Atheists and sexual libertinism.

[Nogbad]

Paul was a misogynist.

True - although he was not a one trick pony.

He had other bad points too :)

[arthwollipot]

In a way - a strange, twisted-around kind of way - yrreg is sort of right. Atheists have no religious bar on sexual activity of any type. Personally I have two regular lovers. Is that adultery? No, I don't believe it is. For a start, I'm not married.

I do not engage in bestiality because it's not the kind of thing I like and because an animal cannot be considered to be a consenting partner.

I do not engage in incest because quite frankly I'm not particularly attracted to any members of my family. Also because having children with close family members can lead to increased instances of genetic abnormality.

I do not engage in paedophilia because once again I don't believe that a child can consent. But I feel that the age at which a child can give informed consent is a grey area. I think it's most certainly prior to 18 in most cases. But sex with a minor is prohibited by secular law for generally good reasons, and I respect secular law.

I do not engage in homesexual sex, mainly because I tried it a couple of times and decided that I prefer women. But I am not horrified or disgusted by the practice and see no reason to deny it to anyone who does enjoy it.

I do not engage in BDSM because I'm not comfortable with the submissive-dominant mechanic - I feel that sex is best when enjoyed between equal partners. I like to give and receive equally. But once again I am not horrified or disgusted by the practice and see no reason to deny it to anyone who does enjoy it.

I draw the line at coprophilia. That's just not okay.

The point is, I have no reason not to engage in any kind of sexual behaviour other than logic and reason. Grey areas abound, and I make the decisions myself about where to draw the line - in consultation with any person or persons with whom I am drawing, of course. My behaviour is not dictated by any external source.

And it certainly is not dictated by a book that condemns homosexuality for no particular reason, then dictates punishment for a rape victim because she didn't scream loud enough.

[RandFan]

So, don't bring up bad religions as a justification or proof even that God does not exist.We don't. That's only in your head.

And The Atheist tells readers here that when atheists get to be the government in any land, they can and will do anything they want with mankind as they think to be according to their heart and mind to be the best for themselves and of course people under them, fellow human, without any attention to God. Proving once again that you don't listen.

If you fellow atheists want to say that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not spokesmen of atheists...And you are not the spokesperson for reason and rationality. You are at best the spokesperson for you, sadly you make a spokesperson. Unless ignorance, arrogance and condescension are good traits as a spokesperson.

[articulett]

I think this quote of yrreg's is particularly ironic given what the Christians did to Native Americans and what they've done to aboriginal people all over the world

And The Atheist tells readers here that when atheists get to be the government in any land, they can and will do anything they want with mankind as they think to be according to their heart and mind to be the best for themselves and of course people under them, fellow human, without any attention to God.

I think I'd prefer my government not to be given attention to any gods. To me it's more than clear that all gods are invented by men.

[arthwollipot]

And The Atheist tells readers here that when atheists get to be the government in any land, they can and will do anything they want with mankind as they think to be according to their heart and mind to be the best for themselves and of course people under them, fellow human, without any attention to God.Here's a revelation for you, yrreg. Everything that The Atheist has said in this thread is a joke. He's yanking your chain. He's making a funny. He's jesting.

And the way you take every word so seriously would be the funniest part, if you didn't take every word so seriously.

[bruto]

I read in one website an expert in religious Jews' morality stating that masturbation is not acceptable.so you looked it up yourself? Why did you ask me about it then, since you had no intention of paying any attention to what I said, including my reiteration that it's totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about! For one thing, I wasl talking about the story of Onan as it is seen by Christians, reading the bible. The site you link to is using non-biblical sources for Jewish law.
And you know, I find the position of that website for Jewish morality on abortion to be quite if I am not mistaken contrary to present US law. And why should it not be? Present U.S. law has no obligation to become either more or less strict in response to Jewish or any other religious law. We don't rely on Sharia or Canon law either. And we surely don't rely on what some website represents as correct, either.

And here is what it says about gay and lesbian sex.Pretty standard stuff, the relevancy of which is nil, of course.



-----------------

For........[edited for stupidity and lies] atheism.



YrregThe only thing mitigating your disingenuous inaccuracy is your obvious lack of comprehension. You continue to outdo yourself. Keep up the good work.

[bruto]

Yrreg, this thread would work better, I think, if you would be more direct and honest about what you mean.

