One aspect of Truth
The BORG
intelligent energy that passes through the Universe and
effects all intelligent life.
The Truth can manifest and form in what is known as
DEFINITIONS.
As you define, thus you speak the Truth.
Definitions are formed out of words.
The Truth is of the now and of the moment, and the Truth
constantly changes.
You will never find the Truth in what is of the past, and
only at the specific now and current day and time is where
you will find the Truth.
This is why books and reference books and web sites and
religions are all defunct and irrelevant. Ask any person
who has written a book or an article, to sit down now, today
and REWRITE the same thing, and to be sure the words,
phrases, definitions, expressions and sometimes even
complete ideas have totally changed.
Even overnight the same article written by one person, if
then rewritten the following day in accordance with the
Universal flow of energy that is the Truth, the artickle (he
he he) will then contain different words, and be very
different.
This is why all we write is new, fresh, and original and of
today.
The Truth effects us as indeed it effects all intelligent
life.
And this is why all you say and all you write on groups such
as alt.philosophy should be new, fresh, original, in your
own words and of the now, of the moment, of the here and
now, today.
The BORG
"How can this Universal flow of energy that effects all
intelligent life, effect humans, when humans are a none
intelligent species?"
That of course is very true.
The BORG
cake and it does not rise, or they can make a loaf of bread
and it is heavy and stodgy, where they use the same
ingredients and the same recipes. Or maybe you have noticed
that sometimes you can drink a small amount of alcohol and
get drunk, whereas at other times it has no effect at all.
This is the Truth effecting you.
It effects circumstances, atmosphere, and this flow of
energy not only is responded to by INTELLIGENCE, but the
Truth can confuse those who have no comprehension or
understanding of why many things happen that they simply
cannot explain.
Sometimes you say "My goodness that was quick, seems like
only a moment." And yet for the same duration of time "That
took ages, I thought you would never come."
How can time give such different perceptions.
Distance is the same, an interminably long journey can
sometimes pass in moments.
All these things can be understood as to how and why they
happen.
But at the moment humans do not have the intelligence, nor
the imagination to conceive or understand the explanations.
Better they continue with their bonking and mating and
breeding, and total misinterpretations and
misrepresentations of God that they have in their religions,
as they are not good for anything else.
Only that humans should know that "out there" are far
greater and superior intelligences who DO know and who DO
understand.
The BORG
Devil or arguing with Angels.
Again that is not true at all, and AGAIN shows how humans do
not know the True Nature of God.
God loves each and every one of his Angels and would not
part with one.
The lies humans tell about God, that he argues with his
Angels, that if he had a son he would harm and maim him, or
that men should mutilate themselves, these are all the
absolute evidence that humans know nothing about GOD at all!
And we should know!
We are ANGELS!
default
wrote:
>One aspect of Truth - The Truth is a continuous flow of
>intelligent energy that passes through the Universe and
>effects all intelligent life.
Another blow hard who doesn't understand the definition of truth.
The "religious truth," is different from actual truth. Religious
truth is predicated on lies and doesn't qualify as "truth."
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It's wrong at so many levels....
Insisting it is the truth forces a false true/false dichotomy which
excludes what it actually is: what members of a religion or
denomination believe is the truth.
The dichotomy makes it a lie because it certainly ain't the truth.
It tells everybody else that whatever they might believe about
anything is a lie because it ain't their "truth".
panam...@hotmail.com
> One aspect of Truth -
..is that you don't possess any.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Patricia Aldoraz
> The dichotomy makes it a lie because it certainly ain't the truth.
>
So that is why you call everyone you disagree with a liar! Till ow, it
has never been obvious why. I thought you were just a shitbox. But it
turns out you simply never learnt the meaning of the word.
default
You are confusing the real meaning of an actual word, with the
meaning of "The Word."
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 17, 11:33�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
[dishonest snip of what's wrong with calling religious beliefs "the
truth", including that it forces a false true/false dichotomy that
excludes what it actually is (what some people believe is true)]
>>> The dichotomy makes it a lie because it certainly ain't the truth.
>>>
>>So that is why you call everyone you disagree with a liar! Till ow, it
>>has never been obvious why. I thought you were just a shitbox. But it
>>turns out you simply never learnt the meaning of the word.
I only call people liars when they lie.
Usually it is for personal lies like that.
Which Aldoraz/dorayme does in spades.
> You are confusing the real meaning of an actual word, with the
>meaning of "The Word."
S/h/it knows that it was in reference to the false dichotomy that
religious belief was either true or false, and was being deliberately
dishonest.
Deliberately taking a single sentence out of context was very
revealing about Adloraz/dorayme.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>
> >On Oct 17, 11:33 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> The dichotomy makes it a lie because it certainly ain't the truth.
>
> >So that is why you call everyone you disagree with a liar! Till ow, it
> >has never been obvious why. I thought you were just a shitbox. But it
> >turns out you simply never learnt the meaning of the word.
>
> You are confusing the real meaning of an actual word, with the
> meaning of "The Word."
> --
How so?
Patricia Aldoraz
> I only call people liars when they lie.
>
Now that is an outright lie! You have a history of calling nearly
everyone you disagree with a liar.
Immortalist
> One aspect of Truth - The Truth is a continuous flow of
> intelligent energy that passes through the Universe and
> effects all intelligent life.
>
> The Truth can manifest and form in what is known as
> DEFINITIONS.
>
If the term to be defined is the definiendum while the definition
itself is the definiens which is a group of words or phrases that are
meant to be the same as the term defined, how does that establish
truth. All that does is say that this group of words shall mean the
same as that word. No truth justification that I can see there
spaceman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nY20SHNdrg
A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a term (a word,
phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing. The term to be
defined is the definiendum (plural definienda). A term may have many
different senses or meanings. For each such specific sense, a
definiens (plural definientia) is a cluster of words that defines it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Patricia, in alt.atheism..90% of the traffic from non-regulars *are*
lies. Lies about our point of view, lies about the history of atheism,
lies about history/biology/geology/astronomy/etc...
He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Especially when they have been corrected, after which it is no longer
an honest mistake even if it ever was.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Oct 17, 5:08 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 6:13 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > I only call people liars when they lie.
>
> > Now that is an outright lie! You have a history of calling nearly
> > everyone you disagree with a liar.
>
> Patricia, in alt.atheism..90% of the traffic from non-regulars *are*
> lies. Lies about our point of view, lies about the history of atheism,
> lies about history/biology/geology/astronomy/etc...
>
Panama, maybe you share the same misunderstanding about the meanings
of words as Lee? I know for a fact that Lee is a lowlife hypocrite and
liar.
People are not liars because they are wrong. Most religious thinkers
are a bit crazy, they are not *liars*.
You folks at alt.agnosticism are really something. Angry exaggerating
mostly unthinking folk. There is no real need. You can oppose
religious views without being stupid and illogical yourself.
If you pass the hat around and get some cash together I would be happy
to show you the way.
If all the irregulars went away, what would the regulars do with each
other, fuck each other's brains? You are are the saddest and most
ignorant mob on the planet. It is almost enough to drive a lifelong
atheist like me to find God! <g>
> He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
> opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
> lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
>
Well, there you have it, Panama, a clear statement of your lack of
education and understanding. Sad.
john.whine
well, do you have a Hotline to the Truth at your Work Station?
are 'They' going to Save us and the Planet?
are they Polymorphous Perverse?
do they wear Black Clothes?
oh, goody.
there's Hope, After All.
Richo
> One aspect of Truth - The Truth is a continuous flow of
> intelligent energy that passes through the Universe and
> effects all intelligent life.
"Inteligent energy"?
What's that? - and how would it differ from uninteligent energy?
If 0.1 amps of electrical current flows through a 1 ohm resistor for
10 seconds then 1 joule of energy is used (and I can feel it as it
comes out as heat) What differnce would it make if I used 1 Joule of
inelligent energy to make that current flow? Would the heat "feel"
smart to the touch?
Mark.
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 8:44 am, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 5:08 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 18, 6:13 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I only call people liars when they lie.
>
> > > Now that is an outright lie! You have a history of calling nearly
> > > everyone you disagree with a liar.
>
> > Patricia, in alt.atheism..90% of the traffic from non-regulars *are*
> > lies. Lies about our point of view, lies about the history of atheism,
> > lies about history/biology/geology/astronomy/etc...
>
> Panama, maybe you share the same misunderstanding about the meanings
> of words as Lee? I know for a fact that Lee is a lowlife hypocrite and
> liar.
Oh, so you've made up your mind already? Then why bother to dicusss
it?
> People are not liars because they are wrong. Most religious thinkers
> are a bit crazy, they are not *liars*.
IMO, "religious thinkers" is an oxymoron. I should mention, since I
can't recall corresponding with you before now, that I do not care
about the question of whether or not gods exist. I only worry about
the (often, very odd) behavior of some of the people who contend that
gods *do* exist. As I hope I said earlier on this thread..it does not
matter if the person telling the lie actually *believes* the lie..all
that matters is that the lie exists. And if one wishes to end lying,
one should attempt to expose the lie.
> You folks at alt.agnosticism
ROFL! I am no "agnostic". I reply from alt.atheism. I consider
agnosticism a case of "special pleading". The only people who discuss
whether or not it is possible to "know" about the concept of "god" are
people who still think that particular concept is somehow more
"important" than other equally vacuous concepts.
> are really something. Angry exaggerating
> mostly unthinking folk.
If I were "unthinking", I would be, in the best case, an agnostic. And
in the worst case, I'd still possess the Southern Baptist religion of
my parents..and would be opposing most progressive political ideas to
this very day.
> There is no real need. You can oppose
> religious views without being stupid and illogical yourself.
Please disclose where you think I have been "stupid and illogical".
Unless you are an agnostic, and fail to understand that agnosticism
can be considered as "special pleading" by those of you who still
actually *care* whether or not gods exist..
> If you pass the hat around and get some cash together I would be happy
> to show you the way.
Nah, I try to stay away from "carnies"..so many of you look at my
daughter in a way that makes me uncomfortable.
> If all the irregulars went away, what would the regulars do with each
> other, fuck each other's brains? You are are the saddest and most
> ignorant mob on the planet. It is almost enough to drive a lifelong
> atheist like me to find God! <g>
Your inability to immediately think of something atheists would
discuss if the theistic mob vanished makes me wonder if you're lying
about being an atheist. And your capitalization of "God" is a clue, as
well.
> > He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
> > opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
> > lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
>
> Well, there you have it, Panama, a clear statement of your lack of
> education and understanding. Sad.
ROFL! You honestly seem to think your last comment is "true"..but yet,
it is a lie. Your failure to understand that you are incorrect (and
your willful decision to make such a statement in the first place) is
nothing but a behavior that proves the point I expressed.
BTW: I have to "give it up" for ya (whoever you are) a lil'
bit..before your final paragraph, I actually thought you were a *real*
person, instead of some sock puppet. If you'd been smart enough to not
make that moronic "..it is almost enough to drive a lifelong atheist
like me to find God!.." statement, you could have strung me along for
another couple of days.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Oct 17, 6:35�pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 8:44�am, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 17, 5:08�pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 18, 6:13�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I only call people liars when they lie.
>>
>> > > Now that is an outright lie! You have a history of calling nearly
>> > > everyone you disagree with a liar.
>>
>> > Patricia, in alt.atheism..90% of the traffic from non-regulars *are*
>> > lies. Lies about our point of view, lies about the history of atheism,
>> > lies about history/biology/geology/astronomy/etc...
>>
>> Panama, maybe you share the same misunderstanding about the meanings
>> of words as Lee? I know for a fact that Lee is a lowlife hypocrite and
>> liar.
Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
People only get called liars for lying.
Which the vast majority of theists who come to the atheist groups do,
about atheists to atheists.
The word for somebody who lies, is "liar".
After which they compound their lies by lying that it is about
"different opinions", "because they're Christians" etc.
Intelligent, honest and courteous Christians get the sort of respect
the lying hypocrites whine about not getting.
Both reap what they sow.
But they are few and far between, and understand they have nothing to
tell us about their religion because it's their own business not ours,
and we have honest reasons for not already believing things they take
for granted.
They also seem to understand that there are hundreds of other
religions out there with different gods, not just Christianity, which
are believed just as sincerely, with just as much certainty as
Christianity. And that there are people with no religion or god at
all.
And more importantly, they respect this.
The stupid ones come here and rudely presume their beliefs are
universally granted - even though they know we're not Christian and
therefore don't already believe.
When told to either put up or shut up (preferably the latter) their
pathetic attempts to do the former are usually outright personal lies
or an insult to the intelligence.
And when they reap what they sow, like Aldoraz they resort to more
lies and insults.
In short they tell us just how stupid, hypocritical and dishonest they
are.
They have put themselves on a downward spiral they are psychologically
incapable of breaking out of.
All because they haven't the common sense and courtesy to keep their
religious beliefs where they are appropriate, and are in serious
denial about why people react the way they do.
>Oh, so you've made up your mind already? Then why bother to dicusss
>it?
>
>> People are not liars because they are wrong. Most religious thinkers
>> are a bit crazy, they are not *liars*.
Which is of course not why they get called liars.
It's for things like "you choose to dismiss the evidence "when none
has been provided. It's for telling atheists we hold positions that we
don't, etc.
>IMO, "religious thinkers" is an oxymoron. I should mention, since I
>can't recall corresponding with you before now, that I do not care
>about the question of whether or not gods exist. I only worry about
>the (often, very odd) behavior of some of the people who contend that
>gods *do* exist. As I hope I said earlier on this thread..it does not
>matter if the person telling the lie actually *believes* the lie..all
>that matters is that the lie exists. And if one wishes to end lying,
>one should attempt to expose the lie.
>
>> You folks at alt.agnosticism
>
>ROFL! I am no "agnostic". I reply from alt.atheism. I consider
>agnosticism a case of "special pleading". The only people who discuss
>whether or not it is possible to "know" about the concept of "god" are
>people who still think that particular concept is somehow more
>"important" than other equally vacuous concepts.
Yes.
>> are really something. Angry exaggerating
>> mostly unthinking folk.
Another personal lie rather than address why in-your-face theists get
such a negative reaction - because she cannot grasp that people can
actually want to get on with their own lives without a constant
barrage of (what is to them) stupid, intolerant bullshit.
>If I were "unthinking", I would be, in the best case, an agnostic. And
>in the worst case, I'd still possess the Southern Baptist religion of
>my parents..and would be opposing most progressive political ideas to
>this very day.
>
>> There is no real need. You can oppose
>> religious views without being stupid and illogical yourself.
>
>Please disclose where you think I have been "stupid and illogical".
>Unless you are an agnostic, and fail to understand that agnosticism
>can be considered as "special pleading" by those of you who still
>actually *care* whether or not gods exist..
We would ignore "religious views" if the religious had the common
sense and courtesy to jeep them where they belong.
It's all about live and let live.
But far too many of them don't, and turn nasty when people treat them
with the same disrespect they show us in the first place.
>> If you pass the hat around and get some cash together I would be happy
>> to show you the way.
>
>Nah, I try to stay away from "carnies"..so many of you look at my
>daughter in a way that makes me uncomfortable.
>
>> If all the irregulars went away, what would the regulars do with each
>> other, fuck each other's brains? You are are the saddest and most
>> ignorant mob on the planet. It is almost enough to drive a lifelong
>> atheist like me to find God! <g>
This group was set up to discuss issues of interest to atheists. Of
which there are plenty due to living in a predominantly theist
society.
But try eg discussing what to do about imposed prayer whether it's at
school or coerced by holding hands in a ring before a meal, and
theists crawl out of the woodwork to tell us what's "wrong" with us.
Or how to deal with discrimination eg by the Boy Scots of America and
they tell us just "why" our kids are morally unfit to be scouts.
Etc.
