Atheist!

[wmrs2]

There, there, wmrs2. You seem to be about to go over the edge. Take a deep breath and think, "What would Christ do."

(I think Christ would probably stop playing your game, myself.)

Why don't you? No body wants to talk to you anyway.

 

[Liar]

Once upon a time, late night and well into my 'cups', as Ogg might say, I mis-spoke, 'cosmetology' for 'cosmology', and liked to never have lived that down.

"There you go again...", thus sayeth Ronnie raygun, whom I fondly refer to.

Cosmology
Ontology
Metaphysics
Omnipotent
Epistemology
Phonetics?
Pragmatism

I preferred it, I think, when worm2 was feigning ignorance and using common language. All of the above, contained in a few short paragraphs leaves a 'chilling effect' on 99 percent of any who may read, even if you did offer a partial definition of both.

It is also usually the departure point for an excursion into the netherlands of arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin, and akin to those who quote bible verses to bolster a weak presumption.

For example...had you stopped at Metaphysics and offered, 'beyond physics', translated to mean concepts and abstractions that are apart from the concrete 'physical' nature of reality, but logically and rationally tied to sensual perception with applied congruency and non contradictory evidence, you might have offered a path to comprehension between reality and the conceptual abilities of the human mind to those struggling to understand the schism between science and faith.

Comprehending formal philosophy is never an easy thing, if it were, everybody would do it. Most prefer to take the easy way out; slip back into faith and belief, and gain a sense of security in just living.

Which ain't all that bad a thing, I suggest, were I capable of not thinking, I might consider such a course for myself.

Amicus the atheist...

Jeez, does multisyll... sorry, really long words confuse you that much? Mea culpa then.

I even tried to be inclusive, and offered examples of what those different approaches to thought means (when considering the concept of "God", as it were). So that, you know, the non humaniora geeks would be able to see what I was aiming at.

If that's not enough, then I dunno.

 

[amicus]

meh, I didn't say multisyllabic words confused me Liar, but the condescension is noted.

I was fortunate in my young and foolish days, to suffer under the critical tongue of a Professor of Germanic Literature, who was also an Luftewaffe Pilot in WW2, and an editor that mirrored his condescension of my flowery and highly intellectual prose in both writing and speaking.

They asked a simple question, which I relate to you here: "Do you wish to communicate with people or do you want to display your intelligence?"

Since I was in the business of communicating with people, in radio, television and the printed word, it took a while, with additional 'comeuppance', but I eventually heeded their words and ya know what? People appreciated not being talked down to.

Perhaps that brief thumbnail explains why I cringe at the leader of the free world as he performs before a world wide audience and utters, "woulda, coulda, shoulda, gonna, gotta....ad nauseum...along with what I once aspired to, News Anchor at a major network. They all do it, a dumbed down version of language that would gag a maggot. I guess they think they are 'communicating' with a less educated audience...really dunno anymore...

cheers...

amicus...

 

[Guest]

Agreed.

Thank heavens that our new president speaks eloquently.

The Bush speeches during the past eight years were intolerable.

 

[amicus]

Oh, golly darn, Sweetsss...I take it then you have not heard the new one speak?

Then you can make a game of counting the 'ah's', in his delivery, shocking, I tell you, absolutely shocking!

Howya doin' kid? That Suzanne Somer's thing seemed interesting to me, even if you are not a baby boomer...

Ami

 

[wmrs2]

Late last night I scrolled through this thread back to post 255, where it changed from 2006 to 2009, wondered why it was revived and why it has been continued as it has.

Anyhow...I read each and every post up to the current one, last night, and set forth of offer an opinion or nine, clicked the 'submit' icon and the site told me I had to be logged in to do that....first time that ever happened...any way, long story short, I lost the typed thoughts, growled and turned the machine off.

But here it is and here I am again, for whatever that may mean.

I had offered that worm2 was most likely an Alt; then thought, perhaps a literate person pretending illiteracy and then, maybe a young one with that sixth grade education making quite a splash in the forum and attracting the attention of all the big frogs in attendance.

