Christians are pussies.

Just check out the music they listen to if you don't believe me.


Plus, Christians don't enlist in times of war for Israel.


(Who are the Choosen People, and require Christian protection.)

My primary concern is that a fellow Human Being follows a thought process that "promises" a Life Ever-Lasting, or a Paradise if, it kills itself for a god.

Brain Dead Humans...

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

problem with atheists....
they think someone wants to hear their life stories. you fucking missed the boat you sorry sucker and ruined your children's lives by spreading your weak thinking. sometimes the key to not being an theist, is simply to be a man.

by the way, whats your older daughter look like? I got some pills that might be worth her company.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes

Yeah, I see that is working for ya.

__________________
GWB: "I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."

honor the fallen;
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Iraq body count
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


By Norman Schwarzkopf
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do; the hard part is doing it."

Validity is not the issue. Yes, you do have a different definition than me, thats been established. Its also, in our discourse, been established that those differences are quite possible. Now, two people, with two ideas. Is it "control" to convince one party of another party's perspective? You'd be a very willing participant in your redefining.
Let me point your attention to a remark you made in this first quoted paragraph "You can argue about shading, but not the fundamental essence of the word". Let me give you a bit of a etymology lesson to illustrate my point. The word Gravity. The definition is that objects are attracted, or rather pulled towards, other objects of higher density. The word Gravity comes from the word Gravitas. Gravitas is more of a reference towards love. Its a latin word the means an attraction between people. When we "discovered" (I would say created) Gravity, we re-appropriated an old word and made it into a new word. Let me expand my point beyond a simple word. Lets take a metaphor, not a poetic metaphor, though similar, but a metaphor in terms of philosophy of language. Gravitas is a perfect example, but another: The earth is the center of the universe. This concept permeated many cultures for centuries. However, we eventually invented a new metaphor for the earth in relation to the universe: the earth follows around the sun. This, like a new definition, is the principle with which I base my claim that we can and frequently do change the meanings of words. Think about words and metaphors that have evolved out of words we already know, soccermom (an official word in the dictionary now), or computer. Computer, a concept which existed before anything we call a computer these days was even a thought. Its definition has broadened quite significantly since its first uses.
My point, I am totally within my means to seek to redefine a word, despite not being as historically acclaimed as your friend Fuxley. Different people operate with different definitions all the time. Some see love as habitual, others as romantic, still more as biological. Its context varies and thus its definition varies. And people adjust. If I were to say to you "go google Richard Rorty" the metaphor "google" would make sense to you, but not to, say, the bush men of the Kalahari. It doesn't mean googling doesnt mean what it means, just because certain people haven't literalized the metaphor. Literalization being the process by which a metaphor (a previously meaningless phrase) becomes a definition.

I agree and find myself living in their shadows. Which is why I'd like to redefine atheism, to avoid this confusion, to help set the record straight about how WE (and I mean you too) really feel about this issue. We shouldn't be made to fear calling ourselves atheist for free of being grouped in with people we might not agree with ourselves. This is the process all groups struggle with, but why divide unnecessarily?


True, which is why I'd like to recommend you study Richard Rorty's concept of Irony, I think you and many agnostics might find it preferable even to atheism or agnosticism.

But you and I don't wish to have the debate. I mean, if I'm mistaken inform me, but aren't we talking about an agnostic being a special kind of atheist who doesn't argue against religion? Me, personally, I've recommended my line of thinking to many stable intelligent people, but mostly I recommend Christianity, I think it serves people well in a pragmatic and even utilitarian sense. I mean, we can agree I bet, neither atheism nor agnosticism has helped someone get off drugs, or stop being a violent person, or made them love their family more.

Agreed! I made a shirt.

Damn, les, to be honest (and you'll note this being the first time I havent responded to an attack), I feel really really bad about what I said, and coming to grips with humanizing someone on the internet is new for me. I'm sorry, seriously!

What's wrong with not knowing? I'm an atheist and people will ask about some scientific thing that scientists haven't figured out and I say "we don't know... YET."

Suburbaneite said, It is generally agreed that A.A is the most successful of all the dry out programmes. I got sober in A.A, so this isn't a condemnation of "the Programme"

A.A. - whose 12 Steps are a pseudo Christian salvation experience - doesn't publish statistics, but a rule of thumb it uses is that only 3% of those who enter the programme will achieve long term sobriety - i.e. over 4 dry years.

Anyone would agree these are pretty piss poor success statistics!

In essence, A.A says you should get yourself a Higher Power be it the Messiah, Mahommed, or the Man-in-the-Moon, and fatalistically place you faith in Him/Her/It.

Logically then, the idea will work - i.e. three in a hundred drunks will be dry after four years - if your HP is Jewsarse or Joe Stalin. Much depends on the predominant politico-religious customs in your country.

For instance, I've no doubt faith in Chairman Mao would have sobered up far more than 3% of rummy Red Guards.

I practice the principles of AA's 12 Steps, yet I'm an agnostic on the cusp of militant atheism. And I haven't touched a drop of "the demon drink" or a drug for 22 years.

As to which drunks - the lapsed but rebirthed Christians or the non-believers - end up the most decent family values members of our plastic society per medium of A.A, I've seen desperate atheist and agnostics (and let's face it, an atheist has gotta be fucking desperate if they join AA!) hounded out of A.A by the bored-agin' God Botherers, who run effectively AA, and subsequently die from their addiction.

But I have never seen the reverse.

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes

3%? fuck, this country cant do anything right, we import drugs, criminalize them, and then we dont even help get you clean, just right with Jesus. Its sick.

Not one Poster follows suite...?


No one worrys over the Islamic Assholes "willing to kill themselves", and us.

Over a sick piece of shit named allah?

Maybe you Liberal Assholes deserve to be slain...

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

I think you missed the point. Agnostics worry about all the religious assholes
willing to kill themselves and others. The particular faith is irrelevant.

Do as you will provided you harm no other....is where I start.