Atheist!

[sr71plt]

Greed produced Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.,

Greed? Pol Pot? Tilt. There was nothing in Cambodia to feed greed. Pol Pot was the product of extremist zealotry (which does seem to have its application here).

 

[xssve]

Well it wasn't free thinking, I think I'm on solid ground there.

 

[wmrs2]

Exactly, and there have been none on this thread since you started posting to it. You operate on what you claim is belief (but it's a bit scary what that is--certainly not New Testament Christianity), and the athiests (and perhaps others) are operating on scienctific (and/or their rendition of common sense) reasoning. And Amicus is just baiting whoever he can jab at (and patronizing you in the process). There has been no agreement on basic definitions from the get go. And it's gone on and on. Where belief and scientific reasoning intersect on this, to me, is just to let the thread go.

If you feel that way, why are you responding? I have given many definitions on this thread. You are not listening. You make a blind and arrogant statement that you can not come close to supporting (not New Testament Christianity). I have read enough of your comments about the Bible and Christianity to know that you fail to understand Biblical subjects.

I would not blame Ami for your lack of ability to either defend or support the stipulations being made on this thread. Nobody generally baits me but I do a good job of setting the bait for people who refuse to be rational. My observation tells me that you are not interested in rational debate/discussion or you would have not followed the pack of dogs all over the forum amen to all the ridicule you could say amen to. That to me is not a practice of a thoughtful man or one who understands the true meaning of the Bible, as you say you do.

After you have made no contribution to civil conversation, you say "let the thread go." Tell that to Sub-Joe, she started the thread. Think about it! Sub-Joe ask why most Americans think of Atheist being a derogatory term. She is kind enough to ask and I am kind enough to answer. I don't see where your advice to me adds anything to the conversation nor do I see where future trolling will create more civility on the forum.

 

[wmrs2]

The best way to win a game is to set the playing field, rules and goal posts.

Your 'agreed upon definition' was 'atheists suck!' That was the goal post and you carried the ball through it on your first post.

And the crowd goes wild!

Will you please set the goal post, make the rules, and show us how the game is played? If my agreed upon definition was that atheist suck, it should be easy for you to point out why the definition is incorrect. But, you will not do this. Making more wild accusations is not good sportsmanship. Carrying the ball through a weak defense is no problem. The problem is trying to get the players to play by any set of rules that do not change from play to play.

 

[Guest]

Wmrs -

Sub Joe is male, actually. His AV is a joke.

And I think you are also confused about many other aspects of Biblical interpretation.

You continue to state elements of faith as factual information.

But they are not facts. They are your beliefs, your faith.

They do seem wonderful for you.

But others here do not share them.

No angst, no argument, no fuss, no biting no fighting.

I just agree to disagree.

 

[wmrs2]

So for you, it is logical to equate morality with patriotism, and proceed to issue threats forthwith?

I applaud you for laying your life on the line for your in defense of the constitution and the country - what branch of the service did you serve in again?

And yes, curiously enough, the Constitution was specifically designed to provide mechanisms for individuals to defend themselves against dictatorships of the majority - something god apparently did not see fit to do according to your self-evident revelation on the matter.

All men are created equal, we hold that truth to be self-evident, and take it from there.

There are no threats in what I say. Are you saying morality and patriotism are incompatible? For the record, I do not nor do I think you are say this. Who is the minority that needs protection under the Constitution? I certainly make no threats to any minority but I do disagree with the style of life many minorities live by. The Constitution gives the right to disagree just the same as you.

 

[oggbashan]

Wmrs -

...
And I think you are also confused about many other aspects of Biblical interpretation.

You continue to state elements of faith as factual information.

But they are not facts. They are your beliefs, your faith.

They do seem wonderful for you.

But others here do not share them.

No angst, no argument, no fuss, no biting no fighting.

I just agree to disagree.

My position too.

No matter how many strong words you use such as "self-evident" and "eternal, stable unchanging truth" they are just your emphasis of your beliefs. They prove nothing unless the person you are addressing shares your beliefs.

I don't. Your arguments are therefore based on foundations of sand and dialogue or "reasoned argument" between us are both impossible.

Og

 

[wmrs2]

You just made up a definition of "free thinker", that is subjective entirely to you, and seem well on your way to redefining logic itself.

Greed produced Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., greed and possibly syphilis - and we've gotten a little past Aristotle and the Four humors, although I know it's still considered state of the art in certain circles - we have what is called "organic chemistry" nowadays, you should check it out.

In a much earlier post on this thread a member of the forum was telling me she was a Christian and a freethinker. The term was her term. I was questioning her use of the term then. I thought it was a good discussion and simply reposed my answer here.

I believe that logic is as subjective as it is objective. As long as logic is correct deductions, that is what counts. Is it different for you?

 

[sr71plt]

If you feel that way, why are you responding? I have given many definitions on this thread. You are not listening. You make a blind and arrogant statement that you can not come close to supporting (not New Testament Christianity). I have read enough of your comments about the Bible and Christianity to know that you fail to understand Biblical subjects.