Choosing to err on the side of 'kind and gentle', I came down with the 'young one', and offered lauditory praise for the effort and tenacity put forth.

Then, today, a more literate and less pretentious foray by worm2, has made this a curious affair indeed.

Atheism is dangerous and a threat to established thought, be it Christian or Humanist, or any flavor of the two combined or melded in any of a thousand variations, much better than 'blank & Jerry's' ice cream by far.

Both function from 'faith' as a fundamental assumption, both are constructs created to satisfy the big questions asked by all from whence we came and where we go and why. (BladeRunner, Harrison Ford/Rutger Hauer scene).

All forms of faith are simply evasions of the 'big' question, what is life and what does it mean and where do we go when we die...

There is little point, I learned long ago, in actually holding discussions with believers of either cloth, as both, when it pleased them, deny logic and reason and claim the 'self evident', axiomatic truth as their own. In one case postulating a 'God', to answer all questions, and in the other, 'the greater good', as the fundamental premise.

Both are in error.

In reality and in consideration of the process by which the mind functions, 'evidence', provided by the senses permits the mind to observe, perceive and formulate and take that sensory evidence, insist it be non contradictory and congruent, with both previous observations and reality itself, and reach abstract conclusions as to the nature of the Universe and life itself.

Faith is nice and comfortable, although demanding at times and vicious when challenged and like Humanism, totally superior when compared to other versions, a matter of self preservation.

There is another variety of 'faith' now in vogue, that of Mother Earth and her dependent children as evidenced by the flower child syndrome of the sixties that has burgeoned into a love of nature and a hatred of industrial man.

Most dreamers of the last century who expressed their thoughts in science fiction, predicted that formal religion would gradually die out and be replaced by the communal caring of Humanists. Except perhaps, ole Robert Heinlein, who, as did Ayn Rand, offered up the 'individual' his rights and liberties as the fundamental premise upon which to construct an objective and rational society and code of ethics.

What this thread became, in my opinion, was a defense of Humanism with all the 'usual suspects', ganging up on the poor lone believer wit h the usual tactics applied to all who dare disagree with the progressive liberal atmosphere.

What it really is, would be a battle between two faiths, both of which claim to be superior.

Worm2, there is no God, never has been, never will be. You cannot prove a negative or the non existence of something sixth grade education making quite a splash in the forum and attracting the attention of all the big frogs in attendance.


Humanists, those progressive Liberals who band together here are nothing more than a 'prayer group', all believing that since there is so many of them, they must be right, doing just what they claim they do not, constructing an entire belief on a false assumption.

That being said, I repeat another oft spoke them of mine, the majority of humans require the crutch of believe in order to survive, psychologically, in the face of disease and death and the neverending struggle for life.

Religion has a better recommendation as, in general, it has produced music and art in adoration of a deity, in many ways worshipped beauty and symmetry, while perhaps Picasso and the modernists reflect the chaotic nature of the world as viewed by Humanists.

Ether one is a bad bet that you should avoid like the plague.

Amicus...

Amicus, you are good at what you do. A damn good gadfly you are. It takes you too long and too many words, although, to put your bite on the ass of horses. There are plenty of horse's asses here to bite so I guess it is proper to take your time.

I received two ideas from you witness of who knows what for sure. The first being, "sixth grade education making quite a splash in the forum and attracting the attention of all the big frogs in attendance." If these fellows and gals are the big frogs, there is nothing for us to worry about. Not knowing who the self appointed leaders are on the forum, I lucked into their discovery here. It's that old country preacher throwing the rock thing.

Secondly, this one clause, "the non existence of something because the non existence leaves no evidence." This being true, then the self-evident facts in the Constitution and other writings serve well the testimony that God was here. Only an eternal being could leave eternal imprints. There you are, the proof for God. I am not sure this is what you meant to say but it does suit my opinion very well.