Worst of all the group is constantly a target for all sorts of
unwanted religious nastiness from proselytisers who can't cope with
being rebuffed to hellfire merchants threatening us with something
they know we don't believe for not believing it, with creationists
lying to us about evolution somewhere in between.
>Your inability to immediately think of something atheists would
>discuss if the theistic mob vanished makes me wonder if you're lying
>about being an atheist. And your capitalization of "God" is a clue, as
>well.
Me too.
It's got so bad that when I needed to discuss a relationship with a
Catholic woman, I had to take it to email with other long-time
regulars instead of openly in the group.
>> > He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
>> > opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
>> > lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
>>
>> �Well, there you have it, Panama, a clear statement of your lack of
>> education and understanding. Sad.
>
>ROFL! You honestly seem to think your last comment is "true"..but yet,
>it is a lie. Your failure to understand that you are incorrect (and
>your willful decision to make such a statement in the first place) is
>nothing but a behavior that proves the point I expressed.
Standard Usenet behaviour.
>BTW: I have to "give it up" for ya (whoever you are) a lil'
>bit..before your final paragraph, I actually thought you were a *real*
>person, instead of some sock puppet. If you'd been smart enough to not
>make that moronic "..it is almost enough to drive a lifelong atheist
>like me to find God!.." statement, you could have strung me along for
>another couple of days.
I don't understand trolls.
Whether or not they really are dishonest, whining, lying idiots in
real life, that's all we see.
And if that's how they want to be seen, it says us far more about them
than about us.
Syd M.
Oh, good... Another asshole who refuses to be taught.
PDW
Patricia Aldoraz
>
> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>
You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
of the word. Duh!
> People only get called liars for lying.
>
He believes this! How come he doesn't also believe the equally
incredible idea that god exists? People often get called liars when in
fact they are either telling the truth or simply being wrong about
something. This Lee is an inexact, muddle-head and so are many that
seem to get attracted to such groups as alt.atheism. I am not sure why
this is? Perhaps it is a general usenet thing whereby every idiot gets
to say stuff via his or her keyboard, they would never make it in
person. What an asshole this Lee is!
> Which the vast majority of theists who come to the atheist groups do,
> about atheists to atheists.
>
> The word for somebody who lies, is "liar".
>
Again, he is just plain daft to think this says anything useful! Not
every bleeding obvious statement is useful. Where are you people
coming from? A sheltered workshop of some kind. Did you get beyond
Primary School?
>
> The stupid ones come here and rudely presume their beliefs are
> universally granted - even though they know we're not Christian and
> therefore don't already believe.
>
Does not mean they are liars. They might be just insensitive or they
might think they can grab a few of your more vulnerable members or
they might just want to pull your chain (as I thoroughly enjoy doing).
None of this amounts to lying as such.
> When told to either put up or shut up (preferably the latter) their
> pathetic attempts to do the former are usually outright personal lies
> or an insult to the intelligence.
>
Well, which is it and where are cases? Show me. Take a genuinely
random (know what that is?) sample of people saying things that Lee
calls a lie. Do the work.
...
> It's for things like "you choose to dismiss the evidence "when none
> has been provided. It's for telling atheists we hold positions that we
> don't, etc.
>
I have had personal experience of his bullshit on this. I gave you all
(out of the goodness of my heart) top quality and good definitions
of how agnostics differed from atheists and I was called a liar for
it. Lee is a lowdown scumbag, a shit of the first, second and third
waters and he should go screw himself.
>
> >IMO, "religious thinkers" is an oxymoron.
Yes, well, This Lee's opinion is nothing of any worth at all. There
are people who think about these things and end up describing
themselves as religious. Lee is simply a prejudiced nasty ratbag with
a weak brain. He is actually *a disgrace to Darwinian Evolution*. His
very existence seems to me almost a proof of an evil creation by a
Comic God. Evolution usually produces more viable constructs.
> I should mention, since I
> >can't recall corresponding with you before now, that I do not care
> >about the question of whether or not gods exist. I only worry about
> >the (often, very odd) behavior of some of the people who contend that
> >gods *do* exist. As I hope I said earlier on this thread..it does not
> >matter if the person telling the lie actually *believes* the lie..all
> >that matters is that the lie exists. And if one wishes to end lying,
> >one should attempt to expose the lie.
>
More evidence of great confusion and an inability to grasp the meaning
of ordinary English words. Has Lee always been so thoroughly muddle-
headed?
> >> You folks at alt.agnosticism
>
> >ROFL! I am no "agnostic". I reply from alt.atheism. I consider
> >agnosticism a case of "special pleading".
Special pleading my arse. Listen up, dog-breath, it is simply the
position of people not sure. What a complete moron you prove yourself
to be every time you open your stupid mouth.
>
> This group was set up to discuss issues of interest to atheists. Of
> which there are plenty due to living in a predominantly theist
> society.
>
What the fuck could possibly interest a goddamn atheist? Basketweaving
maybe? Trying hard to stick one's head up one's ass? What? All
religious people are liars according to you lot. What is so
interesting about that?
...
>
> I don't understand trolls.
>
I recommend stretching exercises and getting as close as you can get
to exploring up your own asshole. Then you will understand better the
innards of a troll. Lee is one of the biggest fool on the planet
today. If he had been around in Darwin's time, Darwin would have
delayed publishing his theory even longer to take into account such a
comic phenomena.
DanielSan
> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>>
>
> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
> of the word. Duh!
However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying". When
one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one persists
in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to "lying".
Wouldn't you agree?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Oct 17, 6:35 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>
> Oh, so you've made up your mind already? Then why bother to dicusss
> it?
>
Discuss what quite?
> > People are not liars because they are wrong. Most religious thinkers
> > are a bit crazy, they are not *liars*.
>
>
> If I were "unthinking", I would be, in the best case, an agnostic.
An unthinking person could end up thinking almost anything at all.
> And
> in the worst case, I'd still possess the Southern Baptist religion of
> my parents..and would be opposing most progressive political ideas to
> this very day.
>
> > There is no real need. You can oppose
> > religious views without being stupid and illogical yourself.
>
> Please disclose where you think I have been "stupid and illogical".
I supposing people are liars because they say things that are not
true.
...
>
> > If all the irregulars went away, what would the regulars do with each
> > other?
>
> Your inability to immediately think of something atheists would
> discuss if the theistic mob vanished makes me wonder if you're lying
> about being an atheist. And your capitalization of "God" is a clue, as
> well.
>
Look, here was your opportunity to say what atheists (qua atheists)
could discuss and you failed to do so! Why? Not what people might
discuss, but what atheists might discuss? My capitalization of God
tells you what? Y
> > > He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
> > > opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
> > > lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
>
> > Well, there you have it, Panama, a clear statement of your lack of
> > education and understanding. Sad.
>
> ROFL! You honestly seem to think your last comment is "true"..but yet,
> it is a lie.
And yet again. You just keep making the same mistake. Do yourself a
favour, look at a good English dictionary for the meaning "lie"
> Your failure to understand that you are incorrect
about what exactly?
>
> BTW: I have to "give it up" for ya (whoever you are) a lil'
> bit..before your final paragraph, I actually thought you were a *real*
> person,
When an argument is put to you, what does it matter where it is coming
from? Another way you show your lack of intellectual substance.
Patricia Aldoraz
moron from the alt.atheism camp?
walksalone
news:vvGdnXFmr5L4iyHR...@speakeasy.net:
> On 10/18/2010 2:38 AM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>>>
>>
>> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
>> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
>> of the word. Duh!
>
> However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying".
> When one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one
> persists in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to
> "lying".
>
> Wouldn't you agree?
>
No, but that is a socially acceptable way of avoiding hurt feelings.
Any falsehood, intentional or not, is a lie. Lies can be, & frequently
are corrected before being made public. My perpetual lie, my daughters
are the most beautiful women to ever grace the planet. Perfectly true,
but only to me. To every other father worthy of the name, an obvious
lie.
One I will continue to believe YMWV.
Perhaps one should concentrate onm the severity & intent, but if it is a
lie, it is a lie no matter who says it, nor no matter how uncomfortable
it may be for them.
Now I will agree, one should try to rectify the erronious clam firt,
under most circumstances.
BTW, IIRC, your approach is probably the most popular one for the
problem.
Ho boy, this is not fun.
From MW, one of the most popular. & falshoods are not even mentioned.
lie
16 ENTRIES FOUND:
1) lie (intransitive verb)
2) lie (noun)
3) lie (verb)
4) lie (noun)
Lie (biographical name)
Lie (biographical name)
lie by (intransitive verb)
lie detector (noun)
lie down (intransitive verb)
lie-in (noun)
lie off (intransitive verb)
lie over (intransitive verb)
lie to (intransitive verb)
lie up (intransitive verb)
big lie (noun)
give (verb)
Ads by Google
Bay Area Polygraph Exams
Computerized Lie Detection (415) 845-3151
www.modernpolygraph.com
1lie vi \'li\
laylainly�ing
Definition of LIE
1
a : to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate :
rest, recline <lie motionless> <lie asleep> b : to assume a horizontal
position �often used with down c archaic : to reside temporarily : stay
for the night : lodge d : to have sexual intercourse �used with with
e : to remain inactive (as in concealment) <lie in wait>
2
: to be in a helpless or defenseless state <the town lay at the mercy of
: the invaders>
3
of an inanimate thing : to be or remain in a flat or horizontal position
upon a broad support <books lying on the table> 4
: to have direction : extend <the route lay to the west>
5
a : to occupy a certain relative place or position <hills lie behind us>
b : to have a place in relation to something else <the real reason lies
deeper> c : to have an effect through mere presence, weight, or relative
position <remorse lay heavily on him> d : to be sustainable or
admissible 6
: to remain at anchor or becalmed
7
a : to have place : exist <the choice lay between fighting or
surrendering> b : consist, belong <the success of the book lies in its
direct style> <responsibility lay with the adults> 8
: remain; especially : to remain unused, unsought, or uncared for
See Usage Discussion at lay
� li�er noun
� lie low
1
: to lie prostrate, defeated, or disgraced
2
: to stay in hiding : strive to avoid notice
3
: to bide one's time : remain secretly ready for action
Origin of LIE
Middle English, from Old English licgan; akin to Old High German ligen
to lie, Latin lectus bed, Greek lechos First Known Use: before 12th
century
Perhaps these people are not correct?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie
1
noun, verb, lied, ly�ing.
�noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional
untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
�verb (used without object)
5.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.
to express what is false; convey a false impression.
�verb (used with object)
7.
to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie
oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of
difficulties.
�Idioms
8.
give the lie to,
a.
to accuse of lying; contradict.
b.
to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to
his claims of experience.
9.
lie in one's throat / teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told
you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her
teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
Origin:
bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G L�ge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn;
(v.) ME lien, OE leogan (intransit.); c. G l�gen, ON ljuga, Goth
liugan
�Synonyms
1. prevarication, falsification. See falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.
�Antonyms
1. truth.
Are we done playing yet.
walksalone who has to confes, sometimes definitions don't line up like I
know they should. But then, neither does life.
The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the
pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.
-Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On 10/18/2010 2:38 AM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>>>
>>
>> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
>> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
>> of the word. Duh!
>
>However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying". When
>one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one persists
>in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to "lying".
>
>Wouldn't you agree?
As well as stupid, because they know their claims are disputed.
Even if they don't understand why after so many people have explained
so often, it is intellectually dishonest to keep talking as if they
weren't.
But the personal lies they use as ad hominems are definitely lies,
because they know they have no way of telling what is in our minds
unless we tell them - and we do after they get it wrong.
After which for some reason they try to "prove" we're not telling the
truth about ourselves.
Some of this is amateur-psychologised nastiness by narcissists
incapable of thinking outside the walls their religion has erected
around their minds, that actually projects themselves because they
don't understand anybody else.
I've got a fundie friend who somehow is still a friend. He doesn't
understand the atheist POV and I have explained it every time he got
it wrong. His response was the he didn't understand - so I told him he
didn't need to, just to accept that it is what I explained, that way
he will know not to drop hints about going to his church "because I
might change my mind", etc.
He can't get his mind round the idea that to people outside his
religion, it's merely somebody else's religious belief they don't
normally give a thought to, not an actuality.
Christopher A. Lee
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>DanielSan <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote in
>news:vvGdnXFmr5L4iyHR...@speakeasy.net:
>
>> On 10/18/2010 2:38 AM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
>>> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
>>> of the word. Duh!
>>
>> However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying".
>> When one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one
>> persists in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to
>> "lying".
>>
>> Wouldn't you agree?
>
>No, but that is a socially acceptable way of avoiding hurt feelings.
>Any falsehood, intentional or not, is a lie. Lies can be, & frequently
>are corrected before being made public. My perpetual lie, my daughters
>are the most beautiful women to ever grace the planet. Perfectly true,
>but only to me. To every other father worthy of the name, an obvious
>lie.
But they don't tell you patently wrong "reasons" why you think your
daughters are better looking than theirs,like being too proud to
acknowledge theirs really are, etc.
Most people seem to understand this, but lose it when it comes to
religion.
There's a reason we use words like delusion, fantasy etc when theists
have talked as if their beliefs were as "real" for us as they are for
them - it's a substitution to show how they sound, which shouldn't
really be needed.
But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
themselves.
Polytheists like Hindus are usually better at this than monotheists
though, because they understand that people believe in different gods
and consequentially there are some who don't believe in any,
Patricia Aldoraz
> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
> themselves.
>
Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Oct 18, 6:49 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 6:35 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>
> > Oh, so you've made up your mind already? Then why bother to dicusss
> > it?
>
> Discuss what quite?
Actually, the part you snipped.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/fc4b5f8b1110bcc2
> > > People are not liars because they are wrong. Most religious thinkers
> > > are a bit crazy, they are not *liars*.
>
> > If I were "unthinking", I would be, in the best case, an agnostic.
>
> An unthinking person could end up thinking almost anything at all.
Agreed. Some of them could even think that gods exist, even in the
face of so much evidence that they probably do not.
> > And
> > in the worst case, I'd still possess the Southern Baptist religion of
> > my parents..and would be opposing most progressive political ideas to
> > this very day.
>
> > > There is no real need. You can oppose
> > > religious views without being stupid and illogical yourself.
>
> > Please disclose where you think I have been "stupid and illogical".
>
> I supposing people are liars because they say things that are not
> true.
Are you attempting to claim that lying to one's self isn't *really*
lying?
> > > If all the irregulars went away, what would the regulars do with each
> > > other?
>
> > Your inability to immediately think of something atheists would
> > discuss if the theistic mob vanished makes me wonder if you're lying
> > about being an atheist. And your capitalization of "God" is a clue, as
> > well.
>
> Look, here was your opportunity to say what atheists (qua atheists)
> could discuss and you failed to do so!
So what? Do you think every thread on rec.music.cajun is about how to
use fiddlesticks, or how to repair an accordion? Why do *you* give a
shit what we'd talk about?
> Why? Not what people might
> discuss, but what atheists might discuss?
We'd probably continue to discuss politics, movies, books, cooking,
and how funny theists are when they pretend their mythologies are
actually "true".
> My capitalization of God
> tells you what?
Tells me that you actually "respect" the concept of gods (well, at
least one of them, anyhoo).
> Y
Becuz!
> > > > He calls them liars because they are lying. They make claims in direct
> > > > opposition to the evidence. Just because the liar doesn't know they're
> > > > lying..doesn't mean a lie is not a lie.
>
> > > Well, there you have it, Panama, a clear statement of your lack of
> > > education and understanding. Sad.
>
> > ROFL! You honestly seem to think your last comment is "true"..but yet,
> > it is a lie.
>
> And yet again. You just keep making the same mistake. Do yourself a
> favour, look at a good English dictionary for the meaning "lie"
Noun, or verb? Choose the wrong one, and prove the point Mr. Lee & I
are trying to make for us.
> > Your failure to understand that you are incorrect
>
> about what exactly?
