Atheist!

[amicus]

Ah, Sweetsss on talking terms and I really do not wish to argue with you and risk your wrath yet again...smiles

But...venture out of the urban complex once in a while, look at the art at garage sales, antique shops, in the physicians offices and in the homes of normal people.

It is art, but not the liberal view of art, not by a long shot. It is flowers and scenery and landscape and strong men and lovely ladies, best exemplified perhaps by the Impressionists, of whom Monet is still one of the most purchased reprints in the world.

Nowadays, liberal=bohemian, far out man, the extremes, anything to offend and insult the common man, then the Maplethorp group gloats that they finessed public financing, holy shit.

Edible offal, anything to offend; the ultimate expression of narcissistic ego maniacal retentive behavior.

This too, shall pass and when they finally burn the art of the 'liberal' period, no one will even notice.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

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:



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



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..

Thank you for this post. You have identified the process I am following. Until I agreed to follow after the truth in this manner, it was very confusing to accept what had been taught me. Since beginning on this journey, I have traveled far and have already passed many of the land marks of which you bring to light.

"The Watchmaker debate is centuries old and held for quite a while but has been refuted repeatedly." That is true, it has been refuted repeatedly but the factors of this argument have not been defeated. It still stands as "one" of the main arguments for God's existence. Liberal and atheist really press this point hard but it is just one issue.

This statement, "... 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." To me this recognition is a testament to God's existence. God made nature. How do we know, Because it is here. The same laws that work on earth, work on other planets also. The math and science used on earth is also valid throughout the universe. This is a type of faith that even the atheist and most liberal thinkers have. These natural laws is a type of God's omnipotence and a type of his omniscient power too and all the other omni also.

Atheism does frighten the person who does not know. It does not frighten me. If I am made to doubt, it will enable me to learn more. Every one doubts, if they are smart.

I only believe in the Tabula Rosa theory in part. The mind, I believe is constructed more like Emmanuel Kant explained with his neumina function of the mind. Experiences must be run through the mind to have meaning. It fits well with the theory that man has all his knowledge at birth and with experiences he remembers what he already knew. It is real close to Plato's forms. Now I know that some liberals will want to say man does not experience knowledge through the forms but it is the truth any way but more like Emmanuel Kant said.

From the response I have received in the short time on this forum, these liberal minds that keep challenging me are the ones who need protection. Indeed, they are the ones with weak ideas. Humanism is the ethical code of the atheist by default. After he has denied God and all premises found in nature, he has nothing upon which to base his reasoning. That is why the liberal is always wrong in his thinking processes and is forced to resort to theory of relativity. Notice how angry they get when one tells them that. Talk about emotions and the lack of objectivity, they go completely nuts. Just watch!

 

[wmrs2]

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?

I am sorry if I have erroneously placed you in that group that has been very harsh with me. I guess I have not payed attention to whom I was speaking. Please forgive me.

 

[wmrs2]

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.

Liar, I am sorry for confusing with another person on this forum that told me to stick it up my ass. I am obviously at fault and over reacted to the language others have been using on this thread. Please forgive me.

 

[wmrs2]

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

I agree with you. Have you notified the others about this or just me?

 

[wmrs2]

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.

You think I am baiting nearly everyone. I am sorry you feel that way but what do you think this thread was from the get go? If you are honest about the thread, you will know that it was bait for some conservative person to come along and the liberals would chew him up. Being the old fart you think I am, I do not make a good chew.

I waited a long time before responding to your continual sarcasm. I admit I should have been more patient and allowed you to continue call me a jerk, stupid, and I don't remember what all but it did bother me some that I felt I could not respond to you in this light every time you cut me down. You said you were a Christian. I though you would cool it. You did tell me.what you believed about Christianity. I really deduced what you believed from those key thoughts you expressed. When the unprovoked insults kept coming, I guess I lost my cool and struck back. I doubt that I have scared you for life but for what it is worth, I am sorry and please forgive me.

 

[wmrs2]

You mean, posting on a porn site?

Your here.

 

[wmrs2]

So, you don't believe in the Trinity then(?) That does, indeed, make you a very different "Christian." I'll give a little prayer for you in church in the morning.