 

[wmrs2]

Funny that Amicus would show up in this thread at this point. Almost like this was all orchestrated. Sort of wonder what he posted (no, I don't. )

Stop trembling. He will not hurt you!

 

[Liar]

meh, I didn't say multisyllabic words confused me Liar, but the condescension is noted.

So you assumed it confused others?

Condescension is noted.

 

[wmrs2]

There are Christians and there are Christians. I could extend that sentence with a thousand clauses and I still wouldn't cover all the variations of "Christian" belief and certainly not all the variations of Christian deeds.

wmrs2 is a not uncommon variant - the Christian without ears to hear what wmrs2 doesn't want to hear.

I prefer the other sort of Christians found in the Christian thread in the Authors' Hangout and those people, Christian or not - it doesn't matter - who support those of us who are perplexed, worried, in pain or distress.

wmrs2 arguments are like the oozlum-woozlum bird - they fly around in circles and disappear up the ass.

Og

The fact you have so many thing up yours is the reason you can not a simple sentence like a gentleman showing where my statements are in error. If it is so obvious, why do you not rebut instead of insult? You do bring shame to the liberal cause.

 

[wmrs2]

But "Axiomatic" is not what wmrs2 used but "self-evident" to describe statements that are neither axiomatic nor self-evident...

Og

Nice retort but how are these not?

 

[Liar]

Then you can make a game of counting the 'ah's', in his delivery, shocking, I tell you, absolutely shocking

Hehe, I've noticed that too. There's also the one-to-two second pauses in the middle of phrases now and then.

In his improvised speak, which sounds very different from his written and rehearsed speeches.

I don't think it's all that bad though, just shows he thinks not only before he speaks, but also while he speaks. Guy's careful what words it is that actually (albeit, eventually) comes out.


/all right, threadjack over. back to the God Stuff

 

[sadangel]

Just a probing question. Do you not recognize that the faults you find with the lifestyle of Christians is not just traits found only in Christians? These are traits found in the complete human race. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, atheist, and old farts all have these traits. They are not unique to Christians. We could just as easily condemn the whole of humanity to hell as the Christians but that would just sink the boat for all of us.

To me narrow mindedness is failure to understand that we are more alike than we are different. There is nothing unique about you or me. I wish that the term Christian did not exist. It would probably be better if the term liberal did not exist in politics also. If these terms did not exist, then maybe there would be a tendency to evaluate each person on his own merits. That seems to be more objective about you and me, don't you think?

You continue to presume that you know what I am thinking, or feeling. To presume to know what I believe or have faith in or don't believe or have faith in. You presume you know what faults I find in Christians. You apparently presume I am narrow-minded; I am not, not even close.

I will assert once again that you do not. You do not know me. You will never know me. There are few who do. I do not find it necessary to shove my beliefs down other people's throats like a rabid dog. When I feel that it is something beneficial to a conversation, either on-line or in real life, I will share with those I choose. You are not one I will ever choose to do so with.

The truth is, I snerked at the post (Site) that SSS linked, because I found it funny. For a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I necessarily took it to heart and thought it was meant to be taken seriously. It was for "larfs" as SSS put it. I actually know how to have fun and to laugh at a parody. Try it. It's fun.

I do judge people on their own merits. You have been found to be lacking in MY opinion all on your own. You have done it all by yourself in your condescending attitude toward myself and others. You think that people are stupider than you, because you can write long posts that go round and round again and yet never say anything. Congratulations. You do that well.

Now, feel free to once again twist the words I have put here in a clear and concise manner to fit what you think you know about me. You've already done it on more than one occasion, so I'm prepared to see it happen yet again. You've got the fine art of twisting my words and meanings down to a science.

 

[wmrs2]

In the world of metaphysics, God exists. (So does Puff the Magic Dragon. And The Future. And Vampire Jesus)

In the world of ontology, we ask ourselves: What can God (and all the other things that "are") be? An omnipotent being? A fictional character? A thought process? Something else? What is the nature of this concept that we have assigned a word to?