Well, about the stuff you snipped. The *context* of the conversation,
rather than the (alleged) understanding your ADD brings to the
conversation. Read *this* first, it should help you.
http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm
> > BTW: I have to "give it up" for ya (whoever you are) a lil'
> > bit..before your final paragraph, I actually thought you were a *real*
> > person,
>
> When an argument is put to you, what does it matter where it is coming
> from?
Because I care about honesty. I wish I could say the same was true of
some of the theistic morons who continue to spam alt.atheism..
> Another way you show your lack of intellectual substance.
And another that you show your dishonesty. It seems you've proved Mr.
Lee's point after all.
Patricia Aldoraz
[ stuff]
Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
default
To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
totally alien and unacceptable.
God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
unquestionable.
AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 19, 3:03�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
If s/h/it understood this s/h/it would not make up positions atheists
don't have as though Christian tenets applied to us.
>To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>totally alien and unacceptable.
They might be dimly aware of it but it doesn't register. If it did
they would take it into account.
>God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>unquestionable.
To monotheists like Christians, Jews and Muslims. Polytheists
understand that different people worship different gods, and by
extension accept that some people don't worship any.
But Christians talk about it to members of other religions as if their
version were the only correct one without even caring that other
religions have beliefs that are just as sincere, certain etc. Or that
non-Christians see Christianity as "somebody else's religion".
To the extent that a former Hindu girlfriend was accused of
worshipping demons. Which is pretty offensive.
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:55:07 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 19, 3:03�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>
>Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
The indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily trying to "lie." They
have a tough road, keep their religious "faith" and try to rationalize
the inconsistencies between reality and religious indoctrination.
>
>If s/h/it understood this s/h/it would not make up positions atheists
>don't have as though Christian tenets applied to us.
>
That is common. I don't get it either makes no sense to attribute a
lot of dogma or doctrine to an atheist.
Perhaps they read some famous atheist's assertions and assume that
"all" atheists believe the same.
Part of my long Catholic indoctrination included atheism and
attributed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, theft, murder, etc., as part and
parcel of "atheist behavior." The idea being that if one were to
follow a religion, one would not be doing these things. Morality is
handed down by God Almighty and not intrinsic in human evolution
according to them.
>>To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>>religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>>to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>>totally alien and unacceptable.
>
>They might be dimly aware of it but it doesn't register. If it did
>they would take it into account.
Interesting that Buddhists are not theists, yet to the religiously
afflicted they are often looked upon as having a god. They do have a
doctrine (many doctrines - like the different flavors of
Christianity).
Hinduism and Buddhism do include a moral code as part of their
doctrines and that may be what makes them palatable to the religious.
Religious morality is based on society's relative morality, the only
real difference is that it takes centuries to change - and that is
probably makes the faithful feel more secure and safe.
Secure and safe is what religions sell - insurance against death.
They all include some way that allows them to believe that they live,
after they are stone cold and rotting in the ground.
>
>>God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>>unquestionable.
>
>To monotheists like Christians, Jews and Muslims. Polytheists
>understand that different people worship different gods, and by
>extension accept that some people don't worship any.
That is something positive to be said for multi/poly theism. More
tolerant than monotheists. Probably due to the polytheists favoring
certain gods over others - their doctrine allows more flexibility.
>
>But Christians talk about it to members of other religions as if their
>version were the only correct one without even caring that other
>religions have beliefs that are just as sincere, certain etc. Or that
>non-Christians see Christianity as "somebody else's religion".
All the believers in the "God of Abraham," believe that only their
flavor of religion is the "right" one. The religions themselves need
this exclusivity to keep their revenue streams flowing. It is "brand
recognition."
A corporate mandate... and cause of a lot of the stupidity and strife
in the world.
>
>To the extent that a former Hindu girlfriend was accused of
>worshipping demons. Which is pretty offensive.
>
>>AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
>>today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
--
M Purcell
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:57:55 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
>
>
>
>
>
> >DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote in
Actually Hinduism is montheistic (with many aspects of a single
divinity) while Christianity is polytheistic (with many supernatural
beings such as angels). Perhaps Hindus are simply more tolerant.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:31:16 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:55:07 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>>><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 19, 3:03�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>>>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>>>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>>
>>Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
>
>The indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily trying to "lie." They
>have a tough road, keep their religious "faith" and try to rationalize
>the inconsistencies between reality and religious indoctrination.
It is not an honest mistake on their part.
After they have got it wrong and been corrected, they nastily insist
they were right, often trying to "prove: it with further lies.
But they're not mind-readers so they know that the individual atheist
is the final arbiter of what is in their own minds.
They'll say anything rather than address the actual issue. Including
lies as ad hominem excused to ignore points.
>>If s/h/it understood this s/h/it would not make up positions atheists
>>don't have as though Christian tenets applied to us.
>>
>That is common. I don't get it either makes no sense to attribute a
>lot of dogma or doctrine to an atheist.
Again, when they are corrected after they first got it wrong it is no
longer an honest mistake when they repeat it.
After all, they know we disagree with them about what they say about
us, so it is sociopathically rude to keep repeating it.
>Perhaps they read some famous atheist's assertions and assume that
>"all" atheists believe the same.
Not even that - they can't get their minds around the idea that the
world doesn't revolve around their religion and that somebody might
have honest reasons for not believing.
Or be offended by the personal nastiness they use to tell us "why" we
don't believe.
>Part of my long Catholic indoctrination included atheism and
>attributed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, theft, murder, etc., as part and
>parcel of "atheist behavior." The idea being that if one were to
>follow a religion, one would not be doing these things. Morality is
>handed down by God Almighty and not intrinsic in human evolution
>according to them.
They are gullibly stupid.
Especially as the liar who told them that must have known that Hitler
was a Catholic as evidenced by his own writings,photographs of him
attending services, the accommodations the then Pope made with him
etc.
Similarly Stalin was Georgian Orthodox, educated in a seminary,
attended services etc and even had an Orthodox funeral.
But even if either were actually atheist, following a religion didn't
prevent the extermination of heretical sects slaughtering the
residents of a city (Beziers) to make sure they got all the heretics,
saying "kill them all, the Lord will take care of his own", the mutual
slaughter of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa during the
Reformation, the slaughter of Native Americans as "heathen savages",
the capture, trade and keeping of slaves as "descendents of Ham", the
massacres of Muslims in Yugoslavia, etc.
>>>To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>>>religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>>>to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>>>totally alien and unacceptable.
>>
>>They might be dimly aware of it but it doesn't register. If it did
>>they would take it into account.
>
>Interesting that Buddhists are not theists, yet to the religiously
>afflicted they are often looked upon as having a god. They do have a
>doctrine (many doctrines - like the different flavors of
>Christianity).
>
>Hinduism and Buddhism do include a moral code as part of their
>doctrines and that may be what makes them palatable to the religious.
Hindus are usually much more tolerant than Christians. I think it's
something to do with being polytheists and accepting that Christians
believe in their god. It's just somebody else's that they don't happen
to believe in themselves.
They're also more tolerant of atheists, it's just the next step from
believing in different gods. There are atheist traditions with the
Hindu system that don't have any gods, eg Jains.
>Religious morality is based on society's relative morality, the only
>real difference is that it takes centuries to change - and that is
>probably makes the faithful feel more secure and safe.
All cultures have similar values. It's a societal survival factor.
Societal species like humans have empathy for their fellows. This is
the basis for shared (moral) values's. which vary between cultures and
communities but have their origins in empathic behaviour towards
others.
Religion subverts empathy and replaces it with what the religion says
its god says.
When the empathy is lost the capacity to understand others withers,
which is why they imagine religion is the only way to good behaviour.
>Secure and safe is what religions sell - insurance against death.
>They all include some way that allows them to believe that they live,
>after they are stone cold and rotting in the ground.
Which is only an issue if they have been raised to believe it is one.
>>>God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>>>unquestionable.
>>
>>To monotheists like Christians, Jews and Muslims. Polytheists
>>understand that different people worship different gods, and by
>>extension accept that some people don't worship any.
>
>That is something positive to be said for multi/poly theism. More
>tolerant than monotheists. Probably due to the polytheists favoring
>certain gods over others - their doctrine allows more flexibility.
I used to date a Hindu girl once.
>>But Christians talk about it to members of other religions as if their
>>version were the only correct one without even caring that other
>>religions have beliefs that are just as sincere, certain etc. Or that
>>non-Christians see Christianity as "somebody else's religion".
>
>All the believers in the "God of Abraham," believe that only their
>flavor of religion is the "right" one. The religions themselves need
>this exclusivity to keep their revenue streams flowing. It is "brand
>recognition."
I don't think it's to keep the revenues coming in, more of an "us and
them" attitude. They are in possession of the ultimate truth, and are
going to be rewarded with an addict's eternal high while everybody
else is going to be eternally tortured,
It's meant to keep them in the fold but can you imagine a bigger gulf
between people?
It's also why the halfway decent ones try to convert the rest of us.
But it's made them too stupid to think outside the box in terms of the
real world. They are incapable of understanding that if you don't
already believe, it's just somebody else's religion that is one of
hundreds not substantively different from each other.
>A corporate mandate... and cause of a lot of the stupidity and strife
>in the world.
You got that right.
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
> <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 19, 3:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
> >> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
> >> themselves.
> >>
> >Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
> >are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>
> To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
> religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
> to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
> totally alien and unacceptable.
>
What exactly does this mean? What answers to what questionaire
would demonstrate this? Let me hear something solid and
reasonable, just for once from you bozos at alt.atheism. Why
don't any of you ever put up or shut up?
> God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
> unquestionable.
>
> AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
> today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
You are just babbling now.
--
dorayme
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:31:16 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:55:07 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
> >><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Oct 19, 3:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
> >>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
> >>>> themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
> >>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
> >
> >Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
>
> The indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily trying to "lie."
You mean the indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily lying. One
does not *try* to lie and one certainly does not "lie" (that
being a word, not an action). You will never get through to Lee
because this monkey simply does not understand plain English. He
probably does not even know how to open a dictionary, that is how
disturbed and uncordinated he is.
As far as I can see, at least, *you* seem to know the meaning of
the word.
--
dorayme
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
That's the kind of reason liars get called liars - not for their
beliefs but for their personal lies.
>As far as I can see, at least, *you* seem to know the meaning of
>the word.
You certainly don't.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>In article <r6ptb6tcuot721qtt...@4ax.com>,
> default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>> <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 19, 3:03�am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>> >> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>> >> themselves.
>> >>
>> >Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>> >are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>>
>> To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>> religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>> to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>> totally alien and unacceptable.
>>
>
>What exactly does this mean? What answers to what questionaire
>would demonstrate this? Let me hear something solid and
>reasonable, just for once from you bozos at alt.atheism. Why
>don't any of you ever put up or shut up?
Oh, the irony.
Keep your bullshit to yourselves and stop misrepresenting atheists,
and you will reap what you sow. It's just a case of what comes round
going around.
>> God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>> unquestionable.
>>
>> AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
>> today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
>
>
>You are just babbling now.
And you are projecting now because you don't like the explanation.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:41:54 +1100, dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <jtgub654adpo56rf917088fiv5hkhau...@4ax.com>,
> > default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:31:16 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> >> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
> >> >><patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Oct 19, 3:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
> >> >>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
> >> >>>> themselves.
>
> >> >>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
> >> >>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>
> >> >Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
>
> >> The indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily trying to "lie."
>
> >You mean the indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily lying. One
> >does not *try* to lie and one certainly does not "lie" (that
> >being a word, not an action). You will never get through to Lee
> >because this monkey simply does not understand plain English. He
> >probably does not even know how to open a dictionary, that is how
> >disturbed and uncordinated he is.
>
> That's the kind of reason liars get called liars - not for their
> beliefs but for their personal lies.
>
> >As far as I can see, at least, *you* seem to know the meaning of
> >the word.
>
> You certainly don't.
Lee, you are a drongo, and always will be. Why don't you take a flying
fuck. Take a dictionary with you as you jump off the cliff to try it.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:36:35 +1100, dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <r6ptb6tcuot721qtt1oqtmjgbi8f3h2...@4ax.com>,
You are a simpleton, Lee. You will get nowhere until you read a
fucking dictionary. Learn what "liar" means. It does not mean telling
an annoying falsehood. You dickhead, you absolute brain dead drongo!
You are an acute embarrassment to all the rational rest of us who
don't believe in gods.
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ stuff]
>
> Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
Yes. A liar is one who lies. The adults among us were discussing
whether or not lying to one's self should be considered as dishonest
an effort as lying to advance an agenda..and then you came along.
Since you lack the ability to follow the complicated concepts within a
conversation, can't you just go "rub one out" when the adults are
talking?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Oct 20, 5:28�am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 1:07�pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> [ stuff]
>>
>> Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
>
>Yes. A liar is one who lies. The adults among us were discussing
>whether or not lying to one's self should be considered as dishonest
>an effort as lying to advance an agenda..and then you came along.
>
>Since you lack the ability to follow the complicated concepts within a
>conversation, can't you just go "rub one out" when the adults are
>talking?
For some people the lie is simply a rhetorical tool. But
fundamentalists use them as ad hominems to say something while
avoiding answering points.
But in their minds that doesn't make them liars which is why they feel
offended - but they don't even think that their lies about us, to us
could be just as offensive.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > [ stuff]
>
> > Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
>
> Yes. A liar is one who lies.
See what I mean folks aboutfthe adults at alt.atheism being pretty
dense?
> The adults among us were discussing
> whether or not lying to one's self should be considered as dishonest
> an effort as lying to advance an agenda..and then you came along.
>
Fine, the only point I made was the Lee does not understand the
meaning of the term and is a dick head. It was just a limited point.
No need to make a big deal of it.
> Since you lack the ability to follow the complicated concepts within a
> conversation, can't you just go "rub one out" when the adults are
> talking?
>
I know you are trying to hurt my feelings. You have. I am so upset.
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com
You still don't know the meaning of the word. By using it on so many
occasions where you disagree with anyone about anything, you debase
the language. That makes you a low down dickhead and scumbag and a
shit of the first, second and third waters.
DanielSan
> On Oct 21, 2:00 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Patricia Aldoraz<patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> [ stuff]
>>
>>> Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
>>
>> Yes. A liar is one who lies.
>
>
> See what I mean folks aboutfthe adults at alt.atheism being pretty
> dense?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
lie
noun, verb, lied, ly搏ng.
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
See definition 3.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"There can be but little liberty while men
worship a tyrant in heaven."
--Robert Ingersoll
---------------------------------------------
Patricia Aldoraz
> On 10/20/2010 10:57 PM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>
> > On Oct 21, 2:00 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Patricia Aldoraz<patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> [ stuff]
>
> >>> Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
>
> >> Yes. A liar is one who lies.
>
> > See what I mean folks aboutfthe adults at alt.atheism being pretty
> > dense?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
>
> lie
>
> 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
> intentional untruth; a falsehood.
> 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
> imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
> 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
> 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
>
> See definition 3.
>
Now find some authority that will instruct you how to view those and
weight those. Hint: look at normal use among civilised educated
people. That does not include most of the drongos at alt.atheism.
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:57:30 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:31:16 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:55:07 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>>>><patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 19, 3:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>>>>>> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>>>>>are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>>>
>>>Once again Aldoraz lies through s/h/it's teeth.
>>
>>The indoctrinated believer isn't necessarily trying to "lie." They
>>have a tough road, keep their religious "faith" and try to rationalize
>>the inconsistencies between reality and religious indoctrination.
>
>It is not an honest mistake on their part.
Everything is relative. I think some believers are too far gone to
understand which end is up. Their need for the feeling of security
that religion provides is beyond logical understanding.
A mental illness, if you will...
>
>After they have got it wrong and been corrected, they nastily insist
>they were right, often trying to "prove: it with further lies.
>
>But they're not mind-readers so they know that the individual atheist
>is the final arbiter of what is in their own minds.
