Roots
January 30, 2005 | 187 Comments
Recent conversation with a family member
“So, when did you decide to become an Atheist?”
“I was born an Atheist, I decided to become a Theist and then reverted back to my roots.”
– Chris M
January 30, 2005 | 187 Comments
Recent conversation with a family member
“So, when did you decide to become an Atheist?”
“I was born an Atheist, I decided to become a Theist and then reverted back to my roots.”
– Chris M
January 30th, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
I found out I was an atheist when I was 7 years old, in a Bible class. Before then, church was something Mom dragged me too on Sunday morning, but I had no idea what it was all about. Once I knew – how in heck can anyone believe this crap?
January 30th, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
For me, the path to atheism started with two things:
1. My parents started a Unitarian-Universalist church, many of which members were athetists or agnostics;
2. The argument that trying to determine “the one, true religion” led one logically to suspect all of them.
January 31st, 2005 @ 9:53 am
My parents never pushed anything on us, belief or disbelief. When I was about 5, my best friend told me I was going to hell for not believing in Jesus. I knew right then that the whole thing was a crock, and have been an unrepentant atheist ever since.
January 31st, 2005 @ 12:40 pm
I also grew up as a Unitarian-Universalist. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut (I think) it’s the least you could be, if you had to be something.
We were taught that all of the great religions were equal in value and had important messages, such as the goden rule.
I didn’t become an atheist until I was in my thirties and actually read the Bible. I couldn’t believe some of the primitive superstitious barbarities of the Old Testament. If more people would actually read that book, the number of atheists would skyrocket!
BTW, anyone who hasn’t read Thomas Paine’s immortal 1794 critique of the Bible, “The Age of Reason” is really missing something amazing.
It goes in and out of print, but if your local library doesn’t have a copy, I believe it can also be found online.
January 31st, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Gotta concurr with rec’ing “The Age of Reason”. Paine wasn’t an atheist per se but he certainly was no christian.
I’ve already given my li’l history. For clarity, I was basically Agnostic until a few years ago when I realized that I was just hanging on to the possibility of God because of emotional needs. The needs are still there but I don’t miss the non-existent assistance of any higher-power. Imagine that… ;}
January 31st, 2005 @ 3:47 pm
Gawd and Jeebus have had at least 4 cracks at me. Satan must have hardened my heart big time for me to shrug off an Anglican catechism, five years of Catholic school and then a brow-beaten acceptance of JAMPLAS when I was nineteen.
None of them stuck. Not being prayed over, having an exorcism performed on my, nor being dragged to a Charismatic healing ceremony…
God sucks at this recruitment thing if he couldn’t even rope in a credulous teenager like me. And I’ve been a closeted atheist since I was at least 12 or 13.
In my late teens, I got interested in comparative religion and religious history. That pretty much did in any chance the Gawd meme had of implanting itself in my brain. Now, whenever I’m forced to listen to believers, the whole thing sounds like a gigantic spiritual Chewbacca Defence.
January 31st, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
I’m a gonna need some help.
Since this Post is kind of ’bout how we got started as godless folk, I hope you’ll all stop by my attempt at bloggin’.
These Carnivals just got me so darned fired up & ready to Blog!
http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/
Tonight I go huntin’ fer Topics! LOL!
January 31st, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
I never got what people meant when they said “I went to church on Sunday”. I always woke up and played. Then one day someone invited my family to a church, and we went. I never wanted to go again. I would rather play on Sunday mornings than go to a big building with itchy clothes on and listen to some fat man talk about how I’m evil and will go to hell. Who wouldn’t? Atheism works because it is logical, and built-in. Religions are memes, something that is not inherently logical. If gawd does exist, and he wants me as a willing follower, all he has to do is make 1+1 =! 2. I’m waiting…
January 31st, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
OK, Michael, I went over to your blog to try to get things going!
By the way, here’s a link if you want to read “The Age of Reason” online:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html
January 31st, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
When I read Carl Sagan’s “Contact” I realized what a dumbass I had been I decided I was through with organized religion.
January 31st, 2005 @ 10:12 pm
I became an atheist about when my brother did. He explained it all to me one day, and I realized just how moronic I really was up until that point. This all happened when I was 10 years old, which I’m rather proud of. After reading “The Da Vinci Code,” I’m a lot more of an atheist than I was before.
February 1st, 2005 @ 6:08 pm
Is anyone willing to give it one more chance? What will it take to change anyones mind?
February 1st, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
It would take undeniable proof. Give us that, and we will follow. And I dont meen you prayer works bullshit. Show me proof that god exists. You know, something solid like finding the words I AM GOD writen on all the atoms of the universe. Something no one could deny.
February 1st, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
I was born a theist, I decided to become an atheist, and then reverted back to my roots.
February 1st, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
My standard for the proof of God’s existence would be if he revealed himself, undeniably, during Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade.
Now, come on you heathen non-believers, wouldn’t that do it?
And, come to think of it, why wouldn’t God want to strut his stuff in such a great pageant?
February 1st, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
Prayertulip said:Is anyone willing to give it one more chance? What will it take to change anyones mind?
You mean does publishing entire evangelical tracts convince anyone of Jesus’ divinity?
Not bloody likely.
Try answering this question with something other than a cut and paste job from an apologetics site.
If you could do that, I’ll be your huckleberry.
February 1st, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
omni said: I was born a theist, I decided to become an atheist, and then reverted back to my roots.
Ask him about the strawberries.
February 1st, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
Paul: And, come to think of it, why wouldn’t God want to strut his stuff in such a great pageant?
I think there should be a reality TV show: The Convert. 16 gods: only one of them is real. Choose correctly and our contestant gets eternal life…
And wait until you see next week’s twist!
February 2nd, 2005 @ 5:07 am
Awww Schemanista you just stole my next blog topic!
:{
BTW Omni, I tested that “I was born theist” proposition in a marternity ward once. Not ONE of those infants claimed to believe in God!
Well, one of ‘em did puke on me before the nurses dragged me outta there. I guess you could equate THAT with a profession of faith…
February 2nd, 2005 @ 7:01 am
Nah. That’s just wierd. Unless your’e a pentacostal. They do some strange stuff.
February 2nd, 2005 @ 8:05 am
If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large
deposit in my name in a Swiss bank.
– Woody Allen
February 2nd, 2005 @ 8:55 am
Omin, alot of the stuff you propose to believe is Rediculous IMO. But #20 is why I always look forward to reading your posts anyway!
Thanks dude!
February 2nd, 2005 @ 10:53 am
MBains: Awww Schemanista you just stole my next blog topic!
Blog away. The issue is a lot bigger than both of us and I’d love to read your take on it.
I’m going to try to pick up the gauntlet you’ve cast but that’s a whole lot of writing for a little guy like me.
February 2nd, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
I’ve always been an atheist. Religion (especially Christianity) has always seemed too stupid to believe in, even as a kid.
February 3rd, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
I became a Christian at age 7.
After years of study on the origins, errancy etc. of the Bible, I lost faith in it as “the Word of God”.
Since everything I hung my Christianity on was a result of Biblical doctrine, it crumbled & I was able to see it for what it was, a human concoction with no basis in reality.
I can only believe that it took me till I was 50 years old to see this, is largely due to the fact that my wife & family on both are all (except 1 inlaw) Christians.
It was the most difficult decision of my life, but one that had to be made in light of all I had found out.
Thank I got the courage to step out of the dark & into the light.
Thank you all (bloggers like you) who helped make it a reality for me.
February 5th, 2005 @ 1:11 pm
Thanks. I try. Don’t get me wrong, their hearts are in the right place, but they’re the christian equivalent of the kid in the “pretty fly for a white guy” video by the offspring. They try WAY too hard.
February 8th, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
who could refuse a nude granny
February 9th, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
Wow! Reading through this thread has really explained a lot.
Erik — As a five-year-old, a friend tells you that you will go to hell without Jesus and you “knew right then the whole thing was a crock.” Don’t you think a decision made with the intellectual capacity of a 5-year-old deserves a little re-examination?
Paul — If you grew up UU then I truly am sorry. It does not even approach biblical Christianity. I can certainly understand one’s distaste for all things religious if UU is your primary example. And while a search for the “one, true” religion might, in fact, lead logically to questioning them all, it is a serious leap of logic to out-of-hand conclude they are all false merely because you suspect them all.
Lizzie — If you formulate your opinion of Christianity based on “The Da Vinci Code” … a novel … do I really need to say more?
February 9th, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Frank,
I’m a little hurt that you couldn’t touch on my apostasy. And here I thought we were becoming such good friends.
;o)
February 9th, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
Frank,
The re-examination process has since been and is currently ongoing, and my atheism has only strengthened. In fact, I was a weak atheist for a long time and in the last few years have moved to strong atheism. I actually invited a number of people to try their best to get me to believe — Catholic, Unitarian, Methodist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormonism, and even Buddhist. Priests and laypersons, male and female, young and old, scholars and greenhorns, my eldest brother included. No offense, Frank, but it’s crap. All of it. And now I’m doubly sure. There’s some nice poetry and literature, and some good philosophy in there, but I have not found any valid reason to believe any of the supernatural stuff, and lots of reasons to not believe it.