Epistemology asks: How do we know what God is? What ontological answers to the question "what is God" can we actually substantiate? How do we know when we have an answer?

Science asks: Once we have a crieteria for an answer, how do we go about fulfilling those criteria?



Pragmatim and phronetics tell us, that when people start confusing those four diciplines, calling answes based on ontology science, or attempting science without thinking through the epistemology, things get fucked up.

One example of this is touting Intelligent Design as a scienteific theory. It is perfectly valid ontology and philosophy. But it never passed the filter of epistemology on it's way to science.

Wrong! Once you leave the 6th grade dictionary, you are lost. Ontology is the study of being. Any more than that is your opinion which is poorly supported.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, where knowledge comes from, what is the nature of knowledge. It may ask whether God exist or not but it does not have to ask that question. Atheist and liberals dare not ask because the answer is too self-evident. You may not understand this because the answer, as you say, is still stuck in your rectum.

Ontology is the study of being and not necessarily all those other questions your assert. Sometimes truth and being are self-evident. Like you, you are self-evident or are you one of those who questions your own existence? I can understand you questioning your being relative but not your existence.

Using your own vocabulary, which is very limited, your definition of science is really "fucked up." Are you the best the liberals have to offer. They should never turn you out to do their defense. I have an excuse with my 6th grade education but you with your Harvard degree have none.

 

[Guest]

The fact you have so many thing up yours is the reason you can not a simple sentence like a gentleman showing where my statements are in error. If it is so obvious, why do you not rebut instead of insult? You do bring shame to the liberal cause.

Liberal cause?

We have a cause?

Cool!

(Actually, wmrs2, Ogg does not live in the United States.)

 

[sr71plt]

my. my! You are so threatened by the least comment from a person you don't even know. What difference does that make? Is there something in that title of liberal that makes you feel better? You are so insecure my friend.

Oh, then you don't think Christ was liberal in his views? Is there something in the title of liberal that makes you feel insecure--especially if you claim you want to live a Christ-centered life--with Christ being an aspect of the God you believe in and all--and you then have to actually come to grips with what his life meant?

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...my apology for the shorthand of worms2, it was the impression left by the combination of letters, wmrs2, I see the 'mrs.', maybe, the two I don't get, nor the 'w', you may enlighten me if you choose.

At any rate, I welcome you to the forum and I am pleased to make your acquaintance; who knows, it could turn into a 'thang', one never knows.

Now...down to business:

Secondly, this one clause, "the non existence of something because the non existence leaves no evidence." This being true, then the self-evident facts in the Constitution and other writings serve well the testimony that God was here. Only an eternal being could leave eternal imprints. There you are, the proof for God. I am not sure this is what you meant to say but it does suit my opinion very well.

The response to that was in my first post, the one that did not register and was, alas, lost forever in the ethernet.

I was trusting to memory of studies performed long ago, concerning Paley, and the Watchmaker Theory.

http://everything2.org/index.pl?node_id=1129763

In the beginning of Natural Theology, Paley states a difference between simple, physically homogeneous objects such as stones, and purposeful, complex, manufactured objects like watches, and believes that for a watch to come into being "... the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the work of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all comparison."*

That is basically your argument concerning the US Constitution and the axiomatic or 'self evident' truths stated.

The Watchmaker debate is centuries old and held for quite a while but has been refuted repeatedly.

The argument becomes even less sustainable with the ability of man, through science, to observe the 'natural' workings of the physical universe and begin to gain a grasp on how it all works. It is an amazing journey with something new and wonderful to perceive almost on a daily basis.

A much more productive enterprise for your mind than postulating a non existent deity that created the world you behold.

I wanted to return and properly address the original post in the thread, or the title, concerning why atheists are treated in a pejorative manner.

'Faith' is what most people live by. They believe in a God of sorts, depending upon what continent you happened to be born on, and at one time, in my youthful exuberance I dug out(in an actual library), the fact that there were over 1,300 recognized religions recorded in history.

