Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
These posts are a mine of characterization details... Not, of course, for what she says but for the way that she says it.
Atheist!
- Thread starter NoJo
- Start date
Why does the term atheist remain a derogatory term in America? The problem with accepting atheists into the American culture is that they bring too much threatening baggage. I am aware that many liberals are not atheist but they do employ the same perverted logic and ethical standards. Therefore, I use the terms to be the same. That is the way I use it here. It has been my experience on this thread that those who call themselves Christians tend to follow an atheistic code of conduct. That makes a nice spin on being a Christian, believe anything you damn well please.
By perverted logic I mean the deviation their reasoning takes from the logic of the Western World Culture (I will explain this); so do not jump the gun and get all hostile until I finish. Briefly, atheist do not have an absolute on which to base or premise their thinking. That is why the Western Civilization views atheism as an inferior intellectual position. To understand this concept of atheistic and liberal thinking, think of communism as a world philosophy. Wherever communism has taken root, those believing in God have been killed, locked up, or forced to be silent. When atheists eliminate God from government, it follows that all self-evident truths are eliminated also. God is the source of self-evident rights. Under atheistic logic there is no self-evident truth, no good or evil, but power makes right.
I was so proud of Ale Gore in 2000 when he admitted that the USA was a government of law and accepted defeat in the election that gave America one of its greatest presidents. The point is that V. P. Gore opposed the theory that might made right and agreed that self-evident truths were the order of the day in America.
If you are a conservative and need to know how to debate liberals, the first thing to consider is that a liberal will base his arguments on very weak premises, he will change his premises in the middle of the argument, and he will always bend the truth to fit his liberal spin (to an atheist truth changes). It is fair to require a liberal to state his premises and not allow him to change his premises You can also challenge his premises easily because there will be nothing absolute to his premises. Liberal policies today attempt to avoid absolute truth (he thinks truth changes) in favor of relative truth. Atheist like to do whatever feels good and liberals support the changing of morals to suit the whims of man. They substitute moral relativity for God's self-evident truths.
A communist does not enslave you with falsehood. The fact is that he changes what is true so that now he enslaves you because you have not followed what he says now is truth. Liberals often employ the same tactic. They honestly do not view this as not telling the truth but changing behavior to match the changing truth. That explains why certain behaviors once considered immoral are now considered acceptable. In some cases their arguments for more liberal laws are good, especially in terms of civil rights for racial minorities and women. Conservatives would say that Americans are just now living up to the absolute standards of self-evident rights. Not everything a liberal says is wrong but his logic is always weak because it is not based on absolute truth.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
*rests chin on hand*
Do continue, please!
Do continue, please!
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Well, Pure, it ain't what he* says that I enjoy** so much-- it's the way that he says it.
*"he" seems to be "she," actually.
** for now, but it's pretty tiresome already.
*"he" seems to be "she," actually.
** for now, but it's pretty tiresome already.
G
Guest
Guest
I can't really be arsed but I'm almost curious enough to do a quote search and see which blog he or she swiped that bit from.
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 27,842
What I do is make the hard and difficult thesis statements of my position. These statements represent what I actually believe to be true. The statements made about why Americans dislike atheist and extreme liberals is magnified in light of these hard and difficult statements. The hard and difficult statements provide an additional forum for me to illustrate the validity of my arguments with the far out and out of control left. Notice that I am on subject (NIAOS). No name calling (NNC). No personal attack (NPA)
A freedom of the Lit. is that hard and difficult statements can be made. Lit. respects the right of authors to present extreme points of view but self-evident, the Lit. expects members to follow a higher standard of ethics than other forums in tolerating differences in opinions by not making discussions personal. There are thousands of liberals and atheist on Lit. that ascribe to this code of ethics By adhering to this code of ethics the Lit. is not forced to have monitors. The assumption is that Lit. authors are more enlightened and do not require censorship. I like this freedom of expression and tolerance but all such free societies have a price to pay for this freedom.
The extreme atheist and extreme liberal is not like most of this class of authors. They actually put their dialectic into motion. You see it in communist countries all the time. They first see a society that does not represent their world view. They begin to discredit the leaders of that society by attacking the traditional and historical standards by propaganda that presents an opposite point of view. Any person who does not yield to such propaganda is labeled stupid, an enemy of the people, anti-intellectual, and something less than a true humanitarian. Their propaganda attacks the very essence of the premises of a free society. They create confusion and fighting in the streets with the idea that the government must step in to stop the rebellion and bring peace.
Of course, the totalitarian powers, who believes power makes right, step up to take control. They are usually successful in squashing the confusion that they started. They simply line those in opposition to them against the wall and shut them, lock them away, or take control of the news media so that only their truth is heard.
That same dialectic is in motion on this forum and this thread. The question the OP ask here is designed to target the standards of a free writing society. Where their arguments are rebuffed by conservative voices, the extreme liberals and atheist become trollers and trouble makers.
