Atheist!

[wmrs2]

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

No! A horse.

 

[sr71plt]

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

And the relevance of that to anything is what? (In fact, Paul was founder of the Christian church and Christianity is a Pauline church. Christ was Jewish.)

And where did Paul hand over this theory to Freud? Did they meet in a German biergarten or something? And you know that because you, as an old black lady in the sixth grade and with a drunken sailor's vocabulary were their bier Madchen?

 

[wmrs2]

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.

Wait here. Keep pissing. And notice at the end of my first sermon is an address where you can send your money.

 

[wmrs2]

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

Hate is not a Christian value. (but God can hate)

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. (Should I check your posts to compare your good grammar to mine? I could do that.)

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. (I was looking for show and tell examples.)

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. (Well, of course I would.)

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

As far as I know, you are correct on all accounts. Why is your dress wet in front?

 

[xssve]

Save it.

 

[amicus]

]As far as I know, you are correct on all accounts. Why is your dress wet in front?[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Awright, kid, now thas goin' too damned far! I do the comedy routines from the right on this gig, okay?



ami

 

[wmrs2]

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.

~~~

I agree with you and am working my way to point out what I think about empiricism. I have had to write with my wipers on because people are still pissing out the windows.

 

[Guest]

As far as I know, you are correct on all accounts. Why is your dress wet in front?

God can hate? Hmmm. No comment.

Yes, please check my posts. I guarantee my grammar is better than yours, but then again, most posters in the AH are.

Show and tell examples? What nonsense.

My dress? For heaven's sake.

You are truly a confused child.

I'd put your age at about 15. I said something similar after your first few posts, if I recall. Maybe it was 14, I don't remember, nor do I care.

You've taken a few confirmation classes and you're looking to try your religious wings. It's Good Friday, what the hell.

You don't have enough grasp of your topic to spar with people here. You certainly don't possess enough information.

The bits you've been quoting from some texts hurt, not help, your overall presentaiton.

Study, grow up, get a life, come back when you're 18.

And God doesn't hate.

And this is the last conversation I'll have with you, silly underage person.

 

[sr71plt]

wmrs2 is spouting Ayn Rand now. Who do we know who does that?

 

[wmrs2]

And the relevance of that to anything is what? (In fact, Paul was founder of the Christian church and Christianity is a Pauline church. Christ was Jewish.)

And where did Paul hand over this theory to Freud? Did they meet in a German biergarten or something? And you know that because you, as an old black lady in the sixth grade and with a drunken sailor's vocabulary were their bier Madchen?

This is real comical. Best time I have had since being here. Guess what is red and showing?

 

[Guest]

wmrs2 is spouting Ayn Rand now. Who do we know who does that?

I'm not reading her posts but I'm not surprised.

Ami needed a backup.

Pathetic.

 

[wmrs2]

God can hate? Hmmm. No comment.

Yes, please check my posts. I guarantee my grammar is better than yours, but then again, most posters in the AH are. (I have more readers.)

Show and tell examples? What nonsense. (People keep volunteering.)

My dress? For heaven's sake. (Don't feel bad. Everybody knows there are not walls on this forum.)

You are truly a confused child. (As long as you keep making love to children, that's fine.)

I'd put your age at about 15. I said something similar after your first few posts, if I recall. Maybe it was 14, I don't remember, nor do I care. (You act like you care from the gentle comment you make after each of my post.)

You've taken a few confirmation classes and you're looking to try your religious wings. It's Good Friday, what the hell. (Yes, let's be good for one day)

You don't have enough grasp of your topic to spar with people here. You certainly don't possess enough information. (I know. I receive all my information from heaven.)

The bits you've been quoting from some texts hurt, not help, your overall presentaiton. (Spelling error)

Study, grow up, get a life, come back when you're 18. (Now you like 18 year olds.

And God doesn't hate.(You better hope not.)

And this is the last conversation I'll have with you, silly underage person. ( have heard that promise before. I can not think of one thing you have said to me, but I will miss you anyway.)

As you noticed, I am a very agreeable person today.

 

[wmrs2]

wmrs2 is spouting Ayn Rand now. Who do we know who does that?

Paul does. I am learning how to be a comedian and Amicus can not stand it.

 

[xssve]

Yawn. That was fun while it lasted.

Why is "atheist" a pejorative term to most Americans?

The lord thy god is a petty, jealous god.

 

[sr71plt]

Paul does. I am learning how to be a comedian and Amicus can not stand it.

The Apostle Paul read Ayn Rand? Fancy that.

 

[xssve]

So nobody clicked on that link in the middle of my really long post?

 

[DeeZire]

So nobody clicked on that link in the middle of my really long post?

You mean the "Every Sperm is Sacred" one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Thank you for that. It's been forever since I've seen nuns doing the can-can.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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.

Your opinion on what?

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.

Good lord, those sound psychological reasons are very well-known already-- there are at least a hundred threads in this forum about why erotica is so appealing to humans.

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.

ha ha ha ha ha ha...
No you're not.

 

[amicus]

A, 'Monty Python' link? Never heard of it.