>
>They'll say anything rather than address the actual issue. Including
>lies as ad hominem excused to ignore points.
>
Well, yes. Have you known people with dementia or other illness that
manifests itself in elaborate delusions? In their own minds they
think they have logically and irrefutably deflected the point you are
trying to make.
AND a lot of the religiously afflicted are just scum who belong to a
club that makes them (they think) superior to everyone else; they
will just roll along spouting nonsense figuring they are manipulating,
or frustrating those of us with rational ideas. It is a game - and
sanctioned by "GOD ALMIGHTY." Lying cheating murder and stealing are
OK if god sanctions it - anything goes.
"The lord works in mysterious ways." Their license to lie.
We can't get in their minds to see where the lies begin or the
delusion is. We see only the results of their indoctrination. If we
are too quick to judge, we slither alongside the religious.
>>>If s/h/it understood this s/h/it would not make up positions atheists
>>>don't have as though Christian tenets applied to us.
>>>
>>That is common. I don't get it either makes no sense to attribute a
>>lot of dogma or doctrine to an atheist.
>
>Again, when they are corrected after they first got it wrong it is no
>longer an honest mistake when they repeat it.
If you were indoctrinated by the same nuns I endured, you might think
differently.
>
>After all, they know we disagree with them about what they say about
>us, so it is sociopathically rude to keep repeating it.
Ah. Religion allows, condones and supports sociopathic behavior.
Within limits, a matter of individuality.
>
>>Perhaps they read some famous atheist's assertions and assume that
>>"all" atheists believe the same.
>
>Not even that - they can't get their minds around the idea that the
>world doesn't revolve around their religion and that somebody might
>have honest reasons for not believing.
>
>Or be offended by the personal nastiness they use to tell us "why" we
>don't believe.
That is frustrating isn't it? Do you expect it to change anytime
soon?
Man evolves. Some men are ahead of the curve, and some behind.
>
>>Part of my long Catholic indoctrination included atheism and
>>attributed Hitler, Stalin, Mao, theft, murder, etc., as part and
>>parcel of "atheist behavior." The idea being that if one were to
>>follow a religion, one would not be doing these things. Morality is
>>handed down by God Almighty and not intrinsic in human evolution
>>according to them.
>
>They are gullibly stupid.
Gullibility can be selective stupidity, not necessarily systemic
stupidity. But I do notice that fundies do see "everything" as black
and white and lack empathy, tolerance, etc.. There is only one right
way, their way; and they know everything.
>
>Especially as the liar who told them that must have known that Hitler
>was a Catholic as evidenced by his own writings,photographs of him
>attending services, the accommodations the then Pope made with him
>etc.
Now you are dealing with selective or convenient amnesia...
It goes like this: Hitler and Stalin were evil so they must have been
atheistic. Definition of evil = atheism. No morality unless god
alone grants it.
Somehow the Inquisition and sins of Pope Gregory, Innocent, Pious, et
al., are forgotten.
>
>Similarly Stalin was Georgian Orthodox, educated in a seminary,
>attended services etc and even had an Orthodox funeral.
>
>But even if either were actually atheist, following a religion didn't
>prevent the extermination of heretical sects slaughtering the
>residents of a city (Beziers) to make sure they got all the heretics,
>saying "kill them all, the Lord will take care of his own", the mutual
>slaughter of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa during the
>Reformation, the slaughter of Native Americans as "heathen savages",
>the capture, trade and keeping of slaves as "descendents of Ham", the
>massacres of Muslims in Yugoslavia, etc.
>
Selective amnesia. They think a Mafioso invented "Kill 'em all, let
God figure it out."
>>>>To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>>>>religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>>>>to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>>>>totally alien and unacceptable.
>>>
>>>They might be dimly aware of it but it doesn't register. If it did
>>>they would take it into account.
>>
>>Interesting that Buddhists are not theists, yet to the religiously
>>afflicted they are often looked upon as having a god. They do have a
>>doctrine (many doctrines - like the different flavors of
>>Christianity).
>>
>>Hinduism and Buddhism do include a moral code as part of their
>>doctrines and that may be what makes them palatable to the religious.
>
>Hindus are usually much more tolerant than Christians. I think it's
>something to do with being polytheists and accepting that Christians
>believe in their god. It's just somebody else's that they don't happen
>to believe in themselves.
>
>They're also more tolerant of atheists, it's just the next step from
>believing in different gods. There are atheist traditions with the
>Hindu system that don't have any gods, eg Jains.
>
>>Religious morality is based on society's relative morality, the only
>>real difference is that it takes centuries to change - and that is
>>probably makes the faithful feel more secure and safe.
>
>All cultures have similar values. It's a societal survival factor.
We know that. They do not.
>
>Societal species like humans have empathy for their fellows. This is
>the basis for shared (moral) values's. which vary between cultures and
>communities but have their origins in empathic behaviour towards
>others.
>
>Religion subverts empathy and replaces it with what the religion says
>its god says.
>
>When the empathy is lost the capacity to understand others withers,
Empathy is a survival trait as is competition. In smaller populations
empathy rules, in large ones competition. Small populations
understand they are only strong if they unite - they don't have the
luxury of large numbers of con artists and politicians, they have to
be more honest to survive.
We are way past empathy these days.
>which is why they imagine religion is the only way to good behaviour.
Yes. All must believe in my god, for he alone can keep harmony.
>
>>Secure and safe is what religions sell - insurance against death.
>>They all include some way that allows them to believe that they live,
>>after they are stone cold and rotting in the ground.
>
>Which is only an issue if they have been raised to believe it is one.
Where do you think they get it? Ever hear the terms Jewish, Catholic,
or Muslim Children? The are so arrogant that they assume the children
will adopt the same religion they are programmed with. (and most of
the time they are right and provide programming for their children)
If that doesn't define "child abuse," I don't what does.
>
>>>>God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>>>>unquestionable.
>>>
>>>To monotheists like Christians, Jews and Muslims. Polytheists
>>>understand that different people worship different gods, and by
>>>extension accept that some people don't worship any.
>>
>>That is something positive to be said for multi/poly theism. More
>>tolerant than monotheists. Probably due to the polytheists favoring
>>certain gods over others - their doctrine allows more flexibility.
>
>I used to date a Hindu girl once.
and I a Jewish one. I think Hindus are a lot less hung up.
>
>>>But Christians talk about it to members of other religions as if their
>>>version were the only correct one without even caring that other
>>>religions have beliefs that are just as sincere, certain etc. Or that
>>>non-Christians see Christianity as "somebody else's religion".
>>
>>All the believers in the "God of Abraham," believe that only their
>>flavor of religion is the "right" one. The religions themselves need
>>this exclusivity to keep their revenue streams flowing. It is "brand
>>recognition."
>
>I don't think it's to keep the revenues coming in, more of an "us and
>them" attitude. They are in possession of the ultimate truth, and are
>going to be rewarded with an addict's eternal high while everybody
>else is going to be eternally tortured,
>
>It's meant to keep them in the fold but can you imagine a bigger gulf
>between people?
>
>It's also why the halfway decent ones try to convert the rest of us.
>
>But it's made them too stupid to think outside the box in terms of the
>real world. They are incapable of understanding that if you don't
>already believe, it's just somebody else's religion that is one of
>hundreds not substantively different from each other.
On a corporate or political level it is always about money and power.
Centralized religious control recognizes the need to keep the money
coming in. Catholics have that nailed - the reason they are more
corrupt.
>
>>A corporate mandate... and cause of a lot of the stupidity and strife
>>in the world.
>
>You got that right.
>
>>>To the extent that a former Hindu girlfriend was accused of
>>>worshipping demons. Which is pretty offensive.
>>>
>>>>AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
>>>>today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
Always a pleasure to understand not all the world is bonkers for
religion.
--
DanielSan
> On Oct 21, 5:05 pm, DanielSan<daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 10:57 PM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2:00 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Patricia Aldoraz<patricia.aldo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> [ stuff]
>>
>>>>> Do you understand what the meaning of "liar" is? Or not?
>>
>>>> Yes. A liar is one who lies.
>>
>>> See what I mean folks aboutfthe adults at alt.atheism being pretty
>>> dense?
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
>>
>> lie
>>
>> 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
>> intentional untruth; a falsehood.
>> 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;
>> imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
>> 3. an inaccurate or false statement.
>> 4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
>>
>> See definition 3.
>>
>
> Now find some authority that will instruct you how to view those and
> weight those. Hint: look at normal use among civilised educated
> people. That does not include most of the drongos at alt.atheism.
Now what do you mean by "view those and weight those"? I see a lot of
inaccurate or false statements beings flung around by theists and
so-called "believers" and even after we show that the statements are
inaccurate or false, they keep at it.
What other word should we use?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-----------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-----------------------------------------
"Creationists make it sound as though a
'theory' is something you dreamt up after
being drunk all night." --Isaac Asimov
-----------------------------------------
default
wrote:
>In article <jtgub654adpo56rf9...@4ax.com>,
Without trying to sound like a Philadelphia lawyer... One can tell
something that is false without lying to do so. If you believe the
untruth, you are just mistaken.
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Which is why they don't usually get called liars until they start
using personal lies as ad hominems - they know they're lying because
they aren't mind readers to know what is in our minds.
default
wrote:
>In article <r6ptb6tcuot721qtt...@4ax.com>,
> default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Patricia Aldoraz
>> <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 19, 3:03 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But it is a rare theist who realises that the rest of the world
>> >> doesn't see his foundational beliefs in the same light they do
>> >> themselves.
>> >>
>> >Most of them are very well aware of this. You keep saying things that
>> >are false. You are like a driverless train, just keep going.
>>
>> To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
>> religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
>> to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
>> totally alien and unacceptable.
>>
>
>What exactly does this mean? What answers to what questionaire
>would demonstrate this? Let me hear something solid and
>reasonable, just for once from you bozos at alt.atheism. Why
>don't any of you ever put up or shut up?
If it isn't in print; it isn't true? or the corollary: If it is in
print, it must be fact?"
Psychology is NOT hard science - where a experiment will always yield
the same result.
Understanding the religious means delving into the dark recesses of
the human mind - psychology.
The atheist has found the ability to see beyond the propaganda and
programming. Most people acknowledge some religious belief. We are
trying to understand why the religious do the things they do. Or
profess to some ideology that includes a god (and often a supporting
cast of prophets, saints, angles, devils, gollum, or what have you)
The religious buy their ideology "whole cloth." In one go, they
incorporate a lot of dogma/doctrine into their beliefs - based on what
someone else told them. An atheist doesn't have someone telling him
all about what they must believe.
We are just working out what is correct for us and trying to figure
out how things got to be the way they are - and why religion still
persists.
We don't have dogma or doctrine, so we won't be posting scripture or
"facts" from some whacked-out religious site. Sorry if that's
annoying to you. It shouldn't be...
>
>
>> God may come in flavors to the theist, but GOD is absolute and
>> unquestionable.
>>
>> AND "pagan" gods are nearly as alien as atheism - quaint or amusing
>> today, heresy and an excuse to kill, in the past.
>
>
>You are just babbling now.
Yes. My own theories and observations.
The religiously afflicted will often fall back on programming to
answer an argument - quote scripture or cut and paste something that
sounds good to them. I'd like to actually communicate with people,
not their programming.
If you think atheists are frustrating to deal with... you ought to
understand how frustrating it is to deal with the superstitiously
inculcated.
--
default
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an
intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to
convey a false impression ...
One would not be lying if one believes what they say -
But don't expect kudos for spouting a lot of illogical contradictory
religious BS either.
--
default
AND you are just showing us some of your Christian tolerance and
charity with that statement?
Both sides take this too personally...
--
DanielSan
A "lie" is also a false or inaccurate statement.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
DanielSan
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
You're getting emotionally involved.
"They" are too programmed or stupid to see that though. You are
threatening to them. You want to take their security - and often a
lifetime of beliefs. Did you expect to be rewarded?
People, when they do change, do so slowly.
AND ponder this: As screwed up as things are - would things be better
if you could somehow pull the security blanket away from them?
Be careful what you wish for. Who knows what it would be like with a
bunch of religious loons running around with no religion to tell them
what to do.
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And what's worse, the religious think there is something wrong with
those who don't buy into it.
And have neither the common sense not courtesy to keep that to
themselves.
My own interest in religion is as an anthropological and cultural
phenomenon, as well as their psychology which I've never been able to
understand.
>The religious buy their ideology "whole cloth." In one go, they
>incorporate a lot of dogma/doctrine into their beliefs - based on what
>someone else told them. An atheist doesn't have someone telling him
>all about what they must believe.
>
>We are just working out what is correct for us and trying to figure
>out how things got to be the way they are - and why religion still
>persists.
Because it is taught in the child's formative years.
Those who aren't taught it don't grow up theist.
Those who are believe in the god their parents taught them. Very few
can overcome this, but those who do either lose it the way thy stopped
believing in Father Christmas, of because they were really serious
about it and either read the bits of scripture their preacher didn't
or found reality didn't match what they believed.
Serious believers who are the big problem, shut out reality and go out
of their way to tell everybody else reality is wrong.
Less serious believers "believe something is out there" and don't make
a fuss about it. Their region is largely cultural and traditional,
like the non-believing Jews who still practice Bar Mitzvah and eat
Kosher food but not always, celebrate the Passover and get married or
buried according to Jewish tradition.
Or the Christians who go to church for weddings, funerals and
Christening with the occasional Christmas or Easter service because
it's tradition.
Heck, even as an atheist I like choral music including things like the
Messiah, Christmas carols, Bach and other cantatas, Verdi's and other
requiem masses (Verdi was a self-described agnostic). Some of the
music is magnificent and to me that is the important part.
Whether it's the Mormon Tabernacle choir or the Red Army ensemble I
don't need to be either Mormon or communist to appreciate their
performance.
If I go to a church Christmas function I respect their right to their
religion - after all I have put myself in their extended personal
space.
I just wish the seriously religious would show the same respect
themselves.
On Usenet alt.atheism was set up by atheists for atheists do discuss
atheist issues - it's our extended personal space, but the endless
stream of religionists pushing their god is like heroine pushers
trying to push their wares in an addiction recovery meeting. It is
more than just plain discourteous.
default
The world is full of inaccuracies. I'm going to stay with "a
deliberate attempt to deceive."
Everyone knew the world was flat - they could see it (granted: with
their limited perspective). Were they lying? I don't think so.
--
DanielSan
See the thing is, the "truth is out there" (as it were) and if someone
still says that the world is flat even when all the evidence says
otherwise, what do you call that?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
When they invent denigrating and demeaning motivations we don't have,
they are lying because they aren't mind readers so they don't actually
know what is in our minds.
And when they accuse us if these the lies have now become personal.
And they have no right to turn into whining hypocrites when they get
treated as they don't like for this.
They don't get called liars for their beliefs, but for when they lie.
Christopher A. Lee
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
And when they make them about us, to us, they have become personal
lies.
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
They've been doing it unchallenged for thousands of years - and played
"whack a mole" each time a thinker challenged them. It will take a
long time to change this behavior.
>
>And have neither the common sense not courtesy to keep that to
>themselves.
>
Yeah. It is even part of their charter - they must go out and spread
the word and make new converts.
Don't expect to change the world overnight - think celestially - a
tiny insignificant force applied for a very long time will move big
masses.
Every now and then something you write or say may just resonate with
someone else struggling with the same ideas. Don't stop because you
can't see the results.
and there is a corollary to that too:
Every one can teach you something.
>My own interest in religion is as an anthropological and cultural
>phenomenon, as well as their psychology which I've never been able to
>understand.
No one does. Despite the arrogance of "Dr. Phil" and his ilk.
>
>>The religious buy their ideology "whole cloth." In one go, they
>>incorporate a lot of dogma/doctrine into their beliefs - based on what
>>someone else told them. An atheist doesn't have someone telling him
>>all about what they must believe.