February 9th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
I was born an atheist and raised in an honest hellfire and brimstone fundamentalist church. Kids in my town were sheltered from anything that remotely questioned the faith. I didn’t even hear about evolution, the big bang, etc until I was about 16 or 17. My loss of faith happened pretty soon after that. Fundamentalists aren’t good at answering questions. They usually just tell you to shut up or you will go to hell. I traveled back to my hometown this Christmas and saw some old friends, and I realized there is no halfway when you grow up in that environment. They are either proud atheists like me, or still fundie knuckle draggers.
February 9th, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
schemanista — I certainly didn’t mean to leave you out deliberately. Don’t feel slighted, I consider you every bit the heathen as anyone else here
) I just didn’t see anything in your own account that warranted a comment at this time. Although the characterization of the “Chewbacca” defense was dang funny.
Erik — No offense taken at your statement about it all being crap. I kind of figure that to be the attitude of most people here , hence the name of the website. I wouldn’t be here if such statements offended me. Now …
I’ve no doubt you’ve examined and re-examined this subject. We’ve talked enough here for me to see you have drawn some conclusions based on things other than the your initial 5-year-old decision. However, based on your statement that you “knew right then the whole thing was a crock” certainly leads me to wonder about the objectivity of your re-examination. Isn’t there the slightest possibility that you, having already made a firm decision, didn’t honestly consider the evidence before you but rather made sure the evidence you did see fit your preconceived notion of it all being a “crock?”
I’m making no accusations, just wondering if you would elaborate a bit for me.
February 9th, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
I wonder if I might ask for a bit of help …
I’m helping with a youth discussion group tonight and the topic is “Why would a god who is all good and all powerful allow bad things to happen?” Now, I’ve seen most of you argue some form of this at one point or another and was wondering if you wouldn’t mind hitting me with your best and hardest questions on this subject. I’ll tell you up front that I plan to take your questions (should you submit any) to the group and hit them with the same questions. Obviously my intent is not to drive them away from Christianity but to expose them to the fact that there are those out there who disagree whole-heartedly with the biblical worldview. At my church we have no intention of training up a batch of, as LJK so politely put it, “fundie knuckle draggers.” I’m not afraid to hit these kids with the hard stuff and let the chips fall where they may.
Do I have any takers? Or am I off base for asking you to help out the other side?
February 9th, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
Frank- Isn’t there the slightest possibility that you, having already made a firm decision, didn’t honestly consider the evidence before you but rather made sure the evidence you did see fit your preconceived notion of it all being a “crock?”‘
This can be turned onto you as well Frank. You apparently have seen evidence that snakes talk, people fly, arks filled with all species existed, planets stopped moving, and dead people come back to life.
Where is it please? And don’t say the bible, thats a belief. Show how any of this is remotely possible.
As to your question-’Why would a god who is all good and all powerful allow bad things to happen’
The answer is simple unless you rationalize it away like you will.
A. He doesn’t exist
B. He is not all powerful
C. He is not all good
D. B and C
E. He wouldn’t if he is all powerful and all good.
So if your honest thats what you’ll say. or you could say ‘I just don’t know, rather than actually pretending that you have the ‘truth’, just say you really don’t know. That would be honest also.
P.S. Don’t think the kids don’t already know and will smell out you rationilizations eventually. They will search.
‘
February 9th, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
Nice try, Frank. No dice. Even as a snot-nosed 5-year old, it wasn’t difficult to tell that the system of rewards and punishments of Christianity is unjust and irrational. You might as well ask me to give fascism a whirl (please do not take this as equating the two).
On top of that, what am I supposed to give a chance to? After all, faith is the cornerstone of your belief. My inquiries have led me to the conclusion that faith is a uniquely bad way of knowing anything. So yes, I give any statement that is the result of faith the old hairy eyeball. Then again, I did that with evolution, too. But it at least has decent evidence in its favor.
The other problem with your proposal is that you yourself will now need to apply it to every faith system in the world. After all, I may be presumptuous, but I will assume that you have been a Christian from a young age. Your learning is therefore quite possibly tainted with deeply held notions that you took as the truth because you heard it from people you considered trustworthy authorities. Still, to truly understand all other faiths, you will need to completely rid yourself of these notions. Good luck.
February 9th, 2005 @ 11:50 pm
Frank,
First of all I appreciate you taking my comment in jest (as it was meant). Secondly, at least you’re teaching the kids in your youth group to think. Anyway, it
February 10th, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
Great post #37, LK.
I look at the contradictions of omniscience, omni-benevolence, and omnipotence as similar to the contradictions of infinite numbers.
Absolutes and infinities are sometimes tough things to make logical.
February 10th, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
Not to mention that omniscience and free will are incompatible preceps that no theologian has been able to justify since they started having the debate.
If an omnscient God knew from the get go his created billions would choose wrongly and created them anyway, he has the responsibility for creating such a mess. After all, the billions are doing exactly what he knew they would.
So in effect he would have created hell before Adam and Eve knowing ,who and how many would be there before Adam did anything in the mythological garden. Makes the entire thing rather odd.
February 10th, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
Free will? If one is offered eternal paradise for choosing one & eternal suffering for choosing the other, is it free will? More like coersion.
If sin was “imputed to all men through Adam”, why isn’t salvation imputed to all men through Jesus?
Supposedly God created us because he wanted creatures that would choose to follow him. Yet we read that Satan chose to disobey God & so did 1/3 of the angels with him. That means that 2/3 of the angels chose to stay. God doesn’t need us.
February 14th, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
Damnright said:
February 15th, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
To become an ‘Atheist’ is not a decision that one makes.
Athiesm is a logical and reasonable state of neutrality when one is presented with insufficient support for theistic views.
February 15th, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
1down12togo:Athiesm is a logical and reasonable state of neutrality when one is presented with insufficient support for theistic views.
I’m more of the: “Does God exist? From a historical, logical and materialist perspective, the balance of evidence suggests a probability asymptotically approaching zero, therefore I will assume ‘no’ ” brand of atheists.
Do you consider that “neutral”?
February 15th, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
Schemanista states: “the balance of evidence suggests…”.
What evidence do you speak of?
February 15th, 2005 @ 7:45 pm
1down12togo: What evidence do you speak of?
Um, the historical, logical and materialistic evidence.
[tap tap]
Is this thing on?
February 16th, 2005 @ 9:53 am
Hard to ‘balance’ the evidence when there is little evidence to balance… either for or against… that is why I went from fundie to atheist…
February 17th, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
There is a tremendous lack of actual evidence for anything in the bible. i can give you a few glaring examples:
1) Jerusalem was the center of the intellectual world during the alleged time of Jesus. There were many scholars during that time, and many historical, first-hand accounts of events that took place during that time. If Jesus did all the things the bible says, why is there not one single recorded account of Jesus anywhere outside the bible? The only single reference is a paragraph in one historian’s text, and even biblical scholars agree that is was inserted much later to provide ‘evidence’ and is discounted as a real account.
2) During the alleged time of Jecus, there was no town or city called Nazareth.
3) All of the texts in the new testament have been dated as having been written between 20 and 75 years after the acual events are supposed to have occurred.
4) There is no way to reconcile the accounts of the resurrection from the 4 gospels. There are so many contradictions that they cannot all be correct.
5) Pontius Pilate was a meticulous record-keeper. There are many examples of that in history from that time. That being the case, why are there no records at all regarding the fact that he executed the ‘king of the jews’? That would have been something he would have had to report back to Rome.
6) Gospels from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Q documents were excluded from the bible, primarily because they contradict basic principals of the bible’s version of Jesus. Despite this, there are other texts that are included. Why censor your god’s teachings?
I could go on for days, but the fact remains that the burden of proof is on those who believe, and faith is a cop-out used when you can no longer handle the debate!
February 17th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
DamnRight: Hard to ‘balance’ the evidence when there is little evidence to balance… either for or against… that is why I went from fundie to atheist…
Maybe you and I mean something different when we say “evidence”?
I find that there’s scads of ‘facts’ to counter the claims that the bible and Christianity have a material or historical factual basis. And no, I’m not going to outline it for you. I’ve already made my bones here defending evolution.
Just to be clear, I don’t accept the “You can’t conclusively prove God doesn’t exist, therefore he exists” argument. I cannot conclusively prove that “frammit goskits don’t distimm blue doshes” either, but I’m pretty safe in saying that’s a meaningless statement.
I see no material proof that any supernatural forces are at work in our world and therefore no reason to assume that they exist. That includes Harvey the Rabbit, Santa Claus and yes, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. If you have said, proof, spill it: we’re all ears.
Capisci?
February 17th, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
I don’t believe there’s much if any ‘god doesn’t exist’ evidence… simply, no ‘god does exist’ evidence… I wouldn’t mind a small example of ‘god doesn’t exist’ evidence…
February 17th, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
BTW… facts showing the Bible to be inaccurate or completely wrong in many parts is not evidence God doesn’t exist… just that the God of the Bible is highly improbable…
February 17th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
Well, one proof of non-existence comes via Reductio Ad Absurdum from errors in natural processes. If there were an intelligent controlling God, normal processes would not go awry. For example, conjoined twins are exactly what one would expect if the fetal development process derails and does the best it can to recover without the presence of an intelligent guide.
To argue that an omnipotent God exists who makes us in his image, you must argue absurdly that God is a conjoined twin, or does not know what he is doing, or is sometimes unable to create a perfect baby.
February 18th, 2005 @ 2:18 am
Man was made in God’s image then FELL. Flesh humans are a fallen creation.
February 18th, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Steve: Man was made in God’s image then FELL. Flesh humans are a fallen creation.
