. Silly me, taking a new poster at her/his/its word.

This situation brings up an interesting point. Is lying a Christian value? Is calling people red-ass-bitch-dogs a Christian value? Where is this particular church located? Is it in a double-wide trailer? A third-floor walk-up? A field in Kansas? Do they play heavy metal during services? Is the collection plate filled with meth packets? Sounds very interesting. I might want to join up.

 

[Guest]

Deeper.
It's the hairy legs that are scary.

No, to be honest. Just your typical Edinburgh accent.

*swoon*

 

[kendo1]

*swoon*

*Double swoon*

 

[Guest]

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.

I don't believe we've studied the same Bible.

Hate is not a Christian value.

So, wmrs, you've been a sixth grader, a man, and now you are a retired black woman who has published materials about mental health and Christian lifestyle?

Did you have a really good editor? 'Cause, no offense, your grasp of grammar and spelling is not really the best.

How immensely arrogant it is, to jump into an established group of people in order to practice some sort of faux psychology voodoo on them.

It was amazingly effective, wasn't it, to insult people you'd only just met? Great way to create all sorts of immediate non-friends.

You were found out fairly quickly, of course. But I do feel sorry for you, because you continue to attribute the negativity directed towards you as the deficiencies of people in the forum, and not you or your approach.

I'd love to have a theological discussion. You haven't begun one yet.

 

[Guest]

*Double swoon*

Charmer.

 

[amicus]

In partial response to xssve & wmrs2 and 'radical empiricism', I will offer some links and some quotations so you can get a bellyfull of Empiricism, its' history and roots.

The glaring fault in Empericism needs to be pointed out and it is really a little silly thing like the 'human mind' that Empiricists discounted and dismissed.

Empiricists hold that 'experience' is the only source of knowledge; if you can't 'experience' it, then it doesn't exist.

I am reminded of a line from Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged", where in Rearden, while contemplating the best use for his new metal, is considering an architectural design for a bridge. The 'new' concept, formed only in his mind, existing nowhere else and thus beyond, 'experience', was a never before a conceptualized means of building a bridge with a stronger metal than ever before that would make the most efficient use of the material.

In other words, Empiricism does not accept a priori knowledge, nor does it encompass the reality of abstract conceptions as 'real', and rejects the concepts of 'absolute', in any endeavor. Empiricisms claim to fame hundreds of years ago was that the philosophy claimed it was 'empirically impossible to even prove the existence of one's self. Which I have always found amusing.

Xssve, I thank you for your lengthy response. You, as do I, use anothers post as a springboard to espouse your own thoughts and philosophy; that doesn't make you all bad.

It would appear to me that you copied and pasted some of your very well worded thoughts on your philosophy, but I could be in error.

~~~
wmrs2, this is most likely more than you ever wanted to read about Empiricism, and it reminded me of my college years 30 years ago, when formal philosophy seemed to very important. One soon learns that such academic discussion are just the, discussions, and have little to do with a workable philosophy of life or a means to make ethical decisions.

~~~

http://www.answers.com/topic/empiricism?hl=empirical

Either of two closely related philosophical doctrines, one pertaining to concepts and the other to knowledge. The first doctrine is that most, if not all, concepts are ultimately derived from experience; the second is that most, if not all, knowledge derives from experience, in the sense that appeals to experience are necessarily involved in its justification. Neither doctrine implies the other. Several empiricists have allowed that some knowledge is a priori, or independent of experience, but have denied that any concepts are. On the other hand, few if any empiricists have denied the existence of a priori knowledge while maintaining the existence of a priori concepts. John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume are classical representatives of empiricism. See also Francis Bacon.