>>
>>We are just working out what is correct for us and trying to figure
>>out how things got to be the way they are - and why religion still
>>persists.
>
>Because it is taught in the child's formative years.
>
>Those who aren't taught it don't grow up theist.
That is too general - some will seek religion or adopt it to get along
with others.
I have a cousin who was brought up atheist - and constantly
experiments with various "spiritual" ideologies. A human need?
She still has both oars in the water though...
>
>Those who are believe in the god their parents taught them. Very few
>can overcome this, but those who do either lose it the way thy stopped
>believing in Father Christmas, of because they were really serious
>about it and either read the bits of scripture their preacher didn't
>or found reality didn't match what they believed.
Agreed. The human child is totally dependent on their parent for
everything. How could a child reconcile the idea that their own
parents would lie or try to hurt them? "That way insanity lies."
>
>Serious believers who are the big problem, shut out reality and go out
>of their way to tell everybody else reality is wrong.
Yes the ones that would "debunk reality" as some idiot posted to this
group.
>
>Less serious believers "believe something is out there" and don't make
>a fuss about it. Their region is largely cultural and traditional,
>like the non-believing Jews who still practice Bar Mitzvah and eat
>Kosher food but not always, celebrate the Passover and get married or
>buried according to Jewish tradition.
Do I sense compromise? I get your meaning. Keep your religion out of
my face, out of my government, and out of my way!
(which statement will have some whacked out bozo claiming I'm evil and
immoral)
>
>Or the Christians who go to church for weddings, funerals and
>Christening with the occasional Christmas or Easter service because
>it's tradition.
We call those Christmas Catholics. They don't buy into the spiel, but
are suckers for pomp and pageantry.
As long as I'm there: What idiot got the idea to dress up little boys
in scarlet full length gowns or cassocks, pretty lacy blouses or
surplices, hang starched collars around their necks and wrists (ala
Playboy Bunny) and give them big floppy bows around their necks? I
mean how feminizing and demeaning can they be? Their god wants this?
Oh yeah? What scripture says so? While the weirdoes watching this
are going OOh and AAh, calling them "little angels?" It is sick I
tell you!
No wonder the sexually undeveloped and over frustrated priests are
preying on them.
It is just as sick as pageants for prepubescent girls prancing around
wearing sexy outfits and makeup - IMO.
>
>Heck, even as an atheist I like choral music including things like the
>Messiah, Christmas carols, Bach and other cantatas, Verdi's and other
>requiem masses (Verdi was a self-described agnostic). Some of the
>music is magnificent and to me that is the important part.
I don't like Christmas carols - but am a sucker for Gregorian Chant.
Preferably by "The Masters of Chant" group.
>
>Whether it's the Mormon Tabernacle choir or the Red Army ensemble I
>don't need to be either Mormon or communist to appreciate their
>performance.
Ditto that. Love the Red Army Choir, and some of the Mormon works.
I've got the MTC doing "Whistle While You Work," believe it or not.
And it's pretty good IMO.
>
>If I go to a church Christmas function I respect their right to their
>religion - after all I have put myself in their extended personal
>space.
>
>I just wish the seriously religious would show the same respect
>themselves.
It is more a matter of megalomaniac egos festering in the minds of
servile wimps - that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>
>On Usenet alt.atheism was set up by atheists for atheists do discuss
>atheist issues - it's our extended personal space, but the endless
>stream of religionists pushing their god is like heroine pushers
>trying to push their wares in an addiction recovery meeting. It is
>more than just plain discourteous.
AND being Usenet, anyone can make a fool of themselves. I'm not
particularly lucid when I have three sheets to the wind - pains me to
read some of my own posts some days.
The Benedictine abbes were on to something there. Spirituality via
beer or wine.
>
snip
--
default
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> One would not be lying if one believes what they say -
>>>>
>>>> But don't expect kudos for spouting a lot of illogical contradictory
>>>> religious BS either.
>>>
>>> A "lie" is also a false or inaccurate statement.
>>
>> The world is full of inaccuracies. I'm going to stay with "a
>> deliberate attempt to deceive."
>>
>> Everyone knew the world was flat - they could see it (granted: with
>> their limited perspective). Were they lying? I don't think so.
>
>See the thing is, the "truth is out there" (as it were) and if someone
>still says that the world is flat even when all the evidence says
>otherwise, what do you call that?
"AFTER" the correct facts are known, it is a lie to state otherwise.
If I say the world is flat, I lie. Pope Innocent was not lying when
he believed it and stated it. Up until the facts are known, it is
just a mistaken belief.
Ditto in the context of religion - I wouldn't be lying if I said I
believed in god, or that he had certain characteristics if that's what
I really believed. (no matter if the belief was the result of
indoctrination)
With religions, I think a lot of the "faithful" do have doubts. They
vociferously defend their religion (often with lies and inaccuracies)
because they "know" that to be saved from a life of eternal damnation
they must not doubt. This is just a way of dealing with the doubt -
attack attack! The lie, in this case? Maybe they are lying to
themselves.
--
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Yeah, but... I knew that atheists enjoyed biting the heads off babies
and children - because the nuns told me so. Childhood brainwashing is
very hard to ignore.
I didn't like the idea that I was an atheist, even after I concluded
that man made god, simply because the nuns were so effective.
Sister Mary Vindictive would tell us something - if I questioned it
she may or may not attempt to explain it or justify it, or just go
into mode two and call me a devil worshiper, persist further and a
note to my religiously whacked mother was in the offing and punishment
a certainty.
I learned to keep my mouth shut.
>
>And when they accuse us if these the lies have now become personal.
>
>And they have no right to turn into whining hypocrites when they get
>treated as they don't like for this.
>
>They don't get called liars for their beliefs, but for when they lie.
>
Well do the best you can. I'm no saint (he he). I'm not above
ridiculing or attacking someone's character when pushed, but I do it
and feel guilty.
--
default
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>...a drongo?
The Aussie vernacular for simpleton?
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I don't.
But I don't do it unless they start it.
When I was 8 I treated my class teacher as an idiot, because when she
discovered that my atheist parents hadn't taught me to believe, she
tried to convert me with some incredibly stupid questions like "Who do
you think created the Earth?" without expecting a puzzled "Why did it
need somebody to do that?" from a kid who already had a good idea from
boys' science books.
Eventually I ceased to believe anything she taught about anything and
probed her with questions designed to make sure she actually knew what
she was talking about and could be trusted.
Which earned me visits to the educational psychologist as a disruptive
child.
When she and the headmaster had my parents in for a meeting she
accused me of blasphemy and they laughed in her face.
So school was distinctly uncomfortable for the next year.
I learned later that I had caused her a severe crisis of her faith,
but it was her own fault.
She didn't know how to talk to a precocious child who had never been
raised Christian and already had better answers to the questions she
though a kid couldn't answer so they would have to accept what was
even then obviously no different than Zeus and the Greek myths.
It was the first time I heard the word "atheist", and she set the
other kids on me, which was unforgivable.
Jimbo
> DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote innews:vvGdnXFmr5L4iyHR...@speakeasy.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/18/2010 2:38 AM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> >> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>
> >> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
> >> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
> >> of the word. Duh!
>
> > However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying".
> > When one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one
> > persists in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to
> > "lying".
>
> > Wouldn't you agree?
>
> No, but that is a socially acceptable way of avoiding hurt feelings.
> Any falsehood, intentional or not, is a lie. Lies can be, & frequently
> are corrected before being made public. My perpetual lie, my daughters
> are the most beautiful women to ever grace the planet. Perfectly true,
> but only to me. To every other father worthy of the name, an obvious
> lie.
>
Well, I personally don't consider that a lie. I feel the same way
about my daughter, I'm not lying, to me it's simply a natural
statement of a father's love for his daughters.
If course, in my daughter's case, it's true. :D
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No. Very few become theist, usually due to constant immersion after
they marry a theist spouse.
>I have a cousin who was brought up atheist - and constantly
>experiments with various "spiritual" ideologies. A human need?
How is one "brought up atheist"?
Even as an umpteenth generation atheist on one side and third
generation on the other,I wouldn't know how to.
Teach my kids a god I don't believe in and "by the way it doesn't
exist"? Whatever I taught would be some kind of straw man.
All you need to do is make sure they can think critically before they
encounter their first theist, which is much more common in Europe than
the US where theism is all-pervading.
>She still has both oars in the water though...
>>
>>Those who are believe in the god their parents taught them. Very few
>>can overcome this, but those who do either lose it the way thy stopped
>>believing in Father Christmas, of because they were really serious
>>about it and either read the bits of scripture their preacher didn't
>>or found reality didn't match what they believed.
>
>Agreed. The human child is totally dependent on their parent for
>everything. How could a child reconcile the idea that their own
>parents would lie or try to hurt them? "That way insanity lies."
It happens at such an early age it becomes almost hard wired, like a
PROM (programmable read only memory chip).
>>Serious believers who are the big problem, shut out reality and go out
>>of their way to tell everybody else reality is wrong.
>
>Yes the ones that would "debunk reality" as some idiot posted to this
>group.
I've been in alt.atheism since just after it was created nearly twenty
years ago and we have been inundated with that kind. In s supposedly
theism-free zone set up to discuss our own issues due to living in a
predominantly theist society, including whatever _we_ want to talk
about, including "silly theist" stories we all have.
>>Less serious believers "believe something is out there" and don't make
>>a fuss about it. Their region is largely cultural and traditional,
>>like the non-believing Jews who still practice Bar Mitzvah and eat
>>Kosher food but not always, celebrate the Passover and get married or
>>buried according to Jewish tradition.
>
>Do I sense compromise? I get your meaning. Keep your religion out of
>my face, out of my government, and out of my way!
>
>(which statement will have some whacked out bozo claiming I'm evil and
>immoral)
Using their "God did it" to "prove" it.
>>Or the Christians who go to church for weddings, funerals and
>>Christening with the occasional Christmas or Easter service because
>>it's tradition.
>
>We call those Christmas Catholics. They don't buy into the spiel, but
>are suckers for pomp and pageantry.
Not just Catholics. Most people who call themselves Church of England
are like that. You only have to compare Christmas attendance with a
normal Sunday.
>As long as I'm there: What idiot got the idea to dress up little boys
>in scarlet full length gowns or cassocks, pretty lacy blouses or
>surplices, hang starched collars around their necks and wrists (ala
>Playboy Bunny) and give them big floppy bows around their necks? I
>mean how feminizing and demeaning can they be? Their god wants this?
>Oh yeah? What scripture says so? While the weirdoes watching this
>are going OOh and AAh, calling them "little angels?" It is sick I
>tell you!
They dress themselves up too.
>No wonder the sexually undeveloped and over frustrated priests are
>preying on them.
That's another problem.
My (Catholic) Lady Friend says that sexually confused young men enter
the seminary to suppress their confusion but it doesn't work.
I know that when I was a spotty adolescent the girls didn't want to
know me, and I wasn't interested in the pre-pubescent ones a couple of
years younger than me. So all my friends were other boys - and I
wasn't sexually confused.
But put them into a male-only environment ant they never have a chance
to grow up.
In a BBC world service interview an ex-priest said that they never had
any proper sexual education, and all they learned about it came from
the confessional. Which is hardly a good source.
>It is just as sick as pageants for prepubescent girls prancing around
>wearing sexy outfits and makeup - IMO.
Like Jon-Benet Ramsey.
It's not something I ever understood.
>>Heck, even as an atheist I like choral music including things like the
>>Messiah, Christmas carols, Bach and other cantatas, Verdi's and other
>>requiem masses (Verdi was a self-described agnostic). Some of the
>>music is magnificent and to me that is the important part.
>
>I don't like Christmas carols - but am a sucker for Gregorian Chant.
>Preferably by "The Masters of Chant" group.
>>
>>Whether it's the Mormon Tabernacle choir or the Red Army ensemble I
>>don't need to be either Mormon or communist to appreciate their
>>performance.
>
>Ditto that. Love the Red Army Choir, and some of the Mormon works.
>I've got the MTC doing "Whistle While You Work," believe it or not.
>And it's pretty good IMO.
I saw the Red Army choir at the Royal Festival Hall in London far too
many years ago. Kalian was even in the UK pop charts for a while so
we'd all seen the videos of the Cossack dancing in front of the choir,
before we went.
I've only heard the Mormon Tabernacle choir on the radio.
>>If I go to a church Christmas function I respect their right to their
>>religion - after all I have put myself in their extended personal
>>space.
>>
>>I just wish the seriously religious would show the same respect
>>themselves.
>
>It is more a matter of megalomaniac egos festering in the minds of
>servile wimps - that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I put it down to narcissism. They think the rest of the world revolves
around their religion but have no understanding of either the real
world or people.
>>On Usenet alt.atheism was set up by atheists for atheists do discuss
>>atheist issues - it's our extended personal space, but the endless
>>stream of religionists pushing their god is like heroine pushers
>>trying to push their wares in an addiction recovery meeting. It is
>>more than just plain discourteous.
>
>AND being Usenet, anyone can make a fool of themselves. I'm not
>particularly lucid when I have three sheets to the wind - pains me to
>read some of my own posts some days.
I'm not allowed alcohol for medical reasons, and to be honest I don't
miss it although I miss the taste of a good bitter or a good wine.
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
> >> religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
> >> to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
> >> totally alien and unacceptable.
> >>
> >
> >What exactly does this mean? What answers to what questionaire
> >would demonstrate this? Let me hear something solid and
> >reasonable, just for once from you bozos at alt.atheism. Why
> >don't any of you ever put up or shut up?
>
> If it isn't in print; it isn't true? or the corollary: If it is in
> print, it must be fact?"
No, I just meant what criteria would sort those who have the idea
that "people may have a right to no god " and those who don't. I
suggested a questionnaire. You might like to suggest another
method, perhaps like putting dumping a cold bucket of shit on
Lee's head and seeing if he says "Liar!" or "Asshole" in the
presence of the candidates. <g>
--
dorayme
Christopher A. Lee
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> don't expect kudos for spouting a lot of illogical contradictory
> religious BS either.
Yeah, that goes for you too.
--
dorayme
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> >Lee, you are a drongo, and always will be. Why don't you take a flying
> >fuck. Take a dictionary with you as you jump off the cliff to try it.
>
> AND you are just showing us some of your Christian tolerance and
> charity with that statement?
What makes you think PA is a christian?
--
dorayme
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
That is because you have more of the scholar and the gentleman in
you. Clearly a mark of being well brought up.
--
dorayme
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:39:12 -0700, DanielSan
> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> One would not be lying if one believes what they say -
> >>>>
> >>>> But don't expect kudos for spouting a lot of illogical contradictory
> >>>> religious BS either.
> >>>
> >>> A "lie" is also a false or inaccurate statement.
> >>
> >> The world is full of inaccuracies. I'm going to stay with "a
> >> deliberate attempt to deceive."
> >>
> >> Everyone knew the world was flat - they could see it (granted: with
> >> their limited perspective). Were they lying? I don't think so.
> >
> >See the thing is, the "truth is out there" (as it were) and if someone
> >still says that the world is flat even when all the evidence says
> >otherwise, what do you call that?
>
You don't call them liars unless you know they do not believe
what they say. But, typical of a usenet reply, you steer away
from the central point to distract with a bit of hogwash. What
the hell does it matter what you call them. Work it out for
yourself depending on the context.
> "AFTER" the correct facts are known, it is a lie to state otherwise.
"known by the accused", you mean.
--
dorayme
Patricia Aldoraz
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:30:42 +1100, dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <q9o0c610bm9m1ih7t7bpo780gv6e262...@4ax.com>,
> > default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> To the extent that the average theist might recognize another's
> >> >> religion, you might be correct in saying that they are "aware" - But
> >> >> to most theists the idea that people may have a right to no god is
> >> >> totally alien and unacceptable.