I would not blame Ami for your lack of ability to either defend or support the stipulations being made on this thread. Nobody generally baits me but I do a good job of setting the bait for people who refuse to be rational. My observation tells me that you are not interested in rational debate/discussion or you would have not followed the pack of dogs all over the forum amen to all the ridicule you could say amen to. That to me is not a practice of a thoughtful man or one who understands the true meaning of the Bible, as you say you do.

After you have made no contribution to civil conversation, you say "let the thread go." Tell that to Sub-Joe, she started the thread. Think about it! Sub-Joe ask why most Americans think of Atheist being a derogatory term. She is kind enough to ask and I am kind enough to answer. I don't see where your advice to me adds anything to the conversation nor do I see where future trolling will create more civility on the forum.

Defend or support stipulations? I stopped giving any thought to your confused ramblings on this thread days ago.

Your inability to understand what you yourself posted--that there hasn't been an agreement on the definition of basic concepts here--is your problem, not mine.

 

[wmrs2]

You just made up a definition of "free thinker", that is subjective entirely to you, and seem well on your way to redefining logic itself.

Greed produced Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., greed and possibly syphilis - and we've gotten a little past Aristotle and the Four humors, although I know it's still considered state of the art in certain circles - we have what is called "organic chemistry" nowadays, you should check it out.

By the way, I have checked out organic chemistry and found out that that it is very reliable as long as one uses it with the eternal, stable, self-evident, and classical "scientific method" with it.

 

[amicus]

For the sake of clarity only, I wish to make a small observation at this point.

A great portion of people in the world rely on 'faith' to provide them with a moral and ethical foundation and to give them strength to face the inherent calamities that occur during a lifetime.

Wmrs2 is defending faith.

The majority of her detractors advocate an absence of faith and claim to replace it with reason and logic, but offer no concrete foundation for their own ethical and moral premises.

In other words, as usual, the 'usual suspect' attack absolutism of any form but fail to either elucidate or defend their own, 'absolute' stands on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, gay rights and disdain for individual human rights in favor of a collective, 'cost/benefit', Utilitarian approach to human ethics and morals.

One of the reasons, 'psuedo' atheists remains a pejorative, is that they have not and will never defend the source of their moral and ethical decisions.

Wmrs2 does not require my agreement or assistance, but essentially the two of us are defending the concept of self evident moral and ethical tenets that exist naturally and can be explained and understood by all.

In both cases, the 'usual suspects', lacking any such moral certitude, can only attack and attempt to destroy and never, ever, not once, attempt to defend their own moral stance.

Keep it up, kid!

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

Now you're just being curmudgeonly.

I choose not to share my personal issues of faith here. My choice. My privacy.

Having said that, I still take offense that some person is attempting to push their personal issues of faith down my throat, and then taking me to task if I don't jump on board.

YOU certainly don't, when someone pressures YOU.

So quit cheerleading her on, because you of all people know good and damned well that she is misguided.

Besides, you don't have any faith in God yourself.

 

[hypnopup]

A very logical thinker is not a free thinker. A logical thinker is bound by the premises of his thinking. All thinking is flawed if it does not have a stable premise. That is the major fault with communism. Communism rejects Aristotelian logic in favor of relativity. In relativity thinking, one does not need an absolute premise, such as God. This makes a person a "free thinker" to choose whatever seems sensible. Free thinking produced Hitler, Stalin, Killing Fields, etc., all examples of free thinking and moral relativity.

A "freethinker" is defined as someone "free" of supernatural or paranormal beliefs while using logic and reasoning to reach conclusions.

I think you are using the wrong dictionary.

 

[amicus]

I forget who it was that coined the phrase, "Think you can kill time without injuring eternity..."

"...I choose not to share my personal issues of faith here. My choice. My privacy...."

Do you even remotely suppose that when you position yourself on issues of doubt, that you do not expose your innermost personal issues of faith?

Words have meaning. You support abortion. Therefore your position on human life becomes evident.

Apply that reasoning to the totality of moral choices you have expressed on this forum and you doubt others understand?

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Not being a believer yourself, Amicus, I would suppose you would have no idea how repulsive mwrs2's representation of a believer is to a Christian. But then, you're just toying with her anyway--and are intellectually dishonest yourself. So, what the hey?

 

[xssve]

She isn't defending her subjective faith, ami she's trying to establish it as an objective truth through circular logic, a lot like you do.

The problem with "self evident truth" is that it isn't self evident to everyone - how do you account for that?

 

[amicus]

She isn't defending her subjective faith, ami she's trying to establish it as an objective truth through circular logic, a lot like you do.