At least 500 other Steves disagree with you.
February 18th, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
Even after humans fell (because God screwed up their design), he could have started over and made them a tad stronger.
When I write a computer program that has a bug in it, I don’t blame the program for failing. I fix it.
February 18th, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
God doesn’t want robots in His Creation. Certainly God could create everybody perfect, but then everybody would be merely a created ‘thing’. God created souls/beings perfect and then allowed them to fall and then gave those souls a way to develop real consciousness, real will, and real understanding, so that when those souls do develop and ‘return’ to the level they were initially created at they are conscious beings rather than mere created things. It’s the drama of God’s Plan, and there are consequences for failing. The mechanics and architecture of this Plan is called the Covenant of Redemption.
February 18th, 2005 @ 10:03 pm
Since there is no God, you make no sense.
February 18th, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
You spend alot of time and energy talking about something you say doesn’t exist. As Montesquieu said: Christians and atheists both talk about God; Christians talk of what they revere; atheists talk of what they unconsciously fear…
February 18th, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
Atheists,
You don’t have to remain unconscious though. There is very little that afflicts atheists that just even a degree of self-awareness won’t cure…
February 19th, 2005 @ 12:07 am
Steve:There is very little that afflicts atheists that just even a degree of self-awareness won’t cure…
Oh do tell: what are my afflictions? Jeebus gives you the ability to do remote diagnosis based on internet forum postings does he?
February 19th, 2005 @ 12:37 am
Yes, that is indeed curious: it takes energy to repel even that which makes no sense.
February 19th, 2005 @ 4:43 pm
Steve, the ridiculous comment that atheists fear that God exists is born from either stupidity or desperation. I’ll let everyone here form his own opinion how that applies to the quoter and the quoted. Atheists have no reason to fear, all we need for a free pass to “Heaven” is to just “believe,” an act which can be performed at any time –even on the deathbed– and for which only mindlessness is required (I guess that’s the hard part for atheists). On the other hand, if there is no God, you Bible Beaters are fucked cause’ there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, and your lives have been a fraud.
February 19th, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
If not a fraud, at the very least, a waste. It is only too bad that they will not know what a waste they made of their lives since their consciousness will cease to exist upon death, just like everyone else. (But of course, I am only saying this b/c deep down I am afraid to admit that God is real. Please do not tell anyone. Thanks!)
February 19th, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
At the moment that you decide to believe if you don’t truly get above your vanity and worldly pride your belief won’t be real. This is what you currently can’t see about yourselves; you’re prisoners of your vanity and worldly pride. You are in a prison cell in your inner being and any voice that gets to you to tell you how to get out of that prison cell is filtered through your prison wardens vanity and worldly pride. You need to recognize this and break free. The walls of your cell are not as real as your prison wardens would lead you to believe.
The key to freedom is to recognize that there is something higher than your vanity and worldly pride. What is higher than vanity and worldly pride is what created you. Your Creator is higher than vanity and worldly pride. When you recognize this, when you go through the painful process of dying to vanity and wordly pride and awakening to the chain-of-command that is above you then you become free of the darkness that you currently reside in. You don’t understand faith become you don’t recognize that chain-of-command above you, and you don’t have what it gives an individual. The river of water of life. The Holy Spirit. God Himself in your inner being. Regeneration. True freedom and autonomy. All you can see now is the Kingdom of Darkness (even in ‘church’ things). Understand that the same darkness you live in exists in the visible churches to one degree or another (in these times to a great – if not total – degree). It’s nothing to mock or laugh at, though, when you are a prisoner of the same darkness…
To believe you have to recognize that which is higher than you and that is real. What created you is real. To get to the point where you can recognize what is truly higher than ‘you’ you have to take on your vanity and worldly pride and get above them. Allow them to die…
February 19th, 2005 @ 7:14 pm
Steve: To believe you have to recognize that which is higher than you and that is real. What created you is real. To get to the point where you can recognize what is truly higher than ‘you’ you have to take on your vanity and worldly pride and get above them. Allow them to die…
Wernike’s aphasia strikes again.
February 19th, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
Steve, is it possible that you are in a prison created by others?
That you are the one not listening?
That you were created by your parents?
That your brain is your chain-of-command?
That you are your inner being?
That you have autonomy already?
February 20th, 2005 @ 12:44 am
Effectual calling cuts through the circular nonsense in your post, June. A regenerate Christian realizes that when we engage atheists we are attempting to describe colors to sightless people, yet God calls on us to do just that. Only God can convert an individual, yet He uses His elect in that process as well.
Jesus saves, June. There are two Kingdoms: the Kingdom of Darkness and the Kingdom of Light. You currently reside in the Kingdom of Darkness. More than that you are a prisoner of the Kingdom of Darkness, and only Jesus can save you from the darkness and forces you are currently imprisoned within. The illusion that the Kingdom of Darkness infuses into you keeps you a loyal prisoner. Also, it is a painful experience to awaken out of the prison. When an individual who is in illusion in that prison of darkness begins to awaken the vision of the prison itself and of being in it is very powerfully painful to endure. The individual wants to retreat back into comfortable illusion. As an individual who resides in the Kingdom of Light all I can say to you is: read the Word of God. That is the environment in which regeneration is effected, when it is effected by God. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
And be strong when you begin to realize where you are… You will also be confronted by your fellow prisoners (they don’t want anybody to awaken and be saved from the darkness). It’s a difficult process, but when you have God in you you are stronger than any force that would impede you…
February 20th, 2005 @ 4:01 am
Steve, you are guilty of plenty of circular reasoning on your own. There is no way you can prove that your views are nothing more than delusions from your own mind and you haven’t. You talk about kingdoms, but there is no way for you to prove they are actually existant in reality instead of merely in your own mind, and you haven’t. The feeling of being stronger due to god is an illusion created by your mind. Thats how I view it. You may feel differently, but there isn’t any way you could prove me wrong. Emotions have been shown to be chemical impulses in the brain, your feeling of strength is such an emotion. Similiarly, if its not a soundwave that everyone can hear, the word of god is also an illusion of your mind. For all we can see, you are asking us to go willingly insane by encouraging voices in our heads and holding bizarre beliefs.
We can both accuse each other of being prisoners forever, but I prefer the logic and science of reality over imaginary kingdoms and whatnot. Kingdoms don’t seem very 20th century anyway. Why can’t it be the Republic of Light, and the Republic of Darkness? Or be more honest and say “The Dictatorship of Light” or the “Dictatorship of Darkness”?
Hmm, so how long before Steve resorts to quoting the bible directly? (which is of course another example of circular reasoning. It would only apply if we believe the word of the bible to be 100% true, and we don’t. It just seems such a cliche on this site that sooner or later, we start seeing bible cut and paste jobs from people like him.)
February 20th, 2005 @ 4:30 am
Effectual calling shreads the eternal undergraduate’s revelations of circular reasoning and other breathless claims of fallacies. This is something you’ll just have to view as the deaf man views any talk of Bach’s Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin.
As for Kingdoms vs. tyrannies… Christ is King. The Kingdom of God is very much a Kingdom. And God gave this world over to Satan and calls his reign of darkness a kingdom. A dictatorship, as you put it, is when an equal reigns over equals in a tyrannical manner. Jesus Christ is not the equal of the subjects of His Kingdom. Jesus is God. Kingdoms are good when God is King.
And Steve has already quoted the Bible…
February 20th, 2005 @ 8:29 am
A kingdom by any other name is a dictatorship. Since when in history has a kingdom been ruled by anyone other than a human being? Do you believe in the divine right of kings? Do you think that Elizabeth’s royal bloodline makes the monarchy superior to everyones? The idea that you should blindly obey someone just because you think he is superior to you is a pretty dangerous line of thought, for that matter. In fact, there is the question about animal exploitation. If its within our power to do so, should we try to eliminate as much as possible our exploitation of animals for food and other products? But since you don’t mind god exploiting us and you think nothing bad would come of it, I guess we have your answer to that.
I’m just pointing out the fallacy of your arguing your views here without showing any evidence that we’d recognize. You call us blind, we call you mentally ill, though society may not recognize you as such. Hence we are at an impasse. Well, actually since there are logical and scientific fallacies about god’s existence mentioned on this site that you either fail to acknowledge or incorrectly diagnose as “circular reasoning”, maybe it isn’t such an impasse. And why Jesus? I was originally Jewish, and I always believed the whole jesus stuff seemed like nonsense..idol worship and all that…it was only later that I realized the fallacies that even the more no frills Jewish religion had.
February 20th, 2005 @ 9:26 am
Steve said:
“…and awakening to the chain-of-command that is above you…”
“To believe you have to recognize that which is higher than you…”
“Jesus Christ is not the equal of the subjects of His Kingdom.”
Just more stuff showing how Christianity belittles mankind.
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:15 am
The problem, Steve, with your analogy comparing atheism to blindness is that, with blindness, a doctor can provide objective evidence *that anyone could verify* (in principle) as to why a person is blind (trauma to the eye, nerve damage, etc.). That helps to prove that a person is not just making it up, deluding themselves, etc.
You have not provided any such objective evidence that atheism is anything like being blind in this regard. But, then, that would be actual objective evidence for God, of which there is none. Creation is not evidence for God; the fact that things exist do not prove who created them, nor that they were even created by a being.