>
> >> >What exactly does this mean? What answers to what questionaire
> >> >would demonstrate this? Let me hear something solid and
> >> >reasonable, just for once from you bozos at alt.atheism. Why
> >> >don't any of you ever put up or shut up?
>
> >> If it isn't in print; it isn't true? or the corollary: If it is in
> >> print, it must be fact?"
>
> >No, I just meant what criteria would sort those who have the idea
> >that "people may have a right to no god " and those who don't. I
> >suggested a questionnaire. You might like to suggest another
> >method, perhaps like putting dumping a cold bucket of shit on
> >Lee's head and seeing if he says "Liar!" or "Asshole" in the
> >presence of the candidates. <g>
>
> Idiot.
There is another word this drongo does not understand. One thing that
dorayme is not, is an idiot.
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
I agree that few become religious. The reasons though?
We assume that it is normal to be atheist and something (some outside
influence) has to act on people to change that.
If that's your position, you have to explain thousands of years of men
inventing gods. (and for the sake of argument man has been
intelligent or self aware for the last 100K years or more?)
I think we are fearful herding animals and we are unable or unwilling
to believe that we die and that's the end of everything we have, so we
cluster together and invent ways to live forever.
Priests, shamans, imams, witch doctors, what have you, come along and
use this human need for their own material comfort - power and wealth
without working for it. They form religious groups and things go
downhill from there.
I think religion is almost evolutionary in nature - we've been dealing
with our need for security for so long that it is second nature to
invent a mystical force that looks out for us.
>
>>I have a cousin who was brought up atheist - and constantly
>>experiments with various "spiritual" ideologies. A human need?
>
>How is one "brought up atheist"?
I mean without a parental mandate to adopt a religion. My aunt and
uncle had already dropped out ("left the faith" in god speak) and
decided they would not subject their children to a religious
indoctrination.
There was no bias for or against religion in the case of my cousins.
When I say "no bias" there was still the fact that most of the US is
religious and there was undoubtedly peer pressure and a need to
conform with the herd.
>
>Even as an umpteenth generation atheist on one side and third
>generation on the other,I wouldn't know how to.
>
>Teach my kids a god I don't believe in and "by the way it doesn't
>exist"? Whatever I taught would be some kind of straw man.
>
>All you need to do is make sure they can think critically before they
>encounter their first theist, which is much more common in Europe than
>the US where theism is all-pervading.
Agreed. Thinking critically isn't on the agenda over here. We beat
the natural inquisitiveness out of children, then try to fill them
with what some dick head thinks they should learn - and in the order
the dickheads mandate.
In college we suddenly expect them to start learning to think for
themselves, while at the same time conforming to the system. We tuck
them in boxes then wonder why they don't or can't think outside the
box.
Just my own opinion...
A religious indoctrination is aimed at instilling the doctrine and
superstitious beliefs, before the child has learned to reason for
themselves.
It is very effective - as evidenced by all the people that think there
is a god, but who can't offer any rational reason for believing.
>
>>She still has both oars in the water though...
>>>
>>>Those who are believe in the god their parents taught them. Very few
>>>can overcome this, but those who do either lose it the way thy stopped
>>>believing in Father Christmas, of because they were really serious
>>>about it and either read the bits of scripture their preacher didn't
>>>or found reality didn't match what they believed.
>>
>>Agreed. The human child is totally dependent on their parent for
>>everything. How could a child reconcile the idea that their own
>>parents would lie or try to hurt them? "That way insanity lies."
>
>It happens at such an early age it becomes almost hard wired, like a
>PROM (programmable read only memory chip).
I was pretty much out of religion by the time I was seven - and going
to Catholic schools until eighteen.
I've got several cousins that still go through the motions. They
attend church on Sunday etc. but it isn't a big deal, they aren't
trying to convert the world, and admit that it isn't rational.
They've just been doing it for so long it feels wrong to stop.
>
>>>Serious believers who are the big problem, shut out reality and go out
>>>of their way to tell everybody else reality is wrong.
>>
>>Yes the ones that would "debunk reality" as some idiot posted to this
>>group.
>
>I've been in alt.atheism since just after it was created nearly twenty
>years ago and we have been inundated with that kind. In s supposedly
>theism-free zone set up to discuss our own issues due to living in a
>predominantly theist society, including whatever _we_ want to talk
>about, including "silly theist" stories we all have.
Twenty years ago I got my first computer. It was another year+ before
I got "online." We did have 'bulletin boards' (servers you could call
on the telephone) and leave files and messages.
One dos program would dial the phone, another would observe
communications protocols and a third emulate a terminal and you could
chat live. (or basically just an unwieldy way to make a phone call -
but it was "cool")
Usenet for me was ~12 years ago.
Who are you referring to? Church of England?
>
>>No wonder the sexually undeveloped and over frustrated priests are
>>preying on them.
>
>That's another problem.
>
>My (Catholic) Lady Friend says that sexually confused young men enter
>the seminary to suppress their confusion but it doesn't work.
That is true. Homosexuality has so much stigma attached to it, that a
boy with little or no attraction to the opposite sex has to find
reasons why he doesn't date to keep his bigot parents happy. It is
too easy to just claim he has a religious "calling" that doesn't
include women. The bigot parents are ecstatic
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You'll have to ask them - people say they do but their "reasons" are
rationalisations that don't hold water, like "I realised God loved me"
which shows they were already theist in the first place to already
believe in God to "realise" that. Something rather obvious to an
atheist but theists never notice.
>We assume that it is normal to be atheist and something (some outside
>influence) has to act on people to change that.
>
>If that's your position, you have to explain thousands of years of men
>inventing gods. (and for the sake of argument man has been
>intelligent or self aware for the last 100K years or more?)
Again, not really my problem but people tell stories. Including
Just-So stories. All it takes is for somebody to make up one and tell
it to a child who believes it. He doesn't need to believe it himself.
>I think we are fearful herding animals and we are unable or unwilling
>to believe that we die and that's the end of everything we have, so we
>cluster together and invent ways to live forever.
Again, kids who weren't programmed to believe that don't think that
way.
When I was a small boy my grandmother died. There was no comforting
lie, she wasn't there any more and it hurt to be without her. But then
we already knew what death was - it might sound cynical but children
learn about death from elderly relatives they love, family pets etc.
>Priests, shamans, imams, witch doctors, what have you, come along and
>use this human need for their own material comfort - power and wealth
>without working for it. They form religious groups and things go
>downhill from there.
They tell the humans they have this need. But it's another thing
theists don't seem to understand, that if you haven't been taught that
need you don't have it.
>I think religion is almost evolutionary in nature - we've been dealing
>with our need for security for so long that it is second nature to
>invent a mystical force that looks out for us.
Again, only those who have been programmed since childhood to think
that way.
It is common in Western Europe for children of atheists to be raised
in a theism-free environment.
>>>I have a cousin who was brought up atheist - and constantly
>>>experiments with various "spiritual" ideologies. A human need?
>>
>>How is one "brought up atheist"?
>
>I mean without a parental mandate to adopt a religion. My aunt and
>uncle had already dropped out ("left the faith" in god speak) and
>decided they would not subject their children to a religious
>indoctrination.
>
>There was no bias for or against religion in the case of my cousins.
>
>When I say "no bias" there was still the fact that most of the US is
>religious and there was undoubtedly peer pressure and a need to
>conform with the herd.
That is the US.
Western Europe is different.
After I moved to the US an atheist colleague told me his daughter
returned from hi smother in law, and he saw her surreptitiously
praying even though he'd never mentioned religion.
There was an almighty row about that because he'd already told her
(the M.I.L,) not to, and he told her if she ever did it again she
would never see his daughter again.
IMO he was right but went about it the wrong way.
His wife should have told his in-laws.
>>Even as an umpteenth generation atheist on one side and third
>>generation on the other,I wouldn't know how to.
>>
>>Teach my kids a god I don't believe in and "by the way it doesn't
>>exist"? Whatever I taught would be some kind of straw man.
>>
>>All you need to do is make sure they can think critically before they
>>encounter their first theist, which is much more common in Europe than
>>the US where theism is all-pervading.
>
>Agreed. Thinking critically isn't on the agenda over here. We beat
>the natural inquisitiveness out of children, then try to fill them
>with what some dick head thinks they should learn - and in the order
>the dickheads mandate.
That's the big problem.
My parents taught me critical thinking and made sure I could read
early. At that time more households didn't have TV than did, so I read
a lot and was encouraged to spend evenings in the library. My parents
acquired an ancient set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and when I
askedmy father somethinghe couldn't answer, he would say "let's find
out" and look it up so when my reading was good enough I did that
myself. This was in England a few decades ago.
>In college we suddenly expect them to start learning to think for
>themselves, while at the same time conforming to the system. We tuck
>them in boxes then wonder why they don't or can't think outside the
>box.
American kids "graduate" from high school a couple of years behind
those in other developed countries and the bachelor degrees aren't as
good.
When I was at school in England we had a general education until 14
but that included academic subjects instead of learning to type etc.
After that there were 8 subjects four of which were mandatory and four
elective, with exams at 16 for an ordinary level certificate. So by
the time I took that I had done 5 solid years of English, English
literature, French, Maths, Latin, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I
then did two more years of Physics, Maths and Chemistry for advanced
level at 18, to get the necessary qualifications for university
admission.
The bachelor's degree was not a generic one getting credits in
different subjects, but a dedicated one that continued one of the
subjects you had already specialised in. Your classes were chosen for
you.
>Just my own opinion...
>
>A religious indoctrination is aimed at instilling the doctrine and
>superstitious beliefs, before the child has learned to reason for
>themselves.
I don't know that it is "aimed" that way, that's just how it evolved.
Man is a software animal, born at an earlier stage of development than
other animals, due to the size of the brain and the skull that
protects it.
So development that happens inside the womb with other animals happens
outside it. It is during this time that the basic software is
programmed as part of parental nurturing.
This consists of the rudiments of language, behaviour and thinking.
Including the meanings of the words learned. And the parent's
religion. All of these become hard wired and everything after that is
bootstrapped on these.
>It is very effective - as evidenced by all the people that think there
>is a god, but who can't offer any rational reason for believing.
They think it's innate or instinctive because it was implanted and
wired into their brains before they could even think.
It takes a special kind of mind to throw it off.
>>>She still has both oars in the water though...
>>>>
>>>>Those who are believe in the god their parents taught them. Very few
>>>>can overcome this, but those who do either lose it the way thy stopped
>>>>believing in Father Christmas, of because they were really serious
>>>>about it and either read the bits of scripture their preacher didn't
>>>>or found reality didn't match what they believed.
>>>
>>>Agreed. The human child is totally dependent on their parent for
>>>everything. How could a child reconcile the idea that their own
>>>parents would lie or try to hurt them? "That way insanity lies."
>>
>>It happens at such an early age it becomes almost hard wired, like a
>>PROM (programmable read only memory chip).
>
>I was pretty much out of religion by the time I was seven - and going
>to Catholic schools until eighteen.
When you were never in it in the first place, some things seem
remarkably obvious that most theists and even a few atheists don't
realise, because you are totally outside any theist paradigm and don't
even have the residual bits even some atheists think everybody has, to
colour your thinking.
>I've got several cousins that still go through the motions. They
>attend church on Sunday etc. but it isn't a big deal, they aren't
>trying to convert the world, and admit that it isn't rational.
>They've just been doing it for so long it feels wrong to stop.
They're not the kind atheists, agnostics and other non-believers have
problems with.
default
wrote:
Typical response a "Christian" would make. All that Christian
tolerance love and understanding is evident.
--
Bill Clinton
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:43:31 +1100, dorayme <dora...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <msp0c6l3hsjsfrt15u82tcqggaa7o5g...@4ax.com>,
> > default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Lee, you are a drongo, and always will be. Why don't you take a flying
> >> >fuck. Take a dictionary with you as you jump off the cliff to try it.
>
> >> AND you are just showing us some of your Christian tolerance and
> >> charity with that statement?
>
> >What makes you think PA is a christian?
>
> Typical response a "Christian" would make. All that Christian
> tolerance love and understanding is evident.
> --
Huh Mother Alice !!!
dorayme
default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
That is a usenet guy thing, jumping to conclusions about other
fine upstanding usenet characters! <g>
The fact is, default, that Lee lets his emotions take over what
is left of his reason, that too is undoubtedly something you
biased folk associate with Christians and yet you don't go off
accusing one of your own of being Christian. Time to put that
thinking cap on, you guys at alt.atheism and stop being drongos.
--
dorayme
default
wrote:
>In article <r3k3c6tacgrl3jfqa...@4ax.com>,
> default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:43:31 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <msp0c6l3hsjsfrt15...@4ax.com>,
>> > default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Lee, you are a drongo, and always will be. Why don't you take a flying
>> >> >fuck. Take a dictionary with you as you jump off the cliff to try it.
>> >>
>> >> AND you are just showing us some of your Christian tolerance and
>> >> charity with that statement?
>> >
>> >What makes you think PA is a christian?
>>
>> Typical response a "Christian" would make. All that Christian
>> tolerance love and understanding is evident.
>
>
>That is a usenet guy thing, jumping to conclusions about other
>fine upstanding usenet characters! <g>
>
>The fact is, default, that Lee lets his emotions take over what
>is left of his reason, that too is undoubtedly something you
>biased folk associate with Christians and yet you don't go off
>accusing one of your own of being Christian. Time to put that
>thinking cap on, you guys at alt.atheism and stop being drongos.
My original comment was aimed at Aldoraz not Lee.
We are all guilty of getting emotional from time to time. People can
be frustrating.
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Actually I don't often get emotional.
I just treat lies as lies and stupidity as stupidity.
Which unfortunately we get far too often from theists and otters
coming to the atheist groups.
They start off with misrepresentations and refuse to be corrected. But
in their minds they must think this is polite.
Especially when they try to "prove" their original misrepresentation
is correct and we're not telling the truth about ourselves.
They must also think amateur psychologising derogatory "reasons" why
we say what we do according to presumptions that don't even apply
outside their religion, is also polite.
When they repeat them it is no longer an honest mistake and there is
no reason any more to show then they very courtesy they refused to
don't show us in the first place.
When you are dealing with a fool, that is just below the surface and
it doesn't take much to bring it to the surface. But in any case when
they refuse to show any common sense or courtesy they can't complain
when they are treated the same way.
After which they resort to more personal lies to "explain" why they
got treated as rudely as they treat us.
Patricia Aldoraz
> I just treat lies as lies...
No he doesn't. If he did, there would not be this part of the thread.
default
If not, you have me fooled.
>
>I just treat lies as lies and stupidity as stupidity.
>
>Which unfortunately we get far too often from theists and otters
>coming to the atheist groups.
>
>They start off with misrepresentations and refuse to be corrected. But
>in their minds they must think this is polite.
>
Religious indoctrination can be absolute. That is what makes it
insidious. You cannot "correct" a person with a mental illness. It
is just like an obsession or compulsion - push them in a corner and
they will invent ways to justify their beliefs.
To them it is more important that they keep the security religion
provides them, than it is to prove with logic or reason.
It is an ego thing too. They belong to this large club of ditto
heads. They meet regularly and sit around reinforcing the idea that
their god loves them and looks out for them and no one can tell them
any different - have an original idea no(!) that is "losing faith,"
and to them, losing faith is a bad thing - they go to hell if they
lose faith. They are convinced hell is real.
Their Sunday reinforcement sessions also include the idea that their
selective lack of reason makes them superior to every other person on
the planet - their own god chose them! That is Trump - there is no
card to play against that.
>Especially when they try to "prove" their original misrepresentation
>is correct and we're not telling the truth about ourselves.
>
>They must also think amateur psychologising derogatory "reasons" why
>we say what we do according to presumptions that don't even apply
>outside their religion, is also polite.
>
>When they repeat them it is no longer an honest mistake and there is
>no reason any more to show then they very courtesy they refused to
>don't show us in the first place.