~~~~~~

WE may be "thinkers", capable of abstraction, but we are still "life", and driven by the same urges as all life, to survive, to eat and reproduce, it's pretty much the reason we do anything, everything.

Actually not....hmmm, I have used that phrase too much of late...of course, man the sentient being has those internal drives; the defining characteristic, however, the one you discount, is the free will of the individual who can focus the mind and regulate those, 'urges', in such a way as to benefit a chosen lifestyle. Many remain celebate for life, eating is not hedonistic or gluttonous, you your point is ill made and lacking.

the Aristotelian approach is mostly depreciated because of it's simple, mechanistic approach: a+b=c, and supplemented, if not entirely replaced by expanded procedures, systems analysis and games theory, to name a couple, which takes into account that there are often many outcomes to a given process, delineates what these outcomes might be to construct a matrix of possible outcomes, attempts to assess and weight the statistical frequency of a given outcome, then examines the potential effect of a given outcome on other matrices, etc., etc., and so on - it deals with much greater orders of complexity than simple Aristotelian mechanistics.

As with so many faded philosophies and theologies, your continued search for a recipe, a model of life to follow doggedly, meets with failure when a focused mind rejects the mold of your conformity to fabricated 'models', games, analysis, and ball bearing like mechanistic viewpoints of a very complex and individualistic solution to life, common sense, reality and an ethical system fit for actual humans to practice.

That being said, I do commend you for your presentation of your faith in dry models and synthetic constructions; you are by far my best and most lucid opponent in over five years on this forum.

Amicus...

 

[ishtat]

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.

Now don't you dare do that. I have a cunning plan to convert Amicus to the worship of Cybele the great Goddess of Anatolia. Of course you probably don't know that the modern Cybele is of course Cloudy.

I am sure that Amicus will be a willing acolyte, indeed I hope to make my fortune selling tickets to AH members for Amicus' initiation ceremony when he will become a galloi to the Goddess Cloudy.

Ah, if only.

 

[xssve]

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.

So ami, with his laser like insight, offers a devastating rebuttal to empiricism, pointing out how, being crippled by it's reliance on hard evidence, is laughably inferior to making shit up.

I'd love to have a duel of wits with you someday ami, let me know if you ever manage to get your sword out of the scabbard.

 

[xssve]

No! A horse.

The "year of the husband killer"?

No.

 

[xssve]

Now don't you dare do that. I have a cunning plan to convert Amicus to the worship of Cybele the great Goddess of Anatolia. Of course you probably don't know that the modern Cybele is of course Cloudy.

I am sure that Amicus will be a willing acolyte, indeed I hope to make my fortune selling tickets to AH members for Amicus' initiation ceremony when he will become a galloi to the Goddess Cloudy.

Ah, if only.

Ooh, me, pick me! Wait, what's a "galloi"?

 

[wmrs2]

Since no one challenged my assertion that most people developed their individual Philosophies of life based on philosophical truth but rather based on their emotions, feelings, perversions of the flesh (lust), and all types of greed, I assume that you agree with me. That is another point I have won in this debate.

Since people have philosophies based on elements of the heart (feelings), these philosophies, not being based on truth or fact, are not intellectual in nature whatsoever. The philosophies of men, although they may be true, are usually not thought out.

Clocking devices are philosophies invented to obscure the real man and provide an excuse for deviant behavior. That is the point I wish to establish today. Among other things, it will be pointed out that the true challenge of the intellectual man is to overcome clocking devices that he himself has invented that keep him from knowing the truth.

One very obvious clocking device is the philosophy that there is no moral standard of behavior other than man's determination of what is good. My assertion is that this is the "big excuse" that allows men and women to invent morals that allow them to do any sexual deviant act imaginable. After all, they say, there is no one or thing to answer to other than one's self, That is a very narcissistic point of view but that is the view of most liberals. They decide when it is moral to abort children; they decide who should be locked away in insane asylums; they decide who should be allowed to speak on Lit. Forum; it is all about them and they invent the philosophy that allows all this to happen.

 

[sr71plt]

Since no one challenged my assertion that most people developed their individual Philosophies of life based on philosophical truth but rather based on their emotions, feelings, perversions of the flesh (lust), and all types of greed, I assume that you agree with me. That is another point I have won in this debate.

Bad assumption. Most of us aren't reading your ramblings at all.