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:15 am
My my Steve, aren’t you so very proud of yourself. Why are you so concerned about what atheists think that you spend time on an atheist web site telling us all we’re full of shit? Could it be that you believe your view of the universe to be superior to ours? It must make you feel pretty good to come here and bless us unenlilghtended few with your wisdom. Sounds a whole lot like vanity and worldly pride to me. Oh, vanity, thy name is Christian.
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Steve:Effectual calling shreads the eternal undergraduate’s revelations of circular reasoning and other breathless claims of fallacies.
So you’re going to come back when your “calling” is effectual, will you? I only ask because so far, you suck at this ministering-to-the-heathens thing.
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:50 am
Steve: A regenerate Christian realizes that when we engage atheists we are attempting to describe colors to sightless people, yet God calls on us to do just that.
Or maybe it’s like an Operating Thetan trying to describe Xenu to someone who hasn’t achieved clear yet.
Yeah, it’s like that exactly.
February 20th, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
Electrons spin around atoms about 10^15 times per second.
The universe is a circle, the galaxy is a circle, atoms are circles.
Every word we use in our logic is defined by other words we use in our logic.
So why should circular reasoning be all that bad?
If you want to add a god or two to the spinning carousel, go for it.
February 20th, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
Steve’s #65 post sounds as if he viewed The Matrix a few too many times.
“The illusion that the Kingdom of Darkness infuses into you keeps you a loyal prisoner. Also, it is a painful experience to awaken out of the prison. When an individual who is in illusion in that prison of darkness begins to awaken the vision of the prison itself and of being in it is very powerfully painful to endure. The individual wants to retreat back into comfortable illusion. As an individual who resides in the Kingdom of Light all I can say to you is: read the Word of God.”
Read the word of god? what crap! Find Morpheus, take the red pill. We all know THAT is the REAL answer!!
February 20th, 2005 @ 7:22 pm
Now it is high time to awake out of sleep. – Rom. 13:11
February 20th, 2005 @ 8:30 pm
Steve: Now it is high time to awake out of sleep. – Rom. 13:11
So this is effectual calling?
You’re going to win us all over to God with your holy smugness?
I think I preferred it when the proselytizers pretended to speak in tongues and demanded evidence of the missing link.
February 20th, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
Its just Steve fulfilling the prophesy I made in comment #66.
February 20th, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
God doesn’t beg vain fools to catch on. In fact, once you demonstrate a level of vain petulance beyond a certain point God actually hardens you. This is not a good thing, needless to say.
And the easy rhetoric about why someone would be at your site talking about God… Well, you’re talking about God. Talk about your false idols and leave God out of it, and you know you’d be ignored. You can only get the attention from Christians you crave by talking about God.
February 20th, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
No, Steve, its all meme reinforcement designed to make believers feel superior to non-believers by contradictorally, making them feel humility about themselves. Thats what the bible is, essentially, a series of flase ideas that encourage others to adhere to them and pass them on to others. There is some historical things in the Bible, but only to persuade people that it spouts truths instead of falsehoods. Break out of the screaming meme that screams falsehoods into your brain, Steve!
And, Steve, you may want to read the subtitle of this blog. We talk about religious devotion because it trivializes American law and politics and that reason doesn’t seem so trivial to me.
February 20th, 2005 @ 9:59 pm
Yes, the justification your subtitle carries has been read. It’s the same kind of justification atheists give when they attempt to explain why they don’t really have any problem with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. Atheists know know what is real because you vanity and worldly pride only attacks that that is a threat to vanity and worldly pride: the Triune God, Living God of Creation, Jehovah; the God of the Old and New Testaments.
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:17 pm
Steve: It’s the same kind of justification atheists give when they attempt to explain why they don’t really have any problem with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism.
Which atheists are you talking about? Any Buddhist, Hindu, Jaian, Muslim or, yes, [faith-not-ethnic] Jew who trundles across these board is going to get the same broadside from U.S.S. Rational. The fact that only evangelical Christians stick their noses in here might suggest something to you.
So Steve, answer my question.
Are you just going to try to bully us into accepting Jesus? Do you really think that quoting John 3:16 or Romans or whatever is going to cause any one of us to fall on our knees and accept JAMPLAS?
Has it occurred to you that some of us became atheists precisely because we read the “Word of God”?
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:21 pm
I didn’t realize that vanity and worldy pride are what make atheists. Buddhists just don’t seem too vain or focused on the world…
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:27 pm
No, they’re focused on their own navel… No vanity there…
Schemanista: your responses are veering towards the strawman that I’m here to convert you. Only God can convert you. I’m here to present the message of God to you, and also to have some fun… But if you insist on framing all exchanges in this ‘why are you here’ way I suppose you will be successful in your goal which is a retreat and acknowledgment of defeat anyway…
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
Steve: But if you insist on framing all exchanges in this ‘why are you here’ way I suppose you will be successful in your goal which is a retreat and acknowledgment of defeat anyway…
Cute. This is what passes for tactics amongst you “effectual callers”. A spiritual variation on “have you stopped beating your wife?”
With one minor exception, you haven’t been presenting the word of god to me, Steve-o. You ‘ve just been demonstrating Steve-o’s Tract-o-Matic Post maker.
And please, satisfy my burning curiosity: what exactly would constitute an acknowledgement of defeat on my part?
February 20th, 2005 @ 10:55 pm
Steve said: “Only God can convert you.” If God wanted to me to convert, I would be converted. Steve’s posts state or imply that god wants us to convert and worship him. Since he/she/it is all powerful, I would not be able to resist his/her/its command to convert. I have not converted. Thetrefore, god must not want me to convert. (Please feel free to tell me all about how god gave us free will now. Thank you.)
February 20th, 2005 @ 11:17 pm
Steve: “I’m here to present the message of God to you,..”
Hey, Steve is really George Bush looking for something to do while Cheney and Rummy are running the country. Either that, or he’s one of the “Blues Brothers” on a mission from God. And I thought the guy who came knocking and says “I’m here from the IRS to audit your 1040″ was on an ego trip. Just imagine what a pain in the ass the IRS would be if it’s agents had ego’s as gargantuan as Steve’s –I mean, they’re just government agents, Steve is an agent of God. And atheists are vain! This guy’s a hoot and a half.
February 21st, 2005 @ 12:42 am
Why do you all bother to have different names. Same boilerplate, same predictable wet posing.
Pack mentality. Do any of you ever find yourself actually alone, ever? Do you allow it?
To the person tangled in his catch-22: I said I can’t convert you. Only God can convert a soul. Yet YOU can put yourself in the environment where regeneration potentially is effected: the Word of God. (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God [note: that is the Word of God]). Try not filtering it through your vanity, worldly pride. Don’t insist on bringing it down to your level. Attempt to meet it at its level. This will cause you to give up your juvenile resentments and notions of what is right and true and just. Things you just picked up from other humans anyway…
February 21st, 2005 @ 1:30 am
Steve, you sound like someone who just read his first book. Come back when you’ve read 1,000 that aren’t about religion, because right now you’re beginning to sound as nutty as Prayertulip, and even if you are funnier, you’re still basically the same one trick pony. Your trick is “vanity.” I have to admit that it’s amusing for someone like you, with an ego as tall as Everest, to come here and preach about vanity, but even the funniest Wierd Al song gets old after you hear it played over and over. What ever happened to Christian humility? Look for a new routine.
February 21st, 2005 @ 2:07 am
Which book would you like to talk about. Let’s see who actually knows books, hermesten. Your move. (If you thrown down your SciFi collection you win…)
February 21st, 2005 @ 2:23 am
God, what nonsense could I be in for now…
“OK, well, like, dude, Chomsky who’s like a serious respected language type dude at a university and everything, but you probably havn’t read any of his books on how evil Amerika is ’cause like they’re too hard for you to read. ‘Cause he’s like an intellectual.”
OK, atheist.
“And like I once read a book on, like, philosophy? And there’s like no way you could even begin to read that book.”
Hm. OK, atheist.
“And like the Catcher in the R–”
Ok, ok, you win, atheist. I can’t begin to deal with that book…
February 21st, 2005 @ 2:41 am
Worst. Strawman. Ever.
February 21st, 2005 @ 3:10 am
If it stings (which it apparently does) it’s not made out of straw.
February 21st, 2005 @ 3:15 am
worst. comeback. ever.
And Steve, you really should read some science fiction. Even though it may upset your world view more than conventional fiction would.
February 21st, 2005 @ 3:25 am
OK, Rob. And, no, I’m not surprised I exposed your religious texts. It is a common thread in the DNA of atheists. How many times did I hear from some eternal highschool level holdout from adulthood how this that or the other sci-fi or fantasy author had ‘created a new Bible’. Probably two or three times. Enough…
February 21st, 2005 @ 4:00 am
Seems like I’ve exposed Steve as being even more of a nut, since he seems to think that science fiction books are religious texts. Wow.
Science Fiction is not religion. if it was, I’d say my religion was Jedi or klingon or I’d say I worship Cthulhu. I don’t actually believe in the science fiction I read. I am entertained by it and occasionally gain insight from the views that the author is trying to express. Unlike you, who seem to have the illusion that your bible is true. It does sound like you have pre-concieved (perhaps I should say “juvenile”) notions about what science fiction is. So I take it you reject even the idea of reading Science Fiction because of its association with atheists? Sounds like you aren’t so keen on expanding your mind if its not jesus related. Who is being exposed now? Some of my favorite science fiction writers are even theists. I’ve enjoyed the works of Phillip k Dick and Orson Scott Card, among others.