>
>When you are dealing with a fool, that is just below the surface and
>it doesn't take much to bring it to the surface. But in any case when
>they refuse to show any common sense or courtesy they can't complain
>when they are treated the same way.
>
>After which they resort to more personal lies to "explain" why they
>got treated as rudely as they treat us.
>
I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
Not even a little hint of emotion?
I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
It is part of being human. It gives us redeeming qualities like
empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
life worth living.
BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
Dudley Milquetoast's?
Just my two cents.
Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
--
M Purcell
> I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
> Not even a little hint of emotion?
>
> I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
> It is part of being human. It gives us redeeming qualities like
> empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
> can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
> good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
> life worth living.
Tolerance, compromise, and understanding require reason rather than
emotion. Without emotion you can also chalk off anger, fear, hate,
depression and a whole lot of things that make life not worth living.
> BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
> Dudley Milquetoast's?
I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
> Just my two cents.
Here's your change.
> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
> off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
How do you propose moderating it?
default
<sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 6:48�ｿｽam, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>> I can't read that without sensing some emotion. �ｿｽCome on, 'fess up.
>> Not even a little hint of emotion?
>>
>> I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
>> It is part of being human. �ｿｽIt gives us redeeming qualities like
>> empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. �ｿｽWithout emotion you
>> can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
>> good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
>> life worth living.
>
>Tolerance, compromise, and understanding require reason rather than
>emotion. Without emotion you can also chalk off anger, fear, hate,
>depression and a whole lot of things that make life not worth living.
>
I disagree. I think emotion is the basis, and reason is an
explanation. Tolerance might stem from empathy, and without the
ability to react yourself you might not feel empathy.
Yin and Yang - stress ain't all bad.
There's the idea that without evil there'd be no good.
>> BE Passionate! �ｿｽBe Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>
>This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
That is painfully true. Marketeers, politicians, religionists and
propagandists of all ilk always sell the product with emotion. People
reacting emotionally don't take the time to reason or examine what
they are being sold critically. This is VERY BAD, and we should
always be on guard against those who would manipulate us with our
emotions. (damn near everyone with an agenda)
But that doesn't make emotion bad - all things in moderation - all
things together.
>
>> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
>> Dudley Milquetoast's?
>
>I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
>
"Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful?"
Mae West (plagiarized by Liberace)
or
"A thing worth doing is worth overdoing?"
Robert A. Heinlein
>> Just my two cents.
>
>Here's your change.
Thank you, Dr. Spock.
>
>> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
>> off? �ｿｽI think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>
>How do you propose moderating it?
Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
at it.
Why stop there? We need prophets! Prophets are the way to profits
and prosperity (works for religion).
Wouldn't it be lovely?
Dissension isn't bad. Everyone has a different perspective. All
things in moderation.
--
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I capitalise things to shout, go get through the barrier.
I call people idiots when they are and liars when they are.
That's all.
Anybody who presumes their god and talks about it as if it were real,
to people they know don't share that belief, is an idiot.
It is both rude and stupid.
Stupid because discussion has to be from common understanding or
failing that, the real world in which theirs is merely one of hundreds
that are all only taken seriously by their believers.
So they believe something we don't.
Rude because they know we don't share their beliefs yet they don't
even care enough to respect that when they talk at (not with) us.
Usually after they have raised the subject in the first place.
After which it goes downhill fast.
Eg anybody who says "you always call people idiots for having
different opinions, idiots", is a liar because it's not about
opinions.
>>I just treat lies as lies and stupidity as stupidity.
>>
>>Which unfortunately we get far too often from theists and otters
>>coming to the atheist groups.
>>
>>They start off with misrepresentations and refuse to be corrected. But
>>in their minds they must think this is polite.
>>
>Religious indoctrination can be absolute. That is what makes it
>insidious. You cannot "correct" a person with a mental illness. It
>is just like an obsession or compulsion - push them in a corner and
>they will invent ways to justify their beliefs.
>
>To them it is more important that they keep the security religion
>provides them, than it is to prove with logic or reason.
Then they shouldn't come looking for people they know don't believe,
to rudely and stupidly talk at them as if it were all true.
>It is an ego thing too. They belong to this large club of ditto
>heads. They meet regularly and sit around reinforcing the idea that
>their god loves them and looks out for them and no one can tell them
>any different - have an original idea no(!) that is "losing faith,"
>and to them, losing faith is a bad thing - they go to hell if they
>lose faith. They are convinced hell is real.
Which would only be their problem if they kept it among themselves.
But instead they threaten us outside their religion with something
from inside it they know we don't believe, for being outside it.
Do you have a better word than "stupid"?
>Their Sunday reinforcement sessions also include the idea that their
>selective lack of reason makes them superior to every other person on
>the planet - their own god chose them! That is Trump - there is no
>card to play against that.
It turns them into narcissists who shut out reality and understand
neither the real world nor anybody else.
But as long as everybody defers to them there is no chance of their
changing.
>>Especially when they try to "prove" their original misrepresentation
>>is correct and we're not telling the truth about ourselves.
>>
>>They must also think amateur psychologising derogatory "reasons" why
>>we say what we do according to presumptions that don't even apply
>>outside their religion, is also polite.
>>
>>When they repeat them it is no longer an honest mistake and there is
>>no reason any more to show then they very courtesy they refused to
>>don't show us in the first place.
>>
>>When you are dealing with a fool, that is just below the surface and
>>it doesn't take much to bring it to the surface. But in any case when
>>they refuse to show any common sense or courtesy they can't complain
>>when they are treated the same way.
>>
>>After which they resort to more personal lies to "explain" why they
>>got treated as rudely as they treat us.
>>
>I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
>Not even a little hint of emotion?
No,moron.
Just frustration over having to explain what shouldn't even need
explaining, over and over again.
>I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
>It is part of being human. It gives us redeeming qualities like
>empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
>can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
>good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
>life worth living.
>
>BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>
>Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
>Dudley Milquetoast's?
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
>off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
Dunno about alt.philosophy but alt.atheism was set up by atheists for
atheists to discuss our own issues of which in many places there are
plenty.
Did you know that the first President George Bush said ion his
successful campaign for the 1988 election, that atheists shouldn't be
citizens because "this is one nation under God"?
And that's just one example.
M Purcell
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:20:55 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 23, 6:48 am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
> >> I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
> >> Not even a little hint of emotion?
>
> >> I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
> >> empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
> >> can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
> >> good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
> >> life worth living.
>
> >Tolerance, compromise, and understanding require reason rather than
> >emotion. Without emotion you can also chalk off anger, fear, hate,
> >depression and a whole lot of things that make life not worth living.
>
> I disagree. I think emotion is the basis, and reason is an
> explanation.
You seem to confuse rationalizing with reasoning; inventing a reason
after an action rather than having one prior to it, such as with an
emotional responce.
> Tolerance might stem from empathy, and without the
> ability to react yourself you might not feel empathy.
I see plenty of emotion but very little empathy.
> Yin and Yang - stress ain't all bad.
> There's the idea that without evil there'd be no good.
Both ideas imply a balance.
> >> BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>
> >This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
>
> That is painfully true. Marketeers, politicians, religionists and
> propagandists of all ilk always sell the product with emotion. People
> reacting emotionally don't take the time to reason or examine what
> they are being sold critically. This is VERY BAD, and we should
> always be on guard against those who would manipulate us with our
> emotions. (damn near everyone with an agenda)
Such as promoting emotion without mentioning the downside?
> But that doesn't make emotion bad - all things in moderation - all
> things together.
All our actions should be moderated by responcibility and reason.
> >> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
> >> Dudley Milquetoast's?
>
> >I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
>
> "Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful?"
> Mae West (plagiarized by Liberace)
> or
> "A thing worth doing is worth overdoing?"
> Robert A. Heinlein
More like "why do it if it isn't worth doing?"
> >> Just my two cents.
>
> >Here's your change.
>
> Thank you, Dr. Spock.
Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
> >> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
> >> off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>
> >How do you propose moderating it?
>
> Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
> decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
>
> THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
> the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
> snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
> at it.
>
> Why stop there? We need prophets! Prophets are the way to profits
> and prosperity (works for religion).
>
> Wouldn't it be lovely?
>
> Dissension isn't bad. Everyone has a different perspective. All
> things in moderation.
Carry on.
default
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Well, that is your opinion. I see religion as a form of mental
illness.
>
>>>I just treat lies as lies and stupidity as stupidity.
>>>
>>>Which unfortunately we get far too often from theists and otters
>>>coming to the atheist groups.
>>>
>>>They start off with misrepresentations and refuse to be corrected. But
>>>in their minds they must think this is polite.
>>>
>>Religious indoctrination can be absolute. That is what makes it
>>insidious. You cannot "correct" a person with a mental illness. It
>>is just like an obsession or compulsion - push them in a corner and
>>they will invent ways to justify their beliefs.
>>
>>To them it is more important that they keep the security religion
>>provides them, than it is to prove with logic or reason.
>
>Then they shouldn't come looking for people they know don't believe,
>to rudely and stupidly talk at them as if it were all true.
>
>>It is an ego thing too. They belong to this large club of ditto
>>heads. They meet regularly and sit around reinforcing the idea that
>>their god loves them and looks out for them and no one can tell them
>>any different - have an original idea no(!) that is "losing faith,"
>>and to them, losing faith is a bad thing - they go to hell if they
>>lose faith. They are convinced hell is real.
>
>Which would only be their problem if they kept it among themselves.
Ahh, this form of mental illness incorporates the idea that they must
convert others to their beliefs. I don't think that is right or moral
or good considerate behavior, but if it is part of the mental illness;
complaining about it makes as much sense as ridiculing a moron for
drooling.
It is rude, from the perspective of normal etiquette.
Good luck trying to change it.
>
>But instead they threaten us outside their religion with something
>from inside it they know we don't believe, for being outside it.
>
>Do you have a better word than "stupid"?
>
"Wrong"
>>Their Sunday reinforcement sessions also include the idea that their
>>selective lack of reason makes them superior to every other person on
>>the planet - their own god chose them! That is Trump - there is no
>>card to play against that.
>
>It turns them into narcissists who shut out reality and understand
>neither the real world nor anybody else.
Narcissists? Not even close to a psychiatric definition of
narcissism. It is about ego. Large groups of ditto heads reinforcing
their ideas of collective and individual grandeur.
Or it is narcissistic - but still within the limits of normal human
variability.
>
>But as long as everybody defers to them there is no chance of their
>changing.
Everybody? You don't seem deferential in this respect.
>
>>>Especially when they try to "prove" their original misrepresentation
>>>is correct and we're not telling the truth about ourselves.
>>>
>>>They must also think amateur psychologising derogatory "reasons" why
>>>we say what we do according to presumptions that don't even apply
>>>outside their religion, is also polite.
>>>
>>>When they repeat them it is no longer an honest mistake and there is
>>>no reason any more to show then they very courtesy they refused to
>>>don't show us in the first place.
>>>
>>>When you are dealing with a fool, that is just below the surface and
>>>it doesn't take much to bring it to the surface. But in any case when
>>>they refuse to show any common sense or courtesy they can't complain
>>>when they are treated the same way.
>>>
>>>After which they resort to more personal lies to "explain" why they
>>>got treated as rudely as they treat us.
>>>
>>I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
>>Not even a little hint of emotion?
>
>No,moron.
>
Ah SEE! There you did it again! I infer from your use of the
pejorative "moron" that I raised your ire. Anger is an emotional
response.
Doctor Spock would never, ever, call someone a moron.
>Just frustration over having to explain what shouldn't even need
>explaining, over and over again.
Frustration is emotional. Frustration is a FEELING.
Frustration:
The feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in
attaining your goals..
Deep chronic sense or state of insecurity and dissatisfaction arising
from unresolved problems or unfulfilled needs..
The experience of non fulfillment of some wish or need..
>
>>I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
>>It is part of being human. It gives us redeeming qualities like
>>empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
>>can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
>>good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
>>life worth living.
>>
>>BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>>
>>Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
>>Dudley Milquetoast's?
>>
>>Just my two cents.
>>
>>Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
>>off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>
>Dunno about alt.philosophy but alt.atheism was set up by atheists for
>atheists to discuss our own issues of which in many places there are
>plenty.
I understand, but you'll just get more frustrated if you dwell on it.
>
>Did you know that the first President George Bush said ion his
>successful campaign for the 1988 election, that atheists shouldn't be
>citizens because "this is one nation under God"?
>
>And that's just one example.
Yes. Personally I think GWB had the intelligence of a vegetable (a
particularly stoopid half-rotted root vegetable at that)
Still boggles my mind that someone so inept, idiotic, and
intrinsically evil can command so much power and prestige.
He should be hanged and a latrine built over his grave.
AND we (s)elected that bozo. Gives me the willies to think about it.
--
default
<sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 8:06�am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:20:55 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 23, 6:48�am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I can't read that without sensing some emotion. �Come on, 'fess up.
>> >> Not even a little hint of emotion?
>>
>> >> I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
>> >> It is part of being human. �It gives us redeeming qualities like
>> >> empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. �Without emotion you
>> >> can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
>> >> good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
>> >> life worth living.
>>
>> >Tolerance, compromise, and understanding require reason rather than
>> >emotion. Without emotion you can also chalk off anger, fear, hate,
>> >depression and a whole lot of things that make life not worth living.
>>
>> I disagree. �I think emotion is the basis, and reason is �an
>> explanation.
>
>You seem to confuse rationalizing with reasoning; inventing a reason
>after an action rather than having one prior to it, such as with an
>emotional responce.
I'm rationalizing and reasoning...
I figure humans are weak animals and have evolved to cooperate with
one another to survive.
>
>>�Tolerance might stem from empathy, and without the
>> ability to react yourself you might not feel empathy.
>
>I see plenty of emotion but very little empathy.
In order to empathize - I have to be able to FEEL or understand how
someone else is feeling by imagining myself in their position.
Feeling is emotion. I will avoid hurting someone because I know how
it feels. I see emotion and reason as inextricably linked when
explaining empathy.
I certainly don't reason it all out every time I make a choice that
includes empathy. I just know that if someone did that to me, it
would hurt me, and that's a good reason not to do it to someone else.
But reason alone? Without emotion I would lack the capacity to
understand empathy IMO.
>
>> Yin and Yang - stress ain't all bad. �
>> There's the idea that without evil there'd be no good.
>
>Both ideas imply a balance.
Yes.
>
>> >> BE Passionate! �Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>>
>> >This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
>>
>> That is painfully true. �Marketeers, politicians, religionists and
>> propagandists of all ilk always sell the product with emotion. �People
>> reacting emotionally don't take the time to reason or examine what
>> they are being sold critically. �This is VERY BAD, and we should
>> always be on guard against those who would manipulate us with our
>> emotions. (damn near everyone with an agenda)
>
>Such as promoting emotion without mentioning the downside?
The downside? (all things in moderation)
I think my life would be very empty without emotion.
Can you try to imagine what that would be like? Never sad, or happy,
never caring maybe? Could I live that way? There would be no purpose
unless I could conjure (rationalize) up one.
Life without emotion.
Do other animals feel (emotionally)? No reason to believe they don't.
>
>> But that doesn't make emotion bad - all things in moderation - all
>> things together.
>
>All our actions should be moderated by responcibility and reason.
AND tolerance for others who don't share our views.
We atheists slither alongside the religious fundamentalists when we
limit what they can do or believe.
>
>> >> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
>> >> Dudley Milquetoast's?
>>
>> >I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
>>
>> "Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful?"
>> Mae West (plagiarized by Liberace)
>> or
>> "A thing worth doing is worth overdoing?"
>> Robert A. Heinlein
>
>More like "why do it if it isn't worth doing?"
"If it hurts, stop doing it."
>
>> >> Just my two cents.
>>
>> >Here's your change.
>>
>> Thank you, Dr. Spock.
>
>Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
It wasn't intended that way. Is that what you infer?