The question of "sexual libertinism" introduced here in response to Foster Zygote's remark about guilt-free masturbation hinges on the basic question, which you have not addressed directly:

Do you, Yrreg, believe that masturbation should be accompanied by guilt? An honest, yes-no answer to this would make your position, and your definitions, much clearer.

"Sexual libertinism" is a loose term, which can mean many different things depending, in part, on what religion you subscribe to. I doubt very much if a Quaker and a Catholic would be able to agree on all its qualifications.

Most people here, I am pretty sure, would assert that masturbation should not be accompanied by guilt, and consequently would consider any religious injunction against it to be wrong. Whether it is sufficiently wrong to require reconsideration of the authority or tenability of that religion is a separate issue, but either way, I think you have your order backwards. Even if the question of masturbation were central to someone's decision on whether or not to subscribe to some specific religion, it need not be because one wishes a "free pass," but rather because the religious position is perceived as irrational, invasive, or even evil.

To pick a reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, what if a once-trusted religious authority declared that wearing shirts with matching sleeves was a sign of demonic possession, and required his followers to cut one sleeve shorter or fear the fires of hell? I think you would agree that such a preposterous and untenable idea puts the sanity and reasonableness of that religious authority in question. You might well abandon a sect that preaches such obvious nonsense because it is so symptomatic of insanity or stupidity. It would not, however, be appropriate to say that you gave up that church for the trivial reason of wanting longer sleeves, any more than it would appropriate to say that you're not a Jehovah's witness (assuming you're not) because you have an appetite for blood.

I really do not believe that issues of masturbation have brought about any person's decision to become an atheist, for the simple reason that there are plenty of religious organizations to which a masturbating theist could belong without conflict. I grew up in one myself. I can guarantee that, had I cared to divulge my adolescent practices to my Congregational minister, he would have assured me that it was not a sin, and not to worry.

Anyone who decides not to believe in God because some church tells him he'll go to hell for wanking is as stupid as someone who thinks it's a truth worth debating about.

But back to my one big question, an honest answer to which I think you owe to all who have taken on the effort of engaging you on this issue: Is masturbation a sin about which one ought to feel guilty? Yes or no, please. Details beyond that are not necessary.

[RandFan]

Yrreg, this thread would work better, I think, if you would be more direct and honest about what you mean.Yeah, and I'd like a 3 way with Cindy Margolis and Heidi Klum and that ain't gonna happen either. :(

[arthwollipot]

I wonder what the Torah says about oral sex?

[six7s]

I read in one website an expert in religious Jews' morality stating that masturbation is not acceptable.

:confused:

@yrreg:

Please explain why you think/believe/hope such a statement (i.e. one so vague as to be meaningless) can be regarded as being - in any way, shape or form - relevant in a thread on a critical thinking forum?

[six7s]

I wonder what the Torah says about oral sex?Suck it and see

[bokonon]

In a way - a strange, twisted-around kind of way - yrreg is sort of right. Atheists have no religious bar on sexual activity of any type.Many theists don't either. If you can ignore the Bible's requirement to stone your sassy kids and give away all your possessions to follow Jesus, certainly you can ignore a couple of verses about homosexuality and masturbation.

Personally I have two regular lovers. Is that adultery? No, I don't believe it is. For a start, I'm not married.Ah, just fornication then. Well, nothing in the ten commandments about that...

My behaviour is not dictated by any external source.

And it certainly is not dictated by a book that condemns homosexuality for no particular reason, then dictates punishment for a rape victim because she didn't scream loud enough.
I think the Bible condemns homosexuality and masturbation because they really needed to have as many kids as possible. Disease, starvation, predation, accidents, wars, and natural disasters were culling their herds at a fearsome rate.

Today, it's harder to make the case that we need more people. Most children in developed countries live long enough to have children themselves. If people decide not to have partners, or partners decide not to have children, society doesn't suffer for it.

There is no more reason to deny people responsible sexual choices than there is to deny them responsible career choices.

[arthwollipot]

Ah, just fornication then. Well, nothing in the ten commandments about that...Yeah, but there's a mention in 1st Corinthians...

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a revelation for you, yrreg. Everything that The Atheist has said in this thread is a joke. He's yanking your chain.

And hence sparing you the guilt of yanking it yourself.