February 21st, 2005 @ 4:12 am
“Seems like I’ve exposed Steve as being even more of a nut, since he seems to think that science fiction books are religious texts. Wow.”
You really can’t be that clueless, can you? On the other hand, you ARE an atheist (or is it bright?)…
If the Bible challenges you too much, try epic poetry, the classical historians and perhaps some Plato. Trust me on this, Rob, your sci-fi is not at a high altitude on the mountain of influences available to man… If you fell and hit the valley floor you wouldn’t even bruise your ass…
February 21st, 2005 @ 4:46 am
Steve, I’m quoting your words, not mine “I”m not surprised I exposed your religious texts.” You implicity called science fiction “religious tracts”. At least thats what it seems to me. If I’m mistaken, then what exactly are my “religious tracts”? That sounds like a pretty idiotic statement to me. Do you believe that the Harry Potter books also teach magic too?
I have read classic literature, Plato, Shakespeare, etc. While good stuff, they don’t express the speculative viewpoints about the future that I enjoy. The viewpoints are based on whats already occured and what people in the past thought. You did remind me of Plato’s cave analogy if that was your intention, but that doesn’t prove or disprove your or my views of the nature of the world.
Anyway, if you wish to call science fiction trash and it sounds like you are, you really should read it before you judge. I must note that people consider Sci-fi a slightly derogative term, usually reserved for the television and pulp fiction varieties of science fiction and not for the the truly insightful books. Science Fiction is a still a fairly new field and its too early to measure how large its influence on mankind will be, but one mediocre science fiction writer, for better or worse, somehow created a religion that claims to have 8 million followers, so you are probably selling it a bit short.
February 21st, 2005 @ 4:55 am
>Steve, I’m quoting your words, not mine “I”m not surprised I exposed your religious texts.” You implicity called science fiction “religious tracts”.
Tracts or texts? Anyway, Rob, (Jesus…) call it irony, call it satire, call is sarcasm… As I said, I find it difficult to believe you are this unable to discern and navigate such obvious language…
Your defense of science fiction is impassioned and common. We’ll leave that to matters of taste and discernment… Just know that influences reside in a hierarchy. You’ll find that the higher the influence the more effort and directed attention it will require, and the rarer it will be. Less influences at the summit of the mountain than at the base or middle…
February 21st, 2005 @ 5:14 am
You are right. I don’t know if you are serious or not, since your statements before all this literature talk also seem pretty satirical to me. For all I know, you’re just an atheist pretending to be all fundie, to see what comments crop up. Come to think of it, Samuel Clemens wrote some Science Fiction, he seems sort of high on the influence list. If I broaden the genre to fantasy, I get all the world mythology, and the bible, even. The Illiad and Odyssey has strong fantasy elements. Gee, maybe I’m getting all the high influences after all, even under your definition.
February 21st, 2005 @ 5:30 am
No, your talking about ‘genre novels’. Genre novels whether romance novels, westerns, science fiction (or what have you) are not epic poetry…
Again, the way you can practically tell (I mean aside from matters of taste and discernment) that you are getting higher up the hierarchy of influences is the higher you go the more effort and directed attention is required to engage the influences. Lower influences draw YOU…
Of course, you being an atheist and having no belief or understanding or vision of life beyond your death or what you can sense you really have no incentive to provoke and extend your limits really in any area…
February 21st, 2005 @ 5:48 am
Of course, you being a prejudiced theist and holding to irrational beliefs, you appear to have preconcieved notions about what my incentives are. You seem to have preconcieved notions about what literature is, too. Having preconcieved notions, and sticking with them instead of challenging them, appear to be a source of pride, the thing you accuse us of having too much of.
February 21st, 2005 @ 9:27 am
Rev. Steve said: “Again, the way you can practically tell … that you are getting higher up the hierarchy of influences is the higher you go the more effort and directed attention is required to engage the influences.” So are you saying that the harder a book is to read or understand the better it is? In that case, my undergrad calculus books must be more influential than the bible b/c it sure required more “effort and directed attention” than the bible ever did.
By the way, what do you have against science fiction? Ever read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451? Excellent books, but you should know that these were cautionary tales, NOT how-to texts. If you could pass that on the rest of your neocon religious right pals, we’d all appreciate it.
Thanks.
February 21st, 2005 @ 9:42 am
“[Buddhists are] focused on their own navel.”
Wow, Stevie… looks like you learned about Buddhists the same way you learned about science fiction and epic poetry – not at all.
February 21st, 2005 @ 9:47 am
Steve, why are you trying so hard to impress people you hold in such contempt? I wish all Christians were just like you; the pimple on the ass of humanity represented by Christianity would be popped in two generations. Still, you finally left your one trick pony behind and you’re a lot funnier.
Your replies to Rob also make it a lot easier to place you chronologically. There probably isn’t much competition in your high school so you’re pretty proud of yourself. It doesn’t sound like you’ve actually read all the books on your high-school reading list, but you’ve either read about them, or someone you respect has told you about them –perhaps some minister who fancies himself to be a bit of a right-wing intellectual, or your daddy. Why don’t you come back after you’ve been to college?
And Steve, really, fly fishing is fun when the trout are rising to the bait, but the sense of accomplishment is diminished when the catch is so small you have to put it back in the water.
February 21st, 2005 @ 11:02 am
The Steves and the PrayerTulips are useful for practicing restraint and responses. These ideas come up again and again in informal discussions, when I have to sit there and prevent my mouth from falling open that such brain damage is so rampant in our society.
Like the time some sweet Christian mother said “I just sent my (12-year old) son to see THE PASSION. Everyone should see how Jesus suffered.” I think I replied something like “If you want him to see suffering, why not send him to our Guantanamo Concentration Camp for the summer?”
February 21st, 2005 @ 9:27 pm
June wrote: “The Steves and the PrayerTulips are useful for practicing restraint and responses. These ideas come up again and again in informal discussions . . . .”
Thanks, June, for pointing this out. It is very signficant that you have to practice rhetoric and argumentation. In the real world, if you’re being interviewed on the radio (which I have), if you don’t have just the right response, chances are you’ve lost the moment and the impact with your listener. So practice is crucial, just like any skill.
February 22nd, 2005 @ 5:47 am
>So are you saying that the harder a book is to read or understand the better it is? In that case, my undergrad calculus books must be more influential than the bible b/c it sure required more “effort and directed attention” than the bible ever did.
Mathematics is a language and an activity. An activity and a language that requires high levels of effort and directed attention. Your calculus textbook is not literature though. There’s a fundamental difference between the literature of knowledge and the literature of power (see de Quincey of Confessions of the Opium Eater fame)…
>By the way, what do you have against science fiction? Ever read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451? Excellent books, but you should know that these were cautionary tales, NOT how-to texts. If you could pass that on the rest of your neocon religious right pals, we’d all appreciate it. Thanks.
In an era when the left if bowlderizing literature taught to school children of anything ‘offensive’ to any ‘victim’s group’ and imposing speech codes and political correctness on any college or university campus they get control of your comment is rather Alice-in-Wonderland… Par for the course for the devil-duped left these days though…
February 22nd, 2005 @ 8:20 am
Steve: “Par for the course for the devil-duped left these days though…”
With every post you get funnier. I hope you’re not going to stop now. You’re more of a Brownshirt echo chamber than a Christian. Maybe someday you’ll realize that your neocon bosses don’t really give a shit about religion, except as it enables them to pull the strings on their puppets, like you. As far as the left goes though, the joke’s on you, since your heroes are all “ex” lefties and they still follow the the old dialectic.
February 22nd, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
Just a few comments… according to the Bible, God created angels, many rebelled (along with Satan, considered one of the brightest). So, remind me again, why did God need us?… and, maybe a better analogy, as opposed to the sighted trying to describe color to a blind man, would be a person tripping on LSD attempting to describe the colors etc. to a non-tripper… much more appropriate in that it involves describing things his/her mind is making up, not reality…
February 22nd, 2005 @ 7:52 pm
Just a bit o’ advice, Steve, as you seem to need it… a change of course is a must. For one thing, you can’t condemn any genre of fiction without seeming like a complete idiot. I personally hate romance novels; every single one I’ve read has left me feeling ill. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good romance novels out there. Indeed, I’m sure some are as great a story as anything I’ve ever read, but I’m not likely to find them.
I suspect that your real problem with science fiction is more biblical in origin… for example, most literature is more internally cohesive than the bible, even if they’ve nothing to do with the real world. Also, they tend to paint world that look a lot nicer than the one Christianity has helped create. In the words of a little British comedy called Dark Ages; “So… what do you choose? Suffering, anguish and depravation, or food, fun and free love?”
One final point… that a book is difficult to read doesn’t make it good, and good books don’t have to be difficult to read. Indeed, the very best books are both easy to read, and full of lessons. It’s an old writer’s claim, and not always true, but, ‘the perfect story is one that can be read by any person, no matter their culture or background, and each will come away with the same lesson.’ Seems to me, that should apply to the bible.
February 22nd, 2005 @ 8:57 pm
>As far as the left goes though, the joke’s on you, since your heroes are all “ex” lefties and they still follow the the old dialectic.
You need to learn the difference between classical liberalism and modern day ‘liberals’.
February 22nd, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
>Just a few comments… according to the Bible, God created angels, many rebelled (along with Satan, considered one of the brightest). So, remind me again, why did God need us?…
Look up non sequitur.