The Progressive, Modern Liberals here also express a 'faith', a belief, arising from the altruistic portion of Judeau Christian Ethics in which individual sacrifice replaces a deity with, 'The Greater Good', a corruption also of Aristotle's Golden Mean.

This is the delicate point because the result can be fightening and sociologically devasting to a believer. As one accumulates 'proof', in one's own mind, to support the initial premise, 'there is a God', or 'the collective over the individual', one becomes protective of that inner sanctum of now hardened ideology.

Atheism, especially objective, rational atheism, threatens not just the ideology or theology, it threatens the very heart and soul of an individual who has forgotten that they exist independent of all others, God and State particularly.

You are born alone and Tabula Rasa, you live alone and die alone; nothing, no faith, no belief can change that.

That is the big black hole at the center of an individuals galaxy that they dare not face.

I am not trying to convert you or even frighten you into doubt. This is a grown-up world out here, for the most part, and children of faith need be protected from reality. That is why atheism, non belief, is terrifying to most.

The most difficult task a human will face in life is to 'think', objectively, without emotion, without belief without contradiction.

Good luck on your journey.



Amicus..

 

[wmrs2]

I suspect most of those posting here suspected wmsr2 of being an alt, rather than an ESL person with a sixth grade education.

And the main entertainment value was not his/her religious conviction, because who cares, really, but his/her "logic" and "proof"...or lack thereof. Not to mention the fun factor of arguing with a true believer.

Jomare, wrong! I did all the fact giving, you people did all the name calling and abhorrent, unsophisticated language. If that is the best you can do, I am happy that I did not get a Ph. D. meaning piled higher and deeper.

 

[sr71plt]

Why don't you? No body wants to talk to you anyway.

Yes, I can see where you don't. Sort of turn your little game on its head, don't I?

 

[Guest]

Wow.

This is slowing-down-to-check-out-the-scene-of-the-accident painful to view.

I'm gone.

 

[wmrs2]

There, there, wmrs2. You seem to be about to go over the edge. Take a deep breath and think, "What would Christ do."

(I think Christ would probably stop playing your game, myself.)

You are wright for once. I think Christ would slam the door in his face and do the same to you. In fact, I think he probably has. He certainly did not send me here to reason with you fellows. My 6th grade education is too much for you. God is a fair God. I am here on my own volition and you are correct to show fear in conversation with me, so keep fussing, calling names, and attacking God. He can take it but for how long?

 

[sr71plt]

You are wright for once. I think Christ would slam the door in his face and do the same to you. In fact, I think he probably has. He certainly did not send me here to reason with you fellows. My 6th grade education is too much for you. God is a fair God. I am here on my own volition and you are correct to show fear in conversation with me, so keep fussing, calling names, and attacking God. He can take it but for how long?

I haven't mentioned your education or called you any names or even argued about your right to believe what you did--even defended you in one posting on the score. And I certainly haven't attacked God. Why are you acting so un-Christian toward me?

 

[Liar]

Wrong! Once you leave the 6th grade dictionary, you are lost. Ontology is the study of being. Any more than that is your opinion which is poorly supported.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, where knowledge comes from, what is the nature of knowledge. It may ask whether God exist or not but it does not have to ask that question. Atheist and liberals dare not ask because the answer is too self-evident. You may not understand this because the answer, as you say, is still stuck in your rectum.

Ontology is the study of being and not necessarily all those other questions your assert. Sometimes truth and being are self-evident. Like you, you are self-evident or are you one of those who questions your own existence? I can understand you questioning your being relative but not your existence.

Using your own vocabulary, which is very limited, your definition of science is really "fucked up." Are you the best the liberals have to offer. They should never turn you out to do their defense. I have an excuse with my 6th grade education but you with your Harvard degree have none.