Dave

[articulett]

:fg:
HZmHC75FDqQ

[Aerik]

So now you're just accusing us of wanting to masturbate and we just say we don't believe in god to pretend to get away with it? Do we really have to go through the motions of debunking this obvious falsehood?

Do you have anything of any real substance to say whatsoever?

Why isn't mr backwards gerry banned again?

[Twiler]

So now you're just accusing us of wanting to masturbate and we just say we don't believe in god to pretend to get away with it? Do we really have to go through the motions of debunking this obvious falsehood?

Do you have anything of any real substance to say whatsoever?

Why isn't mr backwards gerry banned again?

Backwards gerry?

Oh, right... Is this his second account?

[Belz...]

Or god is schizophrenic, kill them, don't kill them, kill them, Moses was just a voice inside god's head...

And the Sodom and Gomorrah deal. I mean, didn't he know WHO was wicked ? Couldn't he just kill those ? Sheesh, Noah had to BARGAIN with god in order to try to save some of its people. The guy's actually got more sense that the almighty.

[Belz...]

I read in one website an expert in religious Jews' morality stating that masturbation is not acceptable.

So ?

And you know, I find the position of that website for Jewish morality on abortion to be quite if I am not mistaken contrary to present US law.

Uh-huh.

And here is what it says about gay and lesbian sex.

And ?

For people who find religions very unacceptable, please use your reason and intelligence that religions are not the only access to God.

Well, faith seems to be the only access to god, since for some reason when we DO use our reason and intelligence we seem to find anything but god.

So, don't bring up bad religions as a justification or proof even that God does not exist.

There are good religions ?

Please be guided accordingly by your more constructive use of reason and intelligence to achieve rational consistency, even though you opt for guiltless masturbation on the ground of there being no God to prohibit all kinds of sexual perversions

Masturbation is a perversion ? There's a number of dogs who'd like to know this.

If you fellow atheists want to say that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not spokesmen of atheists, people will tell you that what you mean is you can speak for yourselves, that rational consistency of the atheistic kind and totally unbridled sexual perversions are the reward for embracing atheism.

Actually, YOU're the one who was claiming this. Nobody in their right mind thinks that atheism leads to sexual perversion, or the reverse.

[Belz...]

The thing that is wacky about Christianity is that "thinking" is the same as doing. God judges your fantasies!

Thought police, indeed. What a stupid deity.

I miss the old religions. At least the Greek and Norse and Egyptian mythologies, amongst others, had some interesting stories and flawed gods and fun heroes.

[Dave Rogers]

I miss the old religions. At least the Greek and Norse and Egyptian mythologies, amongst others, had some interesting stories and flawed gods and fun heroes.

According to DOC, if they're portrayed as having flaws, doesn't that mean that they're more likely to be real than the omnipotent, perfect Christian God? Or am I in the wrong thread?

Dave

[Belz...]

I would think that, indeed, they would be more plausible if flawed. They'd also be more interesting, of course. The Chritians' perfect machine-god is boring as hell.

[articulett]

Actually the christian god is an awful character... it's just that theists have learned to call everything he does "good" and "perfect". Theism causes some of the worst doublethink I've ever seen.

[Belz...]

Yes. What's good is good because God says so. No matter the mass murders he ordered or commited. It has to be good, otherwise their world-view collapses. Atheists have no such problem because they understand that morality is subjective, to a degree.

A friend of mind once told me that one of the reasons he believed was because he had to believe in an objective justice. Poor bloke.

[volatile]

can I ask what sexual libertarianism is? Screwing whilst reading Rand?

oh sorry, I misread...

Reading Rand whilst screwing.

[Safe-Keeper]

Kinda takes the whole "typing with one hand" thing to a new level, doesn't it?

[Silentknight]

And the Sodom and Gomorrah deal. I mean, didn't he know WHO was wicked ? Couldn't he just kill those ? Sheesh, Noah had to BARGAIN with god in order to try to save some of its people. The guy's actually got more sense that the almighty.

Slight nitpick. That was Lot, not Noah. God still nuked his wife and the fiancees of his two daughters, which of course lead to that incident where Lot's daughters got him drunk and took turns raping him so that they could get pregnant.

[Toke]

which of course lead to that incident where Lot's daughters got him drunk and took turns raping him so that they could get pregnant.