Are you back? OK, God created angels, yes, and he created man as well. Two different kinds of beings. The Heavenly host (angels) plays its role for God. Angels play a role in God’s Plan that man can’t play, both a positive role and a negative role (both positive and negative being necessary).
February 22nd, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
Thanks for the literary criticism, Viole…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 12:48 am
“You need to learn the difference between classical liberalism and modern day ‘liberals’.”
You’re one confused little puppy if you think neocons specifically, or today’s conservatives in general, have anything to do with “classical liberalism” –which is why I used the term “ex” lefties –as in Troskyites. You need to tune out the demagogues like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O’Rielly, (none of whom are traditional conservatives) and tune in the paleos like Charlie Reese and Paul Craig Roberts.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 1:59 am
Try tuning into the Founding Fathers and their influences, if you can get over the fact that they had penises.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 2:00 am
Make that external genitalia…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 2:43 am
Why do you bring their penises into the exchange? Are you saying that’s what influenced them? Or are you trying to open a feminist-bashing line? I’m serious. Aside from their willies, what influences do you, Steve, consider relevant to liberalism, as you define it? Please make some effort to answer seriously, minus inflammatory sniping. I’m trying to see this from your perspective, but as I do not have a penis myself, you’ll have to spell it out for me.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 2:50 am
Outraged Victim Kate,
It’s ‘liberals’ (i.e. socialists, fascists) that have the problem with dead white males. Not us classical liberals.
As for influences of classical liberalism: Bible, Calvin, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Plutarch, for starters…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 7:50 am
Why do you characterize me as an outraged victim? Because I didn’t get a penis? I didn’t realize I should be angry about that. Dang. Would that be a righteous anger? Or should I go for bitter?
February 23rd, 2005 @ 8:55 am
… hmmm… non sequitor?… “A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.”
… let’s see what preceded my comments… to quote you Steve…
“Man was made in God’s image then FELL. Flesh humans are a fallen creation… God doesn’t want robots in His Creation. Certainly God could create everybody perfect, but then everybody would be merely a created ‘thing’. God created souls/beings perfect and then allowed them to fall gave those souls a way to develop real consciousness, real will, and real understanding…”
… seems that angels fit the bill…
… my question remains… what did he need us for…
… raises another question… if he did need/want us for some reason of his own fullfillment, he wasn’t/isn’t perfect…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 9:10 am
The rebellion of Satan certainly resulted in a fall (fallen angels), but the fall that occured in the Garden is rather in the forefront of Biblical revelation itself… As was stated in a previous post: the angelic host are needed by God for God’s Plan, and what they perform they perform in both positive and negative roles…
Special revelation (i.e. the Word of God) doesn’t deem it necessary that man know of matters such as the preexistence of souls. The fact is man is here in this fallen condition, a prisoner of the devil and death. Unless man connects with the Savior who has defeated death…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 9:14 am
Kate:Why do you characterize me as an outraged victim?
Strawman Steve walked over to the wall punched your shadow and then turned to high-5 his shadow in congratulations. I can see why you’re confused by his behaviour.
He’s not discussing or debating anything. Instead, he’s slapping around some tired stereotypes and congratulating himself while the rest of look on and wonder “who is this asshole?”
February 23rd, 2005 @ 9:36 am
Yeah, I know. I just have to give dicks like him the opportunity to explain that approach. Just once. It’s a lame attempt to attack and make himself feel like The Big Guy. I have to wonder, though, if it’s just stereotypes he slaps around (taking his approach as my own…).
I don’t get the “victim” epithet here, though: if god created me without a penis, then it must have punished me (before birth), so I must’ve deserved it, so how does that make me a “victim”? Of course, Father Steve can’t explain his opinions based on delusion. I was actually hoping for the “women were created to be inferior” spiel. It’s been a long time since I got that one. Maybe he’ll come through.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 9:47 am
Can’t argue with “Special revelation”.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:35 am
It seems you missed my real point, Steve. That is; your abrasive style and apparent arrogance is not going to win you any converts. You claim to be educated while acting like an asshole. So let me say this again; change your tact! Try to be more polite. If you can’t manage that, just quote lines from the bible. While you’re at it, you can add a few quotes from our exceptional and amazing founding parents which suggest that, just possibly, they both believed in and fully supported christianity.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:45 am
Christianity is not about being ‘good’; it’s about making contact. And, again, I can’t convert you. Further, read this thread alone then see how unconscious you atheists are to your own behaviour. The difference between atheists and this Christian is I don’t care what you say to me or how you say it…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:50 am
Ah yes… Christ shining through Steve…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:55 am
Steve: The difference between atheists and this Christian is I don’t care what you say to me or how you say it…
Way to prove my point for me, Steve-O.
Now go High-5 the wall.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:55 am
“Theist Pot calls Atheist Kettle Black. News at eleven.”
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:58 am
Notice this about yourselves, atheists: you accuse, and you shame. This is what the devil does too.
You are moralists. Busy-body accusers and shamers and moralists.
Just another irony of the unselfaware, unconscious atheist…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:04 am
We’re rubber, you’re glue…..
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:13 am
http://instapundit.com/archives/021342.php
Somebody mention neo-cons?
+++++++++++
>We’re rubber, you’re glue…..
I do find it interesting that atheists apparently can’t even understand their own statements…
Anyway, go to the link and find something new to mock about freedom and courage to be free… If it were left to atheists the world would be a Soviet style prison camp. Atheism…
Remember, atheists: you have a history. We know what you do when you get power. Based on your history you should thank our God we don’t throw you all off the nearest cliff. It’s what you do to everybody else when you get power. That we don’t do that should teach you what the influence of God on this planet means. You really are ignorant little murderous creeps… You murdered one hundred million in the 20th century. How many more do you need to kill? What do your great atheist prophets tell you the number needs to be at? Two hundred million? A billion?
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:17 am
Just remember guys, the angles (and humans, too!) are part of God’s Plan. What’s God’s Plan? We don’t know. Why don’t we know? Because it’s not part of the Plan. What plan? God’s Plan. How do we know about the plan? God told us – it’s part of the Plan. What plan? God’s Plan. Why don’t we know about the plan? That’s not part of the Plan. What plan? God’s plan. How do we know about the plan? It’s part of the Plan. What plan? God’s Plan.
[rinse, repeat]
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:19 am
Hey Steve – don’t yell at us about all the people killed by both Christians and non-Christians in the last century: that was just part of the Plan.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:29 am
Well, Steve, I went to your link as posted. Why don’t you come over here to Baghdad and we’ll poll the Iraqis in person, you and me. A team. I mock you, not the Iraqis and THEIR courage to be free. What have YOU done, ya damned nutter chicken-hawk?
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:34 am
Steve is having a Jean Cretien moment.
Yes, let’s remember what you Christians can do when you get the power: the New World under the Spanish and Portugese, or 18th-Century Ireland, or 17-Century Scotland, or most of Africa during the Age of Sail, or Spain during the Inquisition, or (20th century now) Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Angola, Guatemala, Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, Cambodia (during the U.S. bombing campaigns–which paved the way for Pol Pot didja know?), or (heaven forbid!) Germany after WWI…
Pretty amusing some dickhead who is smearing North American atheists who had no personal nor political involvement in the massive 20th Century totalitarian communist movements with charges of genocide and then running away and calling us the moralizers and the shamers.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:50 am
Running away?
Your lack of grasp of secular history is only exceeded by your lack of grasp of Christian history. Christian nations fought you atheist fascist creeps in the 20th century. Without the Christians doing the hard work to put you creeps down this world would be a poisoned death camp.
You’re still reeling. All you have left is your psychosis.
Kate, keep your filthy chickenhawk talk in your filthy mouth. You don’t sacrifice, and you hate freedom. You are pure shit. Wherever you filthy, worlthy, ignorant ass is currently residing.
Did you make sure to mock the Iraqis as they courageously went to the polls Jan. 30th, Kate? F—ing creep.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:55 am
You atheists creeps. Look at the world. Look what Christians have done for you. Look at what the world would be like if you atheist shit had never been confronted and beat down into the shit you bring on this planet whenever you get power. Hopefully the suffering you atheist shit have caused on this planet will only be exceeded by the suffering you experience when your pathetic flesh bodies die. Yeah, you think you’ll go into nothingness. No, you’ll pay for your crimes.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
[A] column by David Ignatius -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html
on the “Lebanese intifada.” It includes this quotation from the intifada’s leader, Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, according to Ignatius, a man who has always accommodated Syria’s occupation:
“It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.”
God bless the American soldiers sacrificing their lives to bring freedom to large parts of the world that have been living in hellish tyrannies; and God bless George W. Bush for leading them and having the goodness and common-sense, and vision – and courage – to make it happen. And may the carpers and mockers and haters of freedom that opposed it all from the beginning (and still evilly oppose it all now) choke on their filthy devil-channelled hate as they continue to see it all unfold…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Steve: You atheists creeps. Look at the world. Look what Christians have done for you.
Secular humanism has done far more for me. The country I live in would be a rural Christian backwater were it not for the great secular movements of the 60′s and 70′s.
Your ignorance about Christian history must be rigidly maintained for you to clothe yourself in smug certainty.