The problem with "self evident truth" is that it isn't self evident to everyone - how do you account for that?[/QUOTE]

~~~~

Hmmm.... I cannot address wmrs2's perception of objective truth, that is for her to do.

I however, do not depend on, or call upon 'faith' to observe self evident truths.

I have an Oak tree in my yard; I suggest you find a nearby tree, walk up to it, and thump your head against the the bark on the trunk.

I further suggest that you may possibly discover an aspect of self evident truth, depending on just how hard you bump your very thick head.



Amicus...

 

[xssve]

The tree may appear to be self evident, but I notice you still bump you head against it to confirm your perceptions that it is substantial and not a hallucination.

My comment is addressed to your assertion that we are "attacking" her faith, which is subjective, and cannot even be objectively established, much less used as the basis for further logical extension, any such would have to necessarily be equally subjective.

I don't believe anyone here is attacking her alleged faith at the moment, in fact I believe several of the poster involved in this discussion are not without a certain degree of faith themselves - we are attacking her reasoning which is subject to objective procedural rules.

Logically, to assert, as you have, that to attack her logic is to attack her faith is illogical, since they are not the same thing, neither is patriotism and faith, or even patriotism and logic, for that matter.

There seem to be a lot of logical inferences and connections being made here that do not stand up to scrutiny. One does not accept reason logic and evidence at face value, particularly on such flimsy pretext; it would be illogical, since logic, by it's very nature, invites argument. To do so, i.e., to accept any statement as logical simply because it contains large and important sounding words, would be to render the concept meaningless.

It has an established meaning: if you want to play, you should stick to that meaning, because otherwise, it isn't logic, it's sophistry.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmmm.... I cannot address wmrs2's perception of objective truth, that is for her to do.

I can-- by the empirical evidence of her words, she is terribly confused as to the meaning of "objective" and of "truth."

 

[xssve]

I would concur wholeheartedly.

 

[amicus]

Xssve...time to put your money where your mouth is...

I am not going to search for a post in which you supported abortion and if I am in error to assume that you do, then I will pick another issue.

As you seem to be the most lucid and consistent of the bunch here, those in opposition to objective reality; I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value.

If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation.

Thank you...

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

Apparently, this is the trend, flooding the faithful with half baked jargon so that they can go forth and dismantle the Tower of reason with their pseudoscientific babble.

To wit: The Bizarre Scare Tactics Used By Abstinence Advocates

The book's tactics include:

* The paradigm of sex-as-a-problem. The resulting policy goal is to minimize this problem, rather than finding ways to help young people celebrate their sexuality or use it for personal growth.

* Naturally, there is no discussion of decision-making skills other than urging a simple refusal to engage in all erotic activity.

* The recurring use of the word "children" to refer to biological adults who happen to be minors (i.e., 17), or even older (if they are unmarried). Policy discussions about sexuality that treat 12-year-olds and 20-year-olds as a single category are based in ideology, not sociology or psychology.

* A scientific-sounding discussion of "chemicals released in the brain during sex" which "can become addictive." This rather old news is presented as a scientific "breakthrough," without any mention of similar neuro-chemical activity that accompanies sports, eating, singing, and other pleasurable behavior. Although the word "addiction" is used metaphorically, its negative connotation makes it quite scary.

* There is no discussion about how young Americans' bodies now mature in ways for which society is unprepared (150 years ago, onset of puberty and age of first marriage were almost concurrent; that has changed dramatically). Similarly, there is no acknowledgement that society is responsible for most young people's sexual difficulties by stimulating them sexually (as consumers) and giving them enormous autonomy (privacy, cell phones, etc.), while deliberately withholding the information they need to handle the inevitable feelings and situations.

* In a community that devalues science and valorizes opinion and emotion, the use of personal testimony substitutes for evidence and proof. Thus, the book features a series of pull quotes that are uniformly negative, portraying non-marital sex as extraordinarily hurtful.

* There is absolutely no comment about the many evaluations of abstinence-only programs already published -- virtually all of which describe such programs as ineffective at best, harmful at worst. Similarly, there is no comment on the many positive evaluations of comprehensive sex ed programs.

We discussed this recently w/regard to evolutionary psychology in the Moral Matrix thread, i.e., Haidt's contention that subservience was "natural".

How about that ami?

 

[xssve]

Xssve...time to put your money where your mouth is...

I am not going to search for a post in which you supported abortion and if I am in error to assume that you do, then I will pick another issue.

As you seem to be the most lucid and consistent of the bunch here, those in opposition to objective reality; I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value.

If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation.

Thank you...

Amicus...

I shall endeavor to do so after I finish feeding my children.

 

[amicus]

Chuckles....was it Admiral Nimitz who messaged Admiral Halsey in the Pacific in world war two, "The world awaits..."

ami

 

[wmrs2]

Wmrs -

Sub Joe is male, actually. His AV is a joke.

And I think you are also confused about many other aspects of Biblical interpretation.

You continue to state elements of faith as factual information.

But they are not facts. They are your beliefs, your faith.

They do seem wonderful for you.

But others here do not share them.

No angst, no argument, no fuss, no biting no fighting.

I just agree to disagree.

You need to review my post more carefully. I do not use a Bible interpretation to support any of my reasoning.

I know of no element of faith that I have presented. From where does this idea come? I think you are conditioned to discussing religion to Bible thumping Christians who depend on the Bible for all answers. That's not me (although the Bible is a good place to look).

I agree to disagree but it is nice to know exactly on what we disagree.