How did you make the deduction that you'd read and studied the Bible more than I have? Is that a conservative way of "knowing" something?

I did not say that I did not believe in the Trinity. I start my faith with the Father. I do believe in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I was still angry at you when I thought you were the one that told me to stick it up my a**. I figured a person who would talk like that was not well studied in the Bible. Forgive me for that a second time. If you really mean it, I would appreciate your sincere prayer.

 

[wmrs2]

I'm still perplexed, wmrs2, why your Christian principles would be causing you to be so un-Christian to me.

(And, sorry, all that Bible reading and you didn't do enough--you got your liberal/conservative thing in the story of Christ assbackwards. Suggest another round of Sunday School.)

Read on brother. I will be testing your forgiving spirit. It is more difficult to forgive than it is to hurt and damage.

 

[amicus]

There are many theologians or theological students who have labored to bring faith and science into the same arena. If that is your pursuit in life or your, 'calling' as some put it, then the best of luck to you.

But...(you should smile here; there is always a 'but' or, 'however')...if you pursue truth, and our liberal associates here deny there is any such thing, but if you choose that quest, then to keep your sanity, dispose of Immanuel Kant as quickly as you can and Plato/Socrates right along with him.

You will find a strange bedfellow as the liberal intellectual elite here also claim Kant as their own brethren. They do so because Kant, more than any other Philosopher of fairly modern times, set back the concepts of rational objective epistemology, by about a century.

Tabula Rasa means you are born with a blank slate for a mind. Nothing there. No instinctual knowledge. no ability to think other than the potential, quite like a modern computer with an empty hard drive before even the operating system is installed.

We may not fully understand how the brain functions at this point in history, but we do know what it does not do, which is, in essence something valuable to have learned.

There is but one way the human mind acquires knowledge and that is through sensory experiences and it may begin in the womb, according to the latest theory.

Man is the only animal, and yes, he is an animal, evolved from lower forms of life, (we dug em up!), but the only animal that requires such an extended period of learning/youth before it becomes mature. And there is only one method, after acquiring the imput of the senses, to properly assist that mind in arranging that sensory information into usable form; that of concepts and abstractions. (simple version, get a book) That method includes focus, integrity, continuity, congruity and non contradictory information.

Man does not acquire knowledge by accepting, on faith, anything.

I almost want to say that again to emphasize the importance of the assertion, you cannot learn anything by just believing in it. I shudder in revulsion when I see filmed accounts of Catholic novitiates chanting catechisms, usually in the company of others to reinforce the brainwashing.

In your attempt, ahm, to refute the refutation of Paley's premise, I ask you this; remove 'God' from what you said in paragraph three of your post to me, and you will find that nature's laws remain untouched.

It is amusing, to me anyway, to read the liberals claim 'chaos theory', and quote abstract mathematicians in their attempt to prove that the Universe emerged from chaos, as much as it is to read those like you who claim that God created the Universe and all that is in it and that he always existed, thus avoiding the pesky question of who created your God. That is a pain, isn't it?

It is easier and much more tidy to put aside those assumptions based on faith and actually look out into the Universe and make an attempt to comprehend just how it got here and why.

There is much we do not know and will never know, but to abrogate the very thing that makes us human, a sentient mind, is to ignore the potential of life itself and a recogition of the values inherent in life and protect and cherish them.

Although I am what one might describe as a 'militant atheist', I do not begrudge those of faith, but I do so with a caveat and that is that half of all who are born are not mentally capable of the reasoning required to comprehend the necessity of thought and must believe in something easy like the Three Wise Men or the Vestal Virgins.

Some otherwise thoughtful person hered claimed to have no ideology, that is not possible. The mind must have a foundation or insanity follows. That foundation can be false, as I assert any theology is, but it still serves as a foundation albeit a poor one.

This may upset you if you are female and most already know my opinion, that women, by their very nature are much too emotional to deal with reality in any objective manner for the most part. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and there are no doubt degrees of male and female in all of us, but in general, women did not succeed in the thinking process because they were oppressed in all of history but because they could not think until they went into menopause and then they just bitched a lot)).