Yes, I have noticed that in very religius societies women have a nasty habit of seducing innocent men.
The muslims have taken the consequense and require 4 male witnesses if she attempt to excuse her wantones with rape.

[Silentknight]

My point of course being to draw a contrast between the family values that Lot demonstrated (he still had an active role in that incident, mind you) and the family values that religious homophobes claim to be defending while citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of how God punishes sin.

[Toke]

You mean religious homophobes are inconsistent*:jaw-dropp


*Or is hypocrites more approporiate?

[articulett]

Or they make them impotent. Women in Africa are being accused of witchcraft because of impotency in nearby men.

They accuse the women of having put a curse on the men.




What was this thread about again?

[Toke]

What was this thread about again?

Atheism, sex, guilt, and religion.

[six7s]

What was this thread about again?Wankers

[volatile]

Serious question yrreg, why should someone feel guilty about masturbating?

I only feel guilty if masturbation ends leaving stains on my girlfriend's shoes.

[bruto]

Slight nitpick. That was Lot, not Noah. God still nuked his wife and the fiancees of his two daughters, which of course lead to that incident where Lot's daughters got him drunk and took turns raping him so that they could get pregnant.Speaking of slight nitpicks, was it not Abraham who actually did the bargaining on Lot's behalf?

So lot handed his daughters over to the Sodomites to sodomize or whatever they wanted, and then they got him tanked up and rode him en famille...but at least they didn't touch themselves. It's good to know that God keeps his priorities where sexual deviation is concerned.

[X]

Here's a revelation for you, yrreg. Everything that The Atheist has said in this thread is a joke. He's yanking your chain. He's making a funny. He's jesting.

And the way you take every word so seriously would be the funniest part, if you didn't take every word so seriously.


Aww...

Why'd you have to tell him?

I was enjoying watching TA illustrate poignantly how yrreg acknowledges only that which agrees with his preconceptions.


Hey, yrreg: Any answer to my question in the "Why I am angry at atheists" thread?

[arthwollipot]

Aww...

Why'd you have to tell him?Because I couldn't stand it any more and my forehead was starting to hurt.
:bwall
:bwall
:bwall
:bwall
:bwall

[yrreg]

I said several times that I am bemusedlly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with athiest, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.

Now I have confirmation from your posts here that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not really sincere in their words, but are just being funny.




Posted by The Atheist

Posted by yrreg
I like to ask atheists whether sexual libertinism is the real motivation for embracing atheism, and rational consistency is just an attempt at convenient justification supposedly afforded by the atheism worldview.
Absolutely correct - please ignore the deniers, because they're just scared to admit the truth.

Atheism is all about anger at god, and yes, most of that anger is plain sexual tension. Easy way out is to deny god, then we can all root like rabbits.

Why do you think Mark Siefert is always complaining about not getting laid? If you're not getting laid by all manner of people and sexes, indulging in as many types of kinky sex as possible, then there's no point being an atheist.

Please note the authority of my opinion, I am not just an atheist, I am The Atheist.

Congratulations on your highly perceptive insight!




In the study of atheism we are dealing with humans not with the moon and stars, that is why I am concentrating on atheists the subjects instead of an abstract worldview of an ism.

I take every word you write as coming from your honest heart and mind, of course you can later deny them with the disclosure that you were only joking.

I use the phrase sexual libertinism to indicate sex without any restraints whatsoever unlike sexual liberation.


What about bestiality, are you into bestiality?

And incest?

And pornography?

And rape of children or seducing kids?


If you are not into the practice of the above acts, do you believe that it is not unacceptable for atheists?

So if you yourself should ever feel some urge to go into those acts you would not have any socalled qualms of conscience to do them?

Specially if you can get away with man-enacted laws against the commission of such acts?




Yrreg


So, my suggestion is that when you post next, please place at the very top of your message whether you are being funny or being serious with your words here in this JREF forum, in reacting to my thoughts.




---------------------------


The more I study atheists the more I am certain that they are into what I must call regtrogressive thinking.


Mankind's reason and intelligence brought man's mind to the knowledge of God's existence as the creator of heaven and heart

[Foster Zygote]

I said several times that I am bemusedlly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with athiest, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.

Now I have confirmation from your posts here that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not really sincere in their words, but are just being funny.

So, my suggestion is that when you post next, please place at the very top of your message whether you are being funny or being serious with your words here in this JREF forum, in reacting to my thoughts.