Lest anyone think I’m picking on the United States, I could type screens full of outrage at the behaviour of other Christian nations such as France’s involvement with Senegal, Vietnam, Rwanda… or Belgium’s decimation of the Congo region… or maybe spend a little time talking about the collusion of the Christian churches in Rwanda who acted as concentration camps for the victims of the genocide. Say, the South African government was Christian as well as white, wasn’t it? Oh yes, I could go on.
Not that I expect you to rouse yourself out of your neo-con fundie torpor but William Bloom’s Killing Hope might be a good red pill for you to take.
Think of this forum as a mirror for you. Everything you’ve accused us atheists of being, you’ve demonstrated in yourself–especially in the last couple of posts.
And, as you predicted, I’m done with you. Take it as a retreat that I found your walls of ignorance too high to assail for the worthless prize inside. Here’s my admission of defeat: go fuck yourself with it.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
You atheists creeps. Look at the world. Look what Christians have done for you. Look at what the world would be like if you atheist shit had never been confronted and beat down into the shit you bring on this planet whenever you get power.
Oh goody, I love this part ! It’s just like on Law & Order when the prosecutor has riled up the accused on the witness stand to the point where he shouts “Alright, I killed her! She was a bitch and she deserved everything she got.”
On a personal note to Steve: I’m terribly, terribly sorry that I shat on you and your planet.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
Steve,
Hello. I wodered if you could share your views on the Vatican’s training courses, started last week, on demonology and the medical treatment of people suffering from demonic possession.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:30 pm
Steve – are you channeling Goldstein? Or maybe Jimmy? Methinks you are.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:35 pm
Thanks for the Chomsky litany. Garbage in, garbage out. Comic books and Chomsky don’t an education make.
Debbie: I don’t follow the Vatican’s doings. I recognize Roman Catholics as Christian, despite the traditions of man and false doctrines of their church. Recognition of the existence of demons would not be false doctrine though… Alcohol is not called ‘spirits’ for no reason. When a more hollow person takes away the little defense they do have (takes in alcohol or drugs) watch the spirits manifest. The more power they can have over the human the more vicious and evil they manifest…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
Jimmy or Goldstein? This is a rather difficult one to call. How many people have Christians killed over the years?…hm.. too many too count. The world is in a terrible state and Czar Bush is a tyrant and a murderer. Steve, if you are channeling one of the two, please tell us.
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,343378,00.html
Oh, I know, this German writer is probably some kind of secret Christian or something…
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
“Kate, keep your filthy chickenhawk talk in your filthy mouth. You don’t sacrifice, and you hate freedom. You are pure shit. Wherever you filthy, worlthy, ignorant ass is currently residing.
Did you make sure to mock the Iraqis as they courageously went to the polls Jan. 30th, Kate? F—ing creep.”
Why, I think you’re jealous, Steve! Seems I hit a nerve, chicken(shit)-hawk. I still mock you, bawk bawk! Is it because I’m actually over here participating, or is it because I’m a GIRL over here, doing what fine Christian MEN like you won’t? Since your bible-thumping flag-waving didn’t get you the respect you think you are entitled to, you sink to this? How lovely. You are the one that isn’t sacrificing anything except your dignity on this board, chicken-hawk. You are an arrogant, self-righteous, fowl-mouthed, rude coward, shitting all over our board, but wouldn’t ever DARE confront anyone face to face. On anything that really mattered. Because deep down you know you’re Sky Daddy won’t protect you, not even from yourself. Why? Because it isn’t there. Chickenshit chicken-hawk.
I agree with TrixieKatt. This is the great meltdown scream-fest. Let the feathers fly!!
February 23rd, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
Your chickenhawk talk is nonsense on too many levels to take seriously. It’s actually juvenile and fascist nonsense. In America we have civilian leadership of the military, and thank God the Founding Fathers were wise in this area to give us civilian leadership of the military. Otherwise every little pistol-whipping girl or boy who ran into a recruiter would think they’re the Fuhrer. (And God what a dreary bore yiou’re going to be when you get back home and ‘rebuke’ all and everybody who didn’t go to Iraq… Somebody doesn’t give little Kate what she wants: “I was in Iraq, man!!!”)
As for the makeup of the military, subtract the Christians and you have 6 atheists and a white flag…
February 24th, 2005 @ 12:28 am
Of course, how silly of me. Steve is using the typical definition of literature. That is to say, none. I really should have noticed. How can I put this nicely… Steve, you’re an ideological idiot. How you managed to see past the end of your own nose to actually read a book is beyond me.
Noam Chomsky obviously writes stuff that doesn’t match your world view, but it is equally obvious that you don’t realize an ‘education’ is about more than being able to repeat memes. You can learn all you want, but you don’t know anything if you can’t respect the ideas of the other side. Creating unwillingness to concede even the intentions of the opposition may be the greatest evil christianity has ever done. Noam Chomsky? Deluded by the devil, if not his advocate outright.
Of course, anything I say can be dismissed outright as well, because I count myself among three of the most evil groups in the world. Not only that, I insulted you.
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:05 am
Hey Steve, ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. I’ve never laughed so hard at anyone posting here in my life. Forgive me everyone, I know you’re not supposed to laugh at crazy people, but reading Steve’s postings is like hearing him tell us he was just elected King of Anartica. And if nothing else, he’s given me new respect for Prayertulip.
Kate, it was obvious early on that Steve is a “neocon” –with everything this name implies (as in “new” or “fresh” or “updated” and “con”). And you can’t be a neocon if you’re not a Chickenhawk –it’s simply not allowed. The neocon credo, recited at every stop before a mirror (a frequent event for every neocon, when they’re not licking their combs), is: “I am too important ever to put myself in personal danger. My own death would be a tragedy. The death of someone else is just a statistic. Besides, my mommy won’t let me join the military, she says it’s too dangerous”
Also Kate, I think you really know why Steve brought up the subject of dicks, but you’re just too polite to say it. Why does any guy start talking about dicks? Chickenhawk talk and dick talk both come from the same source: feelings of inadequacy. The only guys I’ve ever heard talking about dicks as Steve does are the guys who feel like little boys in the shower.
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:19 am
bawk bawk bawk (that’s me still mocking you, Steve)
Who said I was in the military, Steve? How do you know I’m NOT one of those civilians over here calling some shots? Why do you assume I’m not in, oh, Department of State, for example? That’s a pretty big player here. You are ignorant, that’s why. Oh, wait, you’d be referring to those neo-cons back in Washington…
In Post #140, you order your god to bless the soldiers over here. You have assumed that I am in the military, making me a soldier, but then call me a freedom-hating hate-filled piece of shit. Sounds like more pot-kettle-black rhetoric. I can only assume that your order explicitly excluded my “worthly” ass.
Rebuking you for draping yourself in the flag to make yourself somehow feel more of a patriot than us craven atheists certainly doesn’t mean I rebuke everyone who did not come to play. That would be petty and awfully time consuming. I rebuke chicken-hawks who think they know it all, and are really clueless, and if given the opportunity, would be downright dangerous. Rebuking everyone who didn’t come would be your game if you were in my place, because you have to lord your self-described superiority over everyone who is not exactly like you. The game is bigger than just the military. But you wouldn’t know that, would you, chicken-hawk? The military is the only thing that matters to a chicken-hawk, using it as long as you don’t have to risk yourself or yours.
Only atheists and xtians in the military? The rabbi over in the chaplain’s office may disagree with that. But you are a narrow bird-brained bigot, and don’t even consider other religions as being in the mix. That was just a stupid comment.
What is it exactly that you think little Kate wants, chicken-hawk? I’m not the one screaming invectives on a blog that I horned in on with the snotty idea of enlightening the blind.
I think you want me. Yeah, that’s it. That’s why I bother you so much. How do you picture me inside your peckerhead? Must be something really good, like a pistol-packing GI Jane type, my hard body all hot and sweaty under my body armor. Do you want me to pistol whip you? Or maybe you see me as really craving a dick like you, I mean, yours. Do you envision my make-up free face under you while you pump your impeccably groomed trophy wife in your sanitized suburban home, wishing for some sweaty, dirty sex? Maybe you have a bondage fantasy and think of me as a grotesque little troll, keeping you chained in my stinking shit-filled cave, making you perform perverse acts upon me and small barnyard fowl. You did call me “little”, so I’m hoping you don’t think of me as fat. That would hurt my feelings.
Post #127: Steve: “The difference between atheists and this Christian is I don’t care what you say to me or how you say it.. ”
I can’t wait for your insulting reply!
Post #131: Steve: “Notice this about yourselves, atheists: you accuse, and you shame. This is what the devil does too.”
Post #133: Steve: “You really are ignorant little murderous creeps… You murdered one hundred million in the 20th century.”
Satan, thy name is Steve.
So, let’s see if you are any less juvenile than I, chicken-hawk, since all of what I have to say is nonsense and everything you post is gospel truth, I challenge you to not respond. I would find it very funny if someone as important as you has even more time to spend on something as god-forsaken as me. Because if you do, that proves you do care, and I win. Or that you, like a 7-yr-old, have to get the last word in. “Am not! Are so! Am not!” Which makes you the more juvenile, and I still win. Please, take your time. Confer with your team-mate on the wall.
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:26 am
Hee hee! Yes, hermesten, I am trying to use some of the manners my mother taught me, something Steve has completely lost sight of, what with all the down sticking to his eyeballs. 10 dinars says he accuses you of penis-envy next. Or calls us lesbians or something.
I was just waiting for the predictable flag-wave, with “America the Beautiful” swelling in the background to launch that salvo.