I have been on this forum a short time. The first thing I observed is the atheist and liberal's attempt to squash the opposing point of view. Amicus, every liberal knows his name. It was quickly revealed that he champions the conservative point of view. I quickly read where the liberals wanted to bar him from the forum. They wanted to control his retort and sensor his ideas. By the way, Amicus is an atheist. He calls himself a rational atheist. But, he still pays the price for his freedom.
Notice it is the extreme liberal and atheist who calls for monitors and censorship. The question posed on this thread is a plea for us to be tolerate of their atheistic tactics while they raise hell throughout the forum. The way to slow these radicals down is not to censor them but to point out their rage and unfairness. Let the real light of reasoning shine on them so they can be seen for what they really are. (NNC & NPA)
A freedom of the Lit. is that hard and difficult statements can be made. Lit. respects the right of authors to present extreme points of view but self-evident, the Lit. expects members to follow a higher standard of ethics than other forums in tolerating differences in opinions by not making discussions personal. There are thousands of liberals and atheist on Lit. that ascribe to this code of ethics By adhering to this code of ethics the Lit. is not forced to have monitors. The assumption is that Lit. authors are more enlightened and do not require censorship. I like this freedom of expression and tolerance but all such free societies have a price to pay for this freedom.
The extreme atheist and extreme liberal is not like most of this class of authors. They actually put their dialectic into motion. You see it in communist countries all the time. They first see a society that does not represent their world view. They begin to discredit the leaders of that society by attacking the traditional and historical standards by propaganda that presents an opposite point of view. Any person who does not yield to such propaganda is labeled stupid, an enemy of the people, anti-intellectual, and something less than a true humanitarian. Their propaganda attacks the very essence of the premises of a free society. They create confusion and fighting in the streets with the idea that the government must step in to stop the rebellion and bring peace.
Of course, the totalitarian powers, who believes power makes right, step up to take control. They are usually successful in squashing the confusion that they started. They simply line those in opposition to them against the wall and shut them, lock them away, or take control of the news media so that only their truth is heard.
That same dialectic is in motion on this forum and this thread. The question the OP ask here is designed to target the standards of a free writing society. Where their arguments are rebuffed by conservative voices, the extreme liberals and atheist become trollers and trouble makers.
I have been on this forum a short time. The first thing I observed is the atheist and liberal's attempt to squash the opposing point of view. Amicus, every liberal knows his name. It was quickly revealed that he champions the conservative point of view. I quickly read where the liberals wanted to bar him from the forum. They wanted to control his retort and sensor his ideas. By the way, Amicus is an atheist. He calls himself a rational atheist. But, he still pays the price for his freedom.
Notice it is the extreme liberal and atheist who calls for monitors and censorship. The question posed on this thread is a plea for us to be tolerate of their atheistic tactics while they raise hell throughout the forum. The way to slow these radicals down is not to censor them but to point out their rage and unfairness. Let the real light of reasoning shine on them so they can be seen for what they really are. (NNC & NPA)
G
Guest
Guest
You're so silly.
Both you and your friend are trolls and now exposed.
If that be true, don't you think your trolling is unethical?Of course. I don't hold a grudge longer then 15 minutes at a time.
I will continue. Your trolling must not be allowed to stop me. God, it is good to be free, even if you object to my freedom.
In your trolling you make a good observation. But trolls operate from knee jerk responses. Not much thinking goes into what they do.
You are the one that does not know what I am--male or female. I know what I am.
You on the other hand, from reading your profile, do not know what you want to be--male or female. You are as confused in your trolling as you are your sex.
You are a troll.You're an alt.
G
Guest
Guest
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Gotta love the guy who walks into a room who already hates everyone in it...
Welcome back, troll.
G
Guest
Guest
This self reflection isn't it? Every time you troll in to a room, you see what? My next lecture will be on personality development of liberals, trolls, and extreme atheist. It will really get your trolling attention.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,724
Speaking not as an atheist, but as an outright Satanist, I must say how pleased I am at how successful My Master was at corrupting the person who identifies themselves here as wmrs2.
Pride, Wrath, Avarice, Lust. Oh yes. They are thoroughly corrupted now.
My Master will so enjoy playing with this one through eternity.
How's that for trolling?
Pride, Wrath, Avarice, Lust. Oh yes. They are thoroughly corrupted now.
My Master will so enjoy playing with this one through eternity.
How's that for trolling?
DesertPirate
Sailing from the desert
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Posts
- 20,432
Damn Stella, I've called you a thing or two but never even considered troll
Come to think of you called me a few things too and it still wasn't one of them
I think you got him good
DesertPirate
Sailing from the desert
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Posts
- 20,432
Speaking not as an atheist, but as an outright Satanist, I must say how pleased I am at how successful My Master was at corrupting the person who identifies themselves here as wmrs2.
Pride, Wrath, Avarice, Lust. Oh yes. They are thoroughly corrupted now.
My Master will so enjoy playing with this one through eternity.
How's that for trolling?
Only with style like normal from you Rob