The permanent strand in philosophy that attempts to tie knowledge to experience. Experience is thought of either as the sensory contents of consciousness, or as whatever is expressed in some designated class of statements that can be observed to be true by the use of the senses. Empiricism denies that there is any knowledge outside this class, or at least outside whatever is given by legitimate theorizing on the basis of this class. It may take the form of denying that there is any a priori knowledge, or knowledge of necessary truths, or any innate or intuitive knowledge or general principles gaining credibility simply through the use of reason; it is thus principally contrasted with rationalism. An empiricist account of our concepts will hold that they depend upon experience: ‘nihil in intellectu nisi prius in sensu’ (nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses). Some philosophers such as Aquinas have held this principle without denying that reason can apprehend knowledge, provided it uses the materials afforded by the senses. One of the main problems for empiricism is to accommodate the way in which thought does not just derive from experience, but provides us with categories with which to organize it. The necessity for such addition (and its legitimacy) is the central theme of the Critique of Pure Reason of Kant. Radical empiricism, as espoused by James, holds that the relations between experiences that are implied in their organization are themselves objects of observation. The key problems for empiricism include avoiding a picture according to which the subject knows nothing but experiences of the present moment (scepticism), demarcating the legitimate basis of theory in observation, defending the view that observation is itself free of non-empirical elements, describing legitimate ways of using observation in building a picture of the world, and explaining or explaining away knowledge that appears to have no basis in experience, notably mathematical, logical, or other a priori knowledge. See also myth of the given.

empiricism (ĕmpĭr'ĭsĭzəm) [Gr.,=experience], philosophical doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. For most empiricists, experience includes inner experience—reflection upon the mind and its operations—as well as sense perception. This position is opposed to rationalism in that it denies the existence of innate ideas. According to the empiricist, all ideas are derived from experience; therefore, knowledge of the physical world can be nothing more than a generalization from particular instances and can never reach more than a high degree of probability. Most empiricists recognize the existence of at least some a priori truths, e.g., those of mathematics and logic. John Stuart Mill was the first to treat even these as generalizations from experience. Empiricism has been the dominant but not the only tradition in British philosophy. Among its other leading advocates were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. See also logical positivism.

http://radicalacademy.com/amphilosophy7.htm


AMERICAN PRAGMATISM - 1


INTRODUCTION

Pragmatism: Pragmatism is a philosophical movement, developed in the United States, which holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome. Fundamental to pragmatism is a strong antiabsolutism: the conviction that all principles are to be regarded as working hypotheses rather than as metaphysically binding axioms. A modern expression of empiricism, pragmatism was highly influential in America in the first quarter of the 20th century. Pragmatism has tended to criticize traditional philosophical outlooks in the light of scientific and social developments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Wed Aug 6, 2008

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Enjoy the reading, I did.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

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.

We've all had bad experiences with non-consensual verbal abuse from self appointed Christian proselytizers.

The above statement is very true. It is one of the most honest statements made on this thread.

As a young girl I too encountered several Christian proselytizers. The horrible think about these people is that they captured my mind. If you escaped this evil influence without any emotional scares, you are very fortunate. Chances are, if you had an encountered Christians like this, you probably are still suffering from your scares. I have seen several people, especially young people, who are still acting out based on their previous young experiences. The problem of religious zealots goes deeper than the members of the AH even imagines. There are quite a few here that hold harsh resentment to the religious right. Be aware of this, if the reason you can not stand religious people, it is probably not due to what religious people believe or what you believe, which upsets you. It is most likely the social interact you had with them that really hurt your heart (accumulation of all feelings).

There is an epiphany that people can have that results in a satisfying religious experience. This experience is not harsh, it is forgiving, and it does not plot to harm you or others. But before you can have this epiphany, several psychological happenings must occur. First, it is good to vent at the religious right zealot. Look how much damage he has done to you and others. It is time for me to remove myself from the pissing contest now going on in AH. If any of you still feel the need to piss go ahead.

Just for fun, since I am the Christian, let's make light of the religious zealot by using some passages from the Bible. Here is a little sermon that you should enjoy. It is a scripture lesson about pissing.

1Sam:25:22: So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1Sam:25:34:....... except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1Kgs:14:10: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, .......

1Kgs:16:11: ............. he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1Kgs:21:21: Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, ....,

2Kgs:9:8: ....and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, .....

2Kgs:18:27:...... hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you.

Isa:36:12: .........they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

What heavenly wisdom comes from these verses? It's ok to be in a pissing contest. Do not piss too long. If you don't stop pissing at some time, you will be cut off with people who eat shit. Than you----wmrs2

The second requirement to have an epiphany is to not allow your feelings to dictate what you believe. I hope to have the chance to elaborate on this soon.

Please send all your money to: Little Old Lady Black Christian, care of wmrs2.

 

[wmrs2]

You seem more than a little rattled. Not very Christian of you, my dear church lady, to be using such language.

What, the new phase of your "plan" to "show us" is not to even pretend to be Christian anymore?

the Apostle Paul was a Christian and Freud received his psychoanalytic theory from Paul.
Are you still dripping?