Thought I would conclude this on that note of humor. heh

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

There are many theologians or theological students who have labored to bring faith and science into the same arena. If that is your pursuit in life or your, 'calling' as some put it, then the best of luck to you.

But...(you should smile here; there is always a 'but' or, 'however')...if you pursue truth, and our liberal associates here deny there is any such thing, but if you choose that quest, then to keep your sanity, dispose of Immanuel Kant as quickly as you can and Plato/Socrates right along with him.

You will find a strange bedfellow as the liberal intellectual elite here also claim Kant as their own brethren. They do so because Kant, more than any other Philosopher of fairly modern times, set back the concepts of rational objective epistemology, by about a century.

Tabula Rasa means you are born with a blank slate for a mind. Nothing there. No instinctual knowledge. no ability to think other than the potential, quite like a modern computer with an empty hard drive before even the operating system is installed.

We may not fully understand how the brain functions at this point in history, but we do know what it does not do, which is, in essence something valuable to have learned.

There is but one way the human mind acquires knowledge and that is through sensory experiences and it may begin in the womb, according to the latest theory.

Man is the only animal, and yes, he is an animal, evolved from lower forms of life, (we dug em up!), but the only animal that requires such an extended period of learning/youth before it becomes mature. And there is only one method, after acquiring the imput of the senses, to properly assist that mind in arranging that sensory information into usable form; that of concepts and abstractions. (simple version, get a book) That method includes focus, integrity, continuity, congruity and non contradictory information.

Man does not acquire knowledge by accepting, on faith, anything.

I almost want to say that again to emphasize the importance of the assertion, you cannot learn anything by just believing in it. I shudder in revulsion when I see filmed accounts of Catholic novitiates chanting catechisms, usually in the company of others to reinforce the brainwashing.

In your attempt, ahm, to refute the refutation of Paley's premise, I ask you this; remove 'God' from what you said in paragraph three of your post to me, and you will find that nature's laws remain untouched.

It is amusing, to me anyway, to read the liberals claim 'chaos theory', and quote abstract mathematicians in their attempt to prove that the Universe emerged from chaos, as much as it is to read those like you who claim that God created the Universe and all that is in it and that he always existed, thus avoiding the pesky question of who created your God. That is a pain, isn't it?

It is easier and much more tidy to put aside those assumptions based on faith and actually look out into the Universe and make an attempt to comprehend just how it got here and why.

There is much we do not know and will never know, but to abrogate the very thing that makes us human, a sentient mind, is to ignore the potential of life itself and a recogition of the values inherent in life and protect and cherish them.

Although I am what one might describe as a 'militant atheist', I do not begrudge those of faith, but I do so with a caveat and that is that half of all who are born are not mentally capable of the reasoning required to comprehend the necessity of thought and must believe in something easy like the Three Wise Men or the Vestal Virgins.

Some otherwise thoughtful person hered claimed to have no ideology, that is not possible. The mind must have a foundation or insanity follows. That foundation can be false, as I assert any theology is, but it still serves as a foundation albeit a poor one.

This may upset you if you are female and most already know my opinion, that women, by their very nature are much too emotional to deal with reality in any objective manner for the most part. Of course there are exceptions to the rule and there are no doubt degrees of male and female in all of us, but in general, women did not succeed in the thinking process because they were oppressed in all of history but because they could not think until they went into menopause and then they just bitched a lot)).

Thought I would conclude this on that note of humor. heh

Amicus...

Amicus, thank you for your enlightening post. I do not pursue a life calling but that is good for people who think they must. I take one step at at a time and one day at a time. That works for me.

I oppose the notion that there is no truth. The liberals say there is no good or evil either. You can not judge anything if there is no standard or premise. That is how I see it. Kant, Plato and the rest have only contributed to my search. I take what they say when it reminds me of what I already know.

There are too many examples of innate knowledge for me to believe that knowledge can not come before experience. I am sure you are familiar with these examples so I will not burden with this argument. I suppose I do not believe in the Tabla Rosa theory at all, since I believe one has all his knowledge at birth. You know the rest of the story.

I hunt and pick truth like I type. But it works out since I do have a frame of reference by which I judge things. Like you say, "every body does."