Attention Gerry: The following post contains no humor that I am aware of, other than the bit in the quote box.

I was in fact sincere in my words. Humor often contains truth. My remark about guiltless masturbation, while intended in humor, was directed at the fact that many religious traditions contain utterly ridiculous restrictions against perfectly normal, healthy, recreational sex between consenting adults. The fact that this (as well as the facetious nature of The Atheist's responses) has to be pointed out to you is sad in a way that seems beyond your comprehension, which, for you, is probably a good thing.

[yrreg]

I said several times that I am bemusedly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with atheists, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.

Now I have confirmation from atheists' posts here that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not really sincere in their words, but are just being funny.

However, I would prefer that they talk for themselves instead of you talking for them.





Posted by The Atheist

Posted by yrreg
I like to ask atheists whether sexual libertinism is the real motivation for embracing atheism, and rational consistency is just an attempt at convenient justification supposedly afforded by the atheism worldview.
Absolutely correct - please ignore the deniers, because they're just scared to admit the truth.

Atheism is all about anger at god, and yes, most of that anger is plain sexual tension. Easy way out is to deny god, then we can all root like rabbits.

Why do you think Mark Siefert is always complaining about not getting laid? If you're not getting laid by all manner of people and sexes, indulging in as many types of kinky sex as possible, then there's no point being an atheist.

Please note the authority of my opinion, I am not just an atheist, I am The Atheist.

Congratulations on your highly perceptive insight!

In the study of atheism we are dealing with humans not with the moon and stars, that is why I am concentrating on atheists the subjects instead of an abstract worldview of an ism.

I take every word you write as coming from your honest heart and mind, of course you can later deny them with the disclosure that you were only joking.

I use the phrase sexual libertinism to indicate sex without any restraints whatsoever unlike sexual liberation.


What about bestiality, are you into bestiality?

And incest?

And pornography?

And rape of children or seducing kids?


If you are not into the practice of the above acts, do you believe that it is not unacceptable for atheists?

So if you yourself should ever feel some urge to go into those acts you would not have any socalled qualms of conscience to do them?

Specially if you can get away with man-enacted laws against the commission of such acts?



Yrreg


My suggestion is that when you atheists post again here, please indicate at the very top of your message: whether you are being funny or being serious with your words here in this JREF forum, in reacting to my thoughts.



---------------------------


The more I study atheists the more I am certain that they are into what I must call retrogressive thinking.


Mankind's reason and intelligence brought man's heart and mind to the knowledge of God's existence as the creator of heaven and heart.

And the closest relationship they have come to the link with God is that God is father to mankind, thus the first words of the Apostles' Creed:


I believe in
God the Father Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth.

Atheists engage in retrogressive thinking:

Instead of a God Father almighty creator of heaven and earth, they occupy their heart and mind with the thought on their self-imposed conviction, that there is no God but chaos and it works by chance or accident.

And why would they want to engage in retrogressive thinking -- if indeed that is any thinking at all?

So that they can achieve their kind of retrogressive rational consistency and unbridled total licentiousness in everything they can and want and care to do, according go their again retrogressive judgment or abuse of wilful choice, to make themselves the foundation of all truth and goodness.


What is true and good for atheists?

In their retrogressive thinking if that is thinking, truth for the atheists is what they decide to be true in the chaos of a universe that is their own existence and life.

And what is goodness to them but what they want to do for whatever purpose of self-advantage or pleasure to themselves.


However, they are still atheists who hold to some residual values of theistic ethic to keep themselves above ants and monkeys.

Nonetheless they by retrogressive thinking will not admit these values to have been imbued by God into their heart and mind, but instead credit these values to chaos working by chance.

That is certainly retrogressive thinking for being contrary to the principle of parsimony.


Ask Occam to evaluate that kind of retrogression to an earlier and cruder stage of human knowledge and insight into the universe of existence, and man's skills in the world of rational and intelligent discourse, and he will state categorically that it is indeed most contrary to parsimonious thinking.




Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Attention Gerry: The following post contains no humor.

Perhaps, in future, you could just bold the parts of your posts that are actually new?

[arthwollipot]

This post contains no humour

Or perhaps just post new stuff rather than copy/pasting previous posts?

[Hokulele]

This post contains serious humor.