Right-o. I don't even know how to respond to this. You attribute claims to me that I did not claim, and attach them. You presume things about my person I am not, and have not disclosed. You turn to petty ad hominem instead of substantial discussion, and foul sniping (about my rectum? anything you want to tell me?) instead of civil discourse.

Oh, and epistemology may not ask whether God exists. It as a dicipline is not concerned with that. And niether did I say it was.

 

[wmrs2]

You continue to presume that you know what I am thinking, or feeling. To presume to know what I believe or have faith in or don't believe or have faith in. You presume you know what faults I find in Christians. You apparently presume I am narrow-minded; I am not, not even close.

I will assert once again that you do not. You do not know me. You will never know me. There are few who do. I do not find it necessary to shove my beliefs down other people's throats like a rabid dog. When I feel that it is something beneficial to a conversation, either on-line or in real life, I will share with those I choose. You are not one I will ever choose to do so with.

The truth is, I snerked at the post (Site) that SSS linked, because I found it funny. For a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I necessarily took it to heart and thought it was meant to be taken seriously. It was for "larfs" as SSS put it. I actually know how to have fun and to laugh at a parody. Try it. It's fun.

I do judge people on their own merits. You have been found to be lacking in MY opinion all on your own. You have done it all by yourself in your condescending attitude toward myself and others. You think that people are stupider than you, because you can write long posts that go round and round again and yet never say anything. Congratulations. You do that well.

Now, feel free to once again twist the words I have put here in a clear and concise manner to fit what you think you know about me. You've already done it on more than one occasion, so I'm prepared to see it happen yet again. You've got the fine art of twisting my words and meanings down to a science.

Lady, this 6th grader has never talked to you about anything, maybe once. You keep blasting me and interjecting your sweet thoughts in the post of others. From these I have gathered your "scorned lady" personality. If you want to convince me that you dislike me, fine, I have the picture.

I do know your type. You can not stand that another person disagrees with your world view. Sorry, you can not have the world to yourself. You must share. Like most liberals, you do not know how to defense what your beliefs are. The fact you have not done this is evidence of this fact. I would be interested in how I have twisted your words. Cite me some examples as there must be several times I did this according to you. If not, please admit you are having a moment of rage or something like that.

 

[sr71plt]

Methinks someone needs to be sure to go to church tomorrow and do some talking with his God about how Christians should act.

 

[sadangel]

Lady, this 6th grader has never talked to you about anything, maybe once. You keep blasting me and interjecting your sweet thoughts in the post of others. From these I have gathered your "scorned lady" personality. If you want to convince me that you dislike me, fine, I have the picture.

I do know your type. You can not stand that another person disagrees with your world view. Sorry, you can not have the world to yourself. You must share. Like most liberals, you do not know how to defense what your beliefs are. The fact you have not done this is evidence of this fact. I would be interested in how I have twisted your words. Cite me some examples as there must be several times I did this according to you. If not, please admit you are having a moment of rage or something like that.

You are so full of shit! I in fact, have no problem with people disagreeing with me. You can check out anywhere that I've posted and find that out. But you wouldn't bother to get off your ass to do it. Even sr can tell you, I have no problem with being disagreed with. He and I have disagreed more than once...and I still have no problem with "speaking" with him. So take your know it all attitude and shove it. I Do know how to defend what I believe. I do it when I chose to, not when ordered or ridiculed to do it, as you are baiting me to try to do. You have no evidence of anything about me. You keep thinking you do.

You want rage. Well, here's my anger. You're a jerk. Pure and simple. You're not worth anyone's time. You are baiting nearly everyone. And it's been a consensus that you are. So we must all be wrong, while you must be right, according to your logic. I don't need to cite anything. Just as you have not when asked to do so. You think I'm a scorned lady....well you really don't know me then. You once again think you do.

And at least I know when the word is "write" vs "right" or "defend" vs "defense"

And for the record. I'm not a liberal. I happen to be a conservative or even a moderate. But definitely not a liberal...so again...you don't know what I believe.

You, I am done with.