About the woman thing, I best ignore that although it does make sense.

 

[amicus]

I am off on a journey in a few hours to visit children and grandchildren and will not return until late evening tomorrow, so I thought I would leave you something to consider in my absence.

"...There are too many examples of innate knowledge for me to believe that knowledge can not come before experience..."

It is a quaint and romantic theory, I suppose, one used by Jean Auel in her, "Clan of the Cave Bear" series, that her Neandethals had memories back to the beginning of time. And that self same halucinogen also gave them powers to see into the future. Such fantasies, must by necessity include everything imaginable, such as vampires and werewolves, dragons, gods & godesses, devils and demons, the list is endless of those who unwittingly open their minds to the possiblity of 'innate knowledge'.

Do so if you choose, but know that matches in the hands of a child can do more than light candles.

I guess I keep trying to peel back the layers of your onion of faith, hoping to find a vital and vibrant mind lurking, just waiting for the light of day to blossom. It is, no doubt a forlorn effort on my part as it has been before, but then, I have always been an optimist.(but not innately so)

You will do as you damn well please and thas a good thing as it stands right up and speaks of self value and self worth, regardless of what your faith leads you to.

Since you have chosen this platform and not a bad choice, some very intelligent, some very good people here, then why not take this opportunity to express your thoughts on such things as Original Sin, Altruism, Self Sacrifice, Charity, tithing and so forth. I have found, to my amusement that liberals and deists alike seem to revel in altruism and self sacrifice although to different deities. And I scrolled back again, tell me just how you think that innate knowledge was acquired, by what process is knowledge imparted to an infant?


And yes, a trap lies therein, tread carefully for your own sake.

regards...

amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Well, tabula rasa is not a theory anymore - it is what science confirms, further qualified as being supplemented by what is known as "genetic knowledge" as far as instinctual knowledge is concerned. So now philosophy has to step back about creating grand theories about how the mind works - Kant had interesting notions, but was creating his ideas out of the limited knowledge of his period, his experiences and his own observations - not backed by the solid data science provides today. People like Daniel Dennett ("Consciousness explained") draw heavily on the findings of clinical psychology, neurology and neurophysiology nowadays and although I personally find his approach a tad limited, it is a good starting point for reading.

There were a few interesting theories formed by odd discoveries like rats learning a particular feat on one side of the globe and some others applying that knowledge on the other - but so far they are just theories, nothing more - and for as long as there is a good likelihood that those were just statistical anomalies and coincidences, they won't be mistaken for facts and those theories not for knowledge.

 

[Liar]

Liar, I am sorry for confusing with another person on this forum that told me to stick it up my ass. I am obviously at fault and over reacted to the language others have been using on this thread. Please forgive me.

Of course. I don't hold a grudge longer then 15 minutes at a time.

 

[Guest]

Well, Christ did not mean what you say his life meant. You really are looking for something in me to criticize. Don't mistake me for Rick Warren, he preached the Christ centered life. For me I have always followed the God centered life and that makes me a different person than you commonly run across.

Unlike you I have actually read the Bible and studied Christianity. People opposed to Christ were the liberals were the liberals of his time; in the temple and other places. He tried to point them back to serving God in the spirit of the Jewish fathers. He tried to conserve the qualities of the old covenant to bring them into the new covenant. See, he was a conservative, not a liberal.

I am not going to share my religious life with you, at least not at this time. Why would I do such a thing while I know you are not looking for facts for your salvation but you just want to find fault? If you think Christ requires you to do the things you point out, get busy and do them. I have come to grips with what God wants me to do and I am doing it.

You mean, posting on a porn site?

Your here.

I think you mean "you're" here, but that's not the point, is it?

I'm not the one proclaiming to one and all how holy I am, and how I know what God wants and how I'm doing it!

I just merely asked if God's wishes included you posting (or even reading) a porn site?

My being here has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You're the one claiming extra-special tasty goodness for knowing God's mind and all.

I think you are underage.

I think you've just gone through some confirmation classes and now you're testing your wings.

There are many good people on this site, many Christian people who do good things, who are kind, helpful, faithful in their daily lives.