I know darn well he won’t be able to control himself. He’s insane. Needs meds. And he’s up past his bedtime….
Oh, and Steve: including me in a retort to hermesten counts as a response to me, just so you know. I’ll still win : )
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:51 am
Kate, try to think about the fact that unless your a moral moron pacifist and havn’t served in the military the charge of chickenhawk will always apply, according to the moral moron pacifists who use the fascist, juvenile term ‘chickenhawk’. Your side has been termed cowards and bootlickers of dictators (which you are), so your namecalling obviously is a case of projection…
And, yes, you learned something about America when I reminded you the Founding Fathers specifically put the military under civilian leadership. See, Kate? As I said, you atheists are fascists in essence. But, again, nothing that afflicts you sorry atheists can’t be cured by just even a degree of self-awareness…
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:54 am
I win!! LOOOZER Steve!!! Too easy!
February 24th, 2005 @ 1:57 am
The fact that you claim to be from the State Dept. explains alot about you, Kate. Left-wing shit migrate to the State Dept. then do all they can to undermine the military and the Commander-in-Chief all the while sticking their tongue up the ass of the U.N. and any bloody dictator that shows them the heel of his boot. You’re great Americans, Kate. Chickenhawks indeed…
February 24th, 2005 @ 2:01 am
This is the most amusing comment thread ever.
February 24th, 2005 @ 2:20 am
bawk bawk bawk…doin’ the Chicken Dance!!
Yes, this is really helping my morale!
Steve, I made no such claim, you stupid bird. I was simply pointing out the fallacies of your ignorant assumptions as you try to cram me into one of your bigotted pigeonholes. You should read more carefully before you fly off the handle and make such brood, oops, broad swipes at inferior creatures such as myself. You look dumber by the post. You’re so upset that you are forgetting your 3rd grade grammar lessons. Must be all the feathers floating around.
Please, list some more chicken-hawk rhetorical insults. I’m kinda curious as to the limits of your world. You should fall off the edge any time now. Here’s some seed to peck at while you recite…………………………………………………………………………………….
February 24th, 2005 @ 2:31 am
So, you’re not in the military (though that was the initial impression you were trying to present); and you’re not a civilian employee of the U.S. government. Why don’t we just assume you are not even a ‘Kate’, and that you’re probably living with your parents and abusing food products made with alot of sugar…
February 24th, 2005 @ 2:55 am
bawk bawk bawk
Dang. I thought you’d peck your way off the board. I had no idea you cared so much, looooozer!
I never said I wasn’t in either of those positions, retard. The whole point, peckerhead, was to NOT tell you what I do, because it is not relevant. You, however, find it painfully relevant because you cannot relate to someone you can’t stuff into some narrow, ignorant category. Your peabrain is too small to wrap around that.
Who’s this “we” you’re referring to, anyways? You and your shadow on that wall? You are painfully alone here, stuck in a little itty bitty chicken-hawk coop of your own construction.
If you had the ability to engage in rational discussion instead of pitching neo-con rhetoric, you may have been able to get a straight answer as to my professional affiliation. THEN you could make one stupid attack. But the amazing shallowness of both your intellect and character make that an impossibility. Besides, this way, I get to see your entire repetoire.
Make another assumption, I dare you!
Or just go away. I defy you!
But you can’t. You lack self-control. You’re funny!
February 24th, 2005 @ 4:51 am
Right. Posing as a soldier, and now melting down as the exposed sugar-eating Chomskyite that you are. Quite a lame performance. Bawk away (careful that your mom doesn’t walk in on you)…
February 24th, 2005 @ 8:52 am
bawk bawk bawk (oh, thanks for the go-ahead on that, Steve, I’m always looking for permission from the men in my life)
ah say ah say pay attention, boy!
I’m not the one posing, you’re the one who has completely lost in this exchange. Seems you need to be validated by knowing that you “figured it out”. But there’s nothing to figure out!
I’m not the one with the Chernobyl issues, chicken boy (see Posts #138-140). #161 sounds rather deflated. No more down to sustain the loft of your ego?
The point remains at the end of your silly little beak: that you can’t get on with this without knowing what I do. Post #159 is yet another display of your ignorance of how things are run/conducted over here. Why are those the only two entities one can work for/with over here? Maybe I’m a eco-freak do-gooder with an NGO. Or maybe I’m sucking off the war-machine teat as a contractor, like Erinys or KBR. I could be soldier, I could be a diplomat. You’ll never know. Maybe I’m GOD!! What set you off flapping your wings so madly was me calling you a chicken-hawk for waving the flag and claiming that makes you a better American than the rest of us, condemning us all to be thrown off the cliff. Which says (at least) two things about you: you are the one that hates freedom, since you are so rabid in your position to deny it to all; and that you don’t like being one-upped by someone (and that I’m a girl must really bite into your tailfeathers) who is actually over here and participating. It doesn’t matter what I’m doing here, what fried your plucked carcass was that I am doing it. Your assumptions and insults about whatever profession you thought I’m in were simply wild displays of the limits of your bird brain.
If you really don’t care what we think about you, then WHY ARE YOU HERE? Because you’ve scratched all over the board, and have not won a single point. So that says you do care.
So, pass the Corn Flakes. I have some sugar pooling in the bottom of the bowl, needs a delivery vehicle to my veins. Hey, look, guys! Steve’s picture is on the box! Nice comb-over, dude!
Show me some more love, chickie babe!
February 24th, 2005 @ 9:49 am
Wow, that was some meltdown by Steve… I wish we had audio… out of arguments… out of patience… out of control… & out of his mind… what a hoot… good work… I love you freedom-fighting-commie-babes… don’t let him up until you’ve completely kicked the shit out of him… ooops forgot… he’s so full of shit, there’d be nothing left… but, he’d be in a better place… all part of “The Plan”…
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:34 am
DamnRight demonstrates the left-wing/atheist ‘retreat-into-unreality’ tactic… Have fun with chicken-lady…
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:39 am
Oh, look! He’s passing me off. Loooozer!!
Need some tar to stick those feathers back on?
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:42 am
Well, thank you, DamnRight. Nothing like a good day’s work. I love a task that’s simple, yet makes me so cheerful.
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:44 am
… and I really thought Steve started out so well on this blog… but, his downward spiral was fun to watch…
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:47 am
Chickens can’t fly, you know.
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Yeah, you and chicken lady are so formidable. Maybe you both think your soldiers in a war zone…
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:57 am
… any attempt is usually a controlled crash… Steve was totally out of control…
February 24th, 2005 @ 10:59 am
… BTW Steve, I’m not an American…
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:06 am
My soldiers? Our soldiers? I’ve got soldiers now? COOL!!
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:09 am
But there’s no doubt that you are NOT, chicken-hawk.
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:11 am
… I’d follow you into battle anytime…
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
Why thank you, DamnRight. I’d be proud to have you by my side. Shall we find the other 4, pack the white flag, and get to it? (Post#149) We could have a picnic! Fried chicken, coleslaw, potato salad, baked beans, devil’s, sorry, devilled eggs, sweet ice tea……aaah. Real food.
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:51 am
Kate: Shall we find the other 4, pack the white flag, and get to it?
I’d like to jine up. Can I bring my Chomsky library? And my comic books?
Oh, who gets to wave the flag? I’d vote for Steve cuz he’s so good at it, but we both know he’ll never leave Jesusland.
February 24th, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
Steve you are so self-righteous. You with that big ego and blind patriotism.
February 24th, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
I think Steve is really a syphillitic atheist philosopher.
February 24th, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
That would explain alot.
February 24th, 2005 @ 7:22 pm
hole-ly shit!!!!! i leave for a day and i missed THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this was great, really…….
kate, sweetie, i bet this was soooo very easy….(yet, wholesome and fulfilling at the same time…….). it also made for some great reading.
steve, darling, why did you stop taking your meds? please, listen to the big black guy dressed in white standing next to you (he is not god, but might as well….)……yes, that one, the one with the straightjacket…….yup, that one…….with your name embroidered on it……..now, breathe deeply…….
bawk bawk!!
February 24th, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
ocmpoma: syphillitic atheist philosopher
Best punk band name ever!
(Anyone else seen Hardcore Logo?)
February 24th, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
Yes, Eva, not much of a challenge, but it did get me to a Foghorn Leghorn soundwaves site. That was great for even more laughs! He used to try to teach a chicken-hawk a thing or two himself. He is a terrific role model.
Schemanista, you can bring whatever you like! There will be plenty of room and more than enough vehicles and oil and stuff to get around after all these dang xtians leave. We can take turns waving the flag, once I get the instruction manual Steve promised to send.
You know, if we draped ourselves in white flags, it’d be like we were having a toga party! This is sounding better all the time!!
February 25th, 2005 @ 9:40 am
Toga party?!?!… man, I miss college…
February 25th, 2005 @ 11:10 am
Absolutely! And after we win the war, we’ll start up some liberal feminist atheist philosophy classes at Baghdad U!
February 25th, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
… you go girl…
February 25th, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
One billion is christan, five billion are not. Why so low rating for the bible? The author(s) must be fired.
Steve, as a shareholder of the christian corporation, you are entitled to ask management for the reason of so poor results. Maybe there are a lot of problems in marketing. Maybe the message is not clear or contradictory or false at all. But changes are badly needed. Think about.
February 25th, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
By management I mean: the father, the son and the holy ghost