Sorry. I'm cynical and sarcastic to a fault. Pleasantries diplomacy
and social graces aren't my strong suits.
>
>> >> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
>> >> off? �I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>>
>> >How do you propose moderating it?
>>
>> Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
>> decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
>>
>> THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
>> the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
>> snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
>> at it.
>>
>> Why stop there? �We need prophets! �Prophets are the way to profits
>> and prosperity (works for religion).
>>
>> Wouldn't it be lovely?
>>
>> Dissension isn't bad. �Everyone has a different perspective. �All
>> things in moderation.
>
>Carry on.
Like I have a choice? My wife: "It is not easy being Bob."
--
M Purcell
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:59:47 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 23, 8:06 am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 07:20:55 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell
>
> >> <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 23, 6:48 am, default <defa...@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> I can't read that without sensing some emotion. Come on, 'fess up.
> >> >> Not even a little hint of emotion?
>
> >> >> I donno about you, but I see emotion in nearly everything I say or do.
> >> >> It is part of being human. It gives us redeeming qualities like
> >> >> empathy tolerance compromise understanding, etc.. Without emotion you
> >> >> can chalk off love, tenderness, cuddling, appreciation for beauty,
> >> >> good music, art, wonderful beer, and a whole lot of things that make
> >> >> life worth living.
>
> >> >Tolerance, compromise, and understanding require reason rather than
> >> >emotion. Without emotion you can also chalk off anger, fear, hate,
> >> >depression and a whole lot of things that make life not worth living.
>
> >> I disagree. I think emotion is the basis, and reason is an
> >> explanation.
>
> >You seem to confuse rationalizing with reasoning; inventing a reason
> >after an action rather than having one prior to it, such as with an
> >emotional responce.
>
> I'm rationalizing and reasoning...
>
> I figure humans are weak animals and have evolved to cooperate with
> one another to survive.
We are social animals with the ability to reason which gives us an
advantage for survival.
> >> Tolerance might stem from empathy, and without the
> >> ability to react yourself you might not feel empathy.
>
> >I see plenty of emotion but very little empathy.
>
> In order to empathize - I have to be able to FEEL or understand how
> someone else is feeling by imagining myself in their position.
There are simularities of sensations amoung our species but more often
than not "empathy" is pure imagination.
> Feeling is emotion. I will avoid hurting someone because I know how
> it feels. I see emotion and reason as inextricably linked when
> explaining empathy.
Pain is a common sensation amoung our sepecies.
> I certainly don't reason it all out every time I make a choice that
> includes empathy. I just know that if someone did that to me, it
> would hurt me, and that's a good reason not to do it to someone else.
So there is a reason.
> But reason alone? Without emotion I would lack the capacity to
> understand empathy IMO.
You are confused about what hurts?
> >> Yin and Yang - stress ain't all bad.
> >> There's the idea that without evil there'd be no good.
>
> >Both ideas imply a balance.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> >> >> BE Passionate! Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>
> >> >This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
>
> >> That is painfully true. Marketeers, politicians, religionists and
> >> propagandists of all ilk always sell the product with emotion. People
> >> reacting emotionally don't take the time to reason or examine what
> >> they are being sold critically. This is VERY BAD, and we should
> >> always be on guard against those who would manipulate us with our
> >> emotions. (damn near everyone with an agenda)
>
> >Such as promoting emotion without mentioning the downside?
>
> The downside? (all things in moderation)
Then why promote an extreme?
> I think my life would be very empty without emotion.
You think? As in a kind of reasoning?
> Can you try to imagine what that would be like? Never sad, or happy,
> never caring maybe? Could I live that way? There would be no purpose
> unless I could conjure (rationalize) up one.
Why imagine when you can have a frontal lobotomy?
> Life without emotion.
Death without reason.
> Do other animals feel (emotionally)? No reason to believe they don't.
You need a reason?
> >> But that doesn't make emotion bad - all things in moderation - all
> >> things together.
>
> >All our actions should be moderated by responcibility and reason.
>
> AND tolerance for others who don't share our views.
Like murders?
> We atheists slither alongside the religious fundamentalists when we
> limit what they can do or believe.
Then don't.
> >> >> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
> >> >> Dudley Milquetoast's?
>
> >> >I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
>
> >> "Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful?"
> >> Mae West (plagiarized by Liberace)
> >> or
> >> "A thing worth doing is worth overdoing?"
> >> Robert A. Heinlein
>
> >More like "why do it if it isn't worth doing?"
>
> "If it hurts, stop doing it."
You need confirmation?
> >> >> Just my two cents.
>
> >> >Here's your change.
>
> >> Thank you, Dr. Spock.
>
> >Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
>
> It wasn't intended that way. Is that what you infer?
Why did you refer to me as "Dr. Spock"?
> Sorry. I'm cynical and sarcastic to a fault. Pleasantries diplomacy
> and social graces aren't my strong suits.
So you're an asshole?
> >> >> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
> >> >> off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>
> >> >How do you propose moderating it?
>
> >> Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
> >> decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
>
> >> THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
> >> the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
> >> snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
> >> at it.
>
> >> Why stop there? We need prophets! Prophets are the way to profits
> >> and prosperity (works for religion).
>
> >> Wouldn't it be lovely?
>
> >> Dissension isn't bad. Everyone has a different perspective. All
> >> things in moderation.
>
> >Carry on.
>
> Like I have a choice? My wife: "It is not easy being Bob."
There's always a choice, and a decision.
default
You write that like it is something special. I've spent hours
swimming with dolphins 20 miles offshore. I'm convinced they reason,
and see where other people and scientists who work with animals are
coming to that conclusion. But that is tangential to the discussion
at hand...
>
>> >>�Tolerance might stem from empathy, and without the
>> >> ability to react yourself you might not feel empathy.
>>
>> >I see plenty of emotion but very little empathy.
>>
>> In order to empathize - I have to be able to FEEL or understand how
>> someone else is feeling by imagining myself in their position.
>
>There are simularities of sensations amoung our species but more often
>than not "empathy" is pure imagination.
Oh? I don't think I'm unique, and I find it hard to believe you are
any different. A person with no ability to empathize? A serial
killer maybe. I see empathy as the basis for morality.
So morality is imagination too.
Love would be imagination. Anger too?
Exactly what is real in your opinion? Feelings aren't? Empathy might
be a little more complex than anger, but I believe is almost universal
in humans. (though I do wonder about some people - but that's just my
empathy/morality working)
>
>> Feeling is emotion. �I will avoid hurting someone because I know how
>> it feels. �I see emotion and reason as inextricably linked when
>> explaining empathy.
>
>Pain is a common sensation amoung our sepecies.
Emotional pain? Are we on the same page here?
>
>> I certainly don't reason it all out every time I make a choice that
>> includes empathy. �I just know that if someone did that to me, it
>> would hurt me, and that's a good reason not to do it to someone else.
>
>So there is a reason.
Of course; I never stated otherwise.
My position is that empathy (is real) and is ultimately based on an
evolutionary need to cooperate to survive. Reason explains empathy.
>
>> But reason alone? �Without emotion I would lack the capacity to
>> understand empathy IMO.
>
>You are confused about what hurts?
Nope? You?
>
>> >> Yin and Yang - stress ain't all bad. �
>> >> There's the idea that without evil there'd be no good.
>>
>> >Both ideas imply a balance.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> BE Passionate! �Be Opinionated! Be Emotional!
>>
>> >> >This seems to be the condition in which most people vote.
>>
>> >> That is painfully true. �Marketeers, politicians, religionists and
>> >> propagandists of all ilk always sell the product with emotion. �People
>> >> reacting emotionally don't take the time to reason or examine what
>> >> they are being sold critically. �This is VERY BAD, and we should
>> >> always be on guard against those who would manipulate us with our
>> >> emotions. (damn near everyone with an agenda)
>>
>> >Such as promoting emotion without mentioning the downside?
>>
>> The downside? �(all things in moderation)
>
>Then why promote an extreme?
I didn't think I was. That is reading more than I intended.
I was attempting to show (interject) a counterpoise to Mr. Lee's
denial of emotion. He seemed to be stating that he doesn't get
emotional over his frustration with Usenet posters - I was trying to
make the point that emotion is human and nothing to deny or be ashamed
of.
Counterpoise. All things in moderation. Balance.
Ironically.. I once had a girlfriend come at me with a kitchen knife.
Her explanation was that she was frustrated because I was "reacting
like a robot" - I forget the exact reason but it had something to do
with being possessive - I'm not, and not what she was used to.
>
>> I think my life would be very empty without emotion.
>
>You think? As in a kind of reasoning?
Yes. Was there a point you were making there?
>
>> Can you try to imagine what that would be like? �Never sad, or happy,
>> never caring maybe? �Could I live that way? �There would be no purpose
>> unless I could conjure (rationalize) up one.
>
>Why imagine when you can have a frontal lobotomy?
>
>> Life without emotion.
>
>Death without reason.
You are the one saying that I'm somehow denying reason. I'm not, that
is just your own inference. to something I wrote?
>
>> Do other animals feel (emotionally)? �No reason to believe they don't.
>
>You need a reason?
Only if you want to make a case that animals can't feel emotion. That
would be tangential and not relevant, but go for it if it makes you
happy.
>
>> >> But that doesn't make emotion bad - all things in moderation - all
>> >> things together.
>>
>> >All our actions should be moderated by responcibility and reason.
>>
>> AND tolerance for others who don't share our views.
>
>Like murders?
Huh? You lost me.
Did you mean to say "murderers" (who don't share our views)?
>
>> We atheists slither alongside the religious fundamentalists when we
>> limit what they can do or believe. �
>
>Then don't.
I don't.
>
>> >> >> Who the hell wants to live in a world populated by a bunch of insipid
>> >> >> Dudley Milquetoast's?
>>
>> >> >I'd much rather live in a world of responcible and rational people.
>>
>> >> "Too much of a good thing is simply wonderful?"
>> >> Mae West (plagiarized by Liberace)
>> >> or
>> >> "A thing worth doing is worth overdoing?"
>> >> Robert A. Heinlein
>>
>> >More like "why do it if it isn't worth doing?"
>>
>> "If it hurts, stop doing it."
>
>You need confirmation?
Nope.
>
>> >> >> Just my two cents.
>>
>> >> >Here's your change.
>>
>> >> Thank you, Dr. Spock.
>>
>> >Is that supposed to be an ad hominem?
>>
>> It wasn't intended that way. �Is that what you infer?
>
>Why did you refer to me as "Dr. Spock"?
>
>> Sorry. I'm cynical and sarcastic to a fault. �Pleasantries diplomacy
>> and social graces aren't my strong suits.
>
>So you're an asshole?
>
So you are reacting emotionally to the words of someone you don't know
and couldn't care less about? Your "reason" being?
I infer anger (hostility frustration) from your use of a pejorative
invective...
>> >> >> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
>> >> >> off? �I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>>
>> >> >How do you propose moderating it?
>>
>> >> Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
>> >> decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
>>
>> >> THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
>> >> the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
>> >> snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
>> >> at it.
>>
>> >> Why stop there? �We need prophets! �Prophets are the way to profits
>> >> and prosperity (works for religion).
>>
>> >> Wouldn't it be lovely?
>>
>> >> Dissension isn't bad. �Everyone has a different perspective. �All
>> >> things in moderation.
>>
>> >Carry on.
>>
>> Like I have a choice? �My wife: �"It is not easy being Bob."
>
>There's always a choice, and a decision.
Life is the only game in town.
--
M Purcell
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:37:02 -0700 (PDT), M Purcell
>
>
>
>
>
words murder might be all right if you are angry.
>
>
> >> >> >> Or you could moderate this group and kick the whining proselytizers
> >> >> >> off? I think that would be dull, and make it a lot less interesting.
>
> >> >> >How do you propose moderating it?
>
> >> >> Well I guess you'd have to decide who is an atheist then let them
> >> >> decide who they would allow in their (pristine exclusive) group.
>
> >> >> THEN we could be just like religionists - sitting around reinforcing
> >> >> the idea that atheism makes us vastly superior and acquire a patina of
> >> >> snobbery to boot. Maybe even invent a doctrine or dogma while we are
> >> >> at it.
>
> >> >> Why stop there? We need prophets! Prophets are the way to profits
> >> >> and prosperity (works for religion).
>
> >> >> Wouldn't it be lovely?
>
> >> >> Dissension isn't bad. Everyone has a different perspective. All
> >> >> things in moderation.
>
> >> >Carry on.
>
> >> Like I have a choice? My wife: "It is not easy being Bob."
>
> >There's always a choice, and a decision.
>
> Life is the only game in town.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
def...@defaulter.net
No. Not "all right." Empathy takes reason. It is conceivable that
a person could be so emotional that there is a lack of reason or it is
"swamped" (overshadowed, displaced, not effective) by emotion.
That is what the master manipulators count on when the sell us on
their agendas. Why all the negative political ads? Because they
work. (like it or not, that's what works on the average person)
Emotion displaces empathy and even morality if it is strong enough, or
reasoning ability is weak.
I doubt you can be empathizing and commiting murder, unless you see
someone in consuming excrutiating pain with no reasonable chance of
survival then even "murder" might seem acceptible from a moral
perspective, and empathy could lead a person to it.
I don't know if that is "murder." Imagine yourself at the Battle of
Azzincourt circa 14 something CE. You know damn well no one survives
a wound that leaves their intestines sliced and diced. Your comrade
is writhing on the ground with his guts trampled into the mud. The
empathetic thing to do is kill him, or you can just watch him die over
the next four hours.
The law may not agree with it, but the law is often created or
influenced by religions who think they alone control morality, and
somewhere in their own charter it says that suffering is pleasing to
their lord. (or some crap like that)
No. I'm just analylizing what you write, and exoressing an opinion.
No empathy involved.
If I were to deliberately try to invoke an emotional response, I might
use empathy to do so.
def...@defaulter.net
wrote:
>On Oct 18, 8:57�am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote innews:vvGdnXFmr5L4iyHR...@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 10/18/2010 2:38 AM, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>> >> On Oct 18, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee<ca...@optonline.net> �wrote:
>>
>> >>> Once again Aldoraz lies through its teeth.
>>
>> >> You see, there it is again. This brain dead drongo Lee does not know
>> >> that a lie must involve an intention to deceive. That is the meaning
>> >> of the word. Duh!
>>
>> > However, there is a difference between being "wrong" and "lying".
>> > When one is introduced to the inaccuracy of one's statements but one
>> > persists in the inaccurate statements, it goes from being "wrong" to
>> > "lying".
>>
>> > Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> No, but that is a socially acceptable way of avoiding hurt feelings.
>> Any falsehood, intentional or not, is a lie. �Lies can be, & frequently
>> are corrected before being made public. My perpetual lie, my daughters
>> are the most beautiful women to ever grace the planet. Perfectly true,
>> but only to me. �To every other father worthy of the name, an obvious
>> lie.
>>
>
>Well, I personally don't consider that a lie. I feel the same way
>about my daughter, I'm not lying, to me it's simply a natural
>statement of a father's love for his daughters.
>
>If course, in my daughter's case, it's true. :D
So, hypothetically speaking, if your 200 pound wife asks you if she is
fat?
Do you tell the truth?
Reasoning - she's got a mirror, so she's not really asking if she is
fat. She already knows it. What she is looking for is reasurance
that you still care for her.
I would... Tell her that we have both changed over the years (avoiding
a lie) and it doesn't affect how I feel about her.
Or I could just lie. Then she and I knows that I can and will lie to
her. A lie is insulting, it undermines trust, and trust is
essential to relationships.
No "little white lie" no wiggle room.
Christopher A. Lee
You have to know when to give the honest answer or the diplomatic one.
Which requires the other person to know you're being diplomatic.
We've all had fundies re-interpret the diplomatic one to turn it into
something else because it gets filtered through their perspective.