You don't have to be an ass to get your point across. You don't have to rant. You don't have to demean or belittle or "feel sorry" for those who you believe do not possess your amount of faith.

You have much learning to do, grasshopper.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, tabula rasa is not a theory anymore - it is what science confirms, further qualified as being supplemented by what is known as "genetic knowledge" as far as instinctual knowledge is concerned. So now philosophy has to step back about creating grand theories about how the mind works - Kant had interesting notions, but was creating his ideas out of the limited knowledge of his period, his experiences and his own observations - not backed by the solid data science provides today. People like Daniel Dennett ("Consciousness explained") draw heavily on the findings of clinical psychology, neurology and neurophysiology nowadays and although I personally find his approach a tad limited, it is a good starting point for reading.

There were a few interesting theories formed by odd discoveries like rats learning a particular feat on one side of the globe and some others applying that knowledge on the other - but so far they are just theories, nothing more - and for as long as there is a good likelihood that those were just statistical anomalies and coincidences, they won't be mistaken for facts and those theories not for knowledge.

Tabula rasa isn't quite correct. Mammal brains, and especially human brains have sturctures that are waiting to be filled, so to speak-- but those structures can only be filled by certain things. language and grammar, affect processing, logic processing, We don't inherit our language, we have inherited the ability to learn language. We don't inherit morals, we have an inherent ability to learn a moral system-- what that system might be is up to the culture in which we live.

I've never heard of these telepathic rats-- isn't that just a version of the "hundredth monkey" fable?

 

[sr71plt]

Read on brother. I will be testing your forgiving spirit. It is more difficult to forgive than it is to hurt and damage.

Forgiving is no problem. Forgetting doesn't come as easily. But I don't really have much invested with this thread, so I'll go with the flow.

 

[past_perfect]

Tabula rasa isn't quite correct. Mammal brains, and especially human brains have sturctures that are waiting to be filled, so to speak-- but those structures can only be filled by certain things. language and grammar, affect processing, logic processing, We don't inherit our language, we have inherited the ability to learn language. We don't inherit morals, we have an inherent ability to learn a moral system-- what that system might be is up to the culture in which we live.

I've never heard of these telepathic rats-- isn't that just a version of the "hundredth monkey" fable?

Yeah - you are right there of course, however, knowledge as stipulated by our friend here, is not present. We get the tools, but before the acquisition of memories, we are not capable of operating them.

I couldn't find the original paper at short notice, just a further description on one of the morphic fields theory pages:

For example, in a ten-year experiment started at Harvard University, rats were trained to escape from a water maze. Each new generation of rats learned to escape quicker. After ten years, the latest generation of rats could escape ten times faster than the original rats. Interestingly, rats of the same lineage in other areas of the world also escaped ten times faster, a phenomenon which cannot be explained by any localized instruments (unless the rats figured out how to communicate via email or instant messenger and we just haven’t found out .

http://consciousnessproject.org/page.asp?PageID=13

 

[wmrs2]

I think you mean "you're" here, but that's not the point, is it?

I'm not the one proclaiming to one and all how holy I am, and how I know what God wants and how I'm doing it!

I just merely asked if God's wishes included you posting (or even reading) a porn site?

My being here has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You're the one claiming extra-special tasty goodness for knowing God's mind and all.

I think you are underage.

I think you've just gone through some confirmation classes and now you're testing your wings.
There are many good people on this site, many Christian people who do good things, who are kind, helpful, faithful in their daily lives.

You're the one claiming extra-special tasty goodness for knowing God's mind and all.
You don't have to be an ass to get your point across. You don't have to rant. You don't have to demean or belittle or "feel sorry" for those who you believe do not possess your amount of faith.

You have much learning to do, grasshopper.

We are both here on a porn forum. Since we both claim Christ as a center of our faith, you must know that Christ often met with sinners and porn stars of his day. The fact that separated him from them was that he never caved in to their evil ways or sided with their persecution of those that believed in God.

I told amicus that there was no life calling for me. I walk one step at a time. That is what I am now doing. The self righteous interpretation comes from deep inside of you, not me.

You're the one claiming extra-special tasty goodness for knowing God's mind and all.

You can not cite this claim anywhere in my conversation. It comes from your own subjectivity.

There are many good people on this site, many Christian people who do good things, who are kind, helpful, faithful in their daily lives.

In this case, ask yourself why you are damning me for being here?

You're the one claiming extra-special tasty goodness for knowing God's mind and all.

I freely admit that all men can know God's mind.
I admit that I practice a unique type of a Christian lifestyle but can you not see that you judge me unrighteous without cause? You should strive to make me your friend instead of turning me over the the yipping bitch dogs. We are both Christians yet you hate me. How ironic.Just read through your posts to me and see how many statements you make that contradict the lifestyle of your Christian testimony. Judge yourself. That will satisfy me and God.

 

[wmrs2]

Forgiving is no problem. Forgetting doesn't come as easily. But I don't really have much invested with this thread, so I'll go with the flow.

Thank you for your honest sincerity. I appreciated how it shown through on my other thread. Forgetting is a problem for the human race, is it not?

 

[Guest]

We are both here on a porn forum. Since we both claim Christ as a center of our faith, you must know that Christ often met with sinners and porn stars of his day. The fact that separated him from them was that he never caved in to their evil ways or sided with their persecution of those that believed in God.

I told amicus that there was no life calling for me. I walk one step at a time. That is what I am now doing. The self righteous interpretation comes from deep inside of you, not me.

You can not cite this claim anywhere in my conversation. It comes from your own subjectivity.

In this case, ask yourself why you are damning me for being here?

I freely admit that all men can know God's mind.
I admit that I practice a unique type of a Christian lifestyle but can you not see that you judge me unrighteous without cause? You should strive to make me your friend instead of turning me over the the yipping bitch dogs. We are both Christians yet you hate me. How ironic.Just read through your posts to me and see how many statements you make that contradict the lifestyle of your Christian testimony. Judge yourself. That will satisfy me and God.

Sweetie, I couldn't give a rat's ass why you are here, truly. It makes no difference to me.

And I never said that Christ was the center of my faith.

 

[wmrs2]

Sweetie, I couldn't give a rat's ass why you are here, truly. It makes no difference to me.

And I never said that Christ was the center of my faith.

I agree. These things are self-evident.

 

[Guest]

I agree. These things are self-evident.

Apparently not, since you didn't understand it until I pointed it out.



But this is terrible of me. Shooting fish in a barrel easy.

I'm off.

 

[wmrs2]

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

This question has not nearly been answered. We certainly have not viewed the sociological answer to the question. Atheist is not a term that 90% of Americans daily use in their common vocabulary. When it is generally mentioned, as the OP suggest, it is in derogatory usage. Americans associate atheism with communism, evil, and socialism, which is unfortunate for the liberal political left. When I was a little girl the term liberal and communism were one and the same. I remember politicians in the 1950's and 1060"s would brand their opponents as liberals in order to wind elections. The liberal press has worked on that stereotype until today the term liberal has gained some respectability.

Some liberals even go so far from the association of atheist to call themselves Christians. They need that title to win elections but I don't think America is ready for an atheist president. It would be a real problem for an atheist elected president to take the oath of office, since he does not believe in God. Of course Americans never imagined that the moral and ethical standards of atheism would ever come close to the White House. This could be the reason that the liberals over-state their issue of separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is a real sensitive issue with liberals and Americans. That is one reason liberals and atheist will have a difficult time getting the national slogan off our money: In God We Trust. The slogan was an insult to atheist USSR and there does not appear to be any national drive to abolish the slogan today. But the atheist and liberals bitch about it, which only makes the term atheist a more pejorative term.

Americans know that if you decide to be an atheist that is your right. But, plainly a vast majority disagree with this choice. Respectability does not come with the choice to be an atheist in America. For this reason, most atheist have enough common sense to live their lives without making an issue out of atheism. That is not the case on forums like this. Atheist and liberals tend to run the show here and can not stand to be crossed or have their philosophies examined. Over-confidence in their intellectual positions encourages them to pose such threads as "Atheist" as a fishing lure.

 

[Guest]

I thought you were a little girl.

I know, I've said I would go, but your posts are just so ridiculous I couldn't help myself.

How many times can you use atheist in one post, I wonder?