Ask Occam to evaluate that kind of retrogression to an earlier and cruder stage of human knowledge and insight into the universe of existence, and man's skills in the world of rational and intelligent discourse, and he will state categorically that it is indeed most contrary to parsimonious thinking.


You are aware that he is dead, yes?

[Sunstealer]

This post contains no humour.

[six7s]

DISCLAIMER: FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED. OR MAYBE SOME COBOL. MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF NUTS. ANY RESEMBLANCE TO REAL HUMOUR, LIVING OR DEAD IS JUST PLAIN WEIRD, BUT HEY, IT HAPPENSWhat is true and good for atheists?That you have to ask is obvious

That you don't want an answer is bizarre

That you even try to foist your half-baked nonsense on atheists and critical thinkers participating in this thread is farcical
In their retrogressive thinking if that is thinking, truth for the atheists is what they decide to be true in the chaos of a universe that is their own existence and life.

And what is goodness to them but what they want to do for whatever purpose of self-advantage or pleasure to themselves.Is it sunny, in your world, today?

[articulett]

This post contains no humor

Inability to understand sarcasm is often the first symptom of frontotemporal dementia:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2428/sarcasm-useful-detecting-dementia

[PixyMisa]

I said several times that I am bemusedly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with atheists, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.
We addressed the issue a dozen threads ago.

We're still waiting for you to read and respond to our posts from back then. While we wait, we're amusing ourselves. It's what we do.

Now I have confirmation from atheists' posts here that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not really sincere in their words, but are just being funny.
Well, duh.

My suggestion is that when you atheists post again here, please indicate at the very top of your message: whether you are being funny or being serious with your words here in this JREF forum, in reacting to my thoughts.
My suggestion is that you spend less time thumbing through the thesaurus trying to make yourself look smart, and more time reading what people write.

The more I study atheists
There is no evidence that you have studied atheists at all.

the more I am certain that they are into what I must call retrogressive thinking.
What is this, and why must you call it "retrogressive thinking"?

Mankind's reason and intelligence brought man's heart and mind to the knowledge of God's existence as the creator of heaven and heart.
No, Yrreg. One minor bronze age desert tribe made it all up.

And the closest relationship they have come to the link with God is that God is father to mankind, thus the first words of the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in
God the Father Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth.

And?

Atheists engage in retrogressive thinking:
So you keep saying.

Instead of a God Father almighty creator of heaven and earth, they occupy their heart and mind with the thought on their self-imposed conviction, that there is no God but chaos and it works by chance or accident.
No. Wrong.

And why would they want to engage in retrogressive thinking -- if indeed that is any thinking at all?
What is this "retrogressive thinking" you keep talking about, and what is the evidence that anyone, much less atheists, participates in it?

So that they can achieve their kind of retrogressive rational consistency
Ohnoes! Rational consistency!

and unbridled total licentiousness
Dude, look around you. This is the Relion and Philosophy forum at JREF. It don't get much more bridled short of a livery stable.

in everything they can and want and care to do, according go their again retrogressive judgment or abuse of wilful choice, to make themselves the foundation of all truth and goodness.
Again, no. Again, wrong.

What is true and good for atheists?
What is true is the truth. What is good is pie.

In their retrogressive thinking if that is thinking, truth for the atheists is what they decide to be true in the chaos of a universe that is their own existence and life.
No.

And what is goodness to them but what they want to do for whatever purpose of self-advantage or pleasure to themselves.
No.

However, they are still atheists who hold to some residual values of theistic ethic to keep themselves above ants and monkeys.
What does theism have to do with ethics?

Nonetheless they by retrogressive thinking will not admit these values to have been imbued by God into their heart and mind, but instead credit these values to chaos working by chance.
No.

That is certainly retrogressive thinking for being contrary to the principle of parsimony.
BZZZT! Ultimate fail.

Any invocation of a unbounded supreme being automatically fails the principle of parsimony when compared to any other assumption at all. God is one word but an infinite set of assumptions.

Ask Occam to evaluate that kind of retrogression to an earlier and cruder stage of human knowledge and insight into the universe of existence, and man's skills in the world of rational and intelligent discourse, and he will state categorically that it is indeed most contrary to parsimonious thinking.
Nope. Occam's Razor cuts out God every time.

[arthwollipot]

I for one refuse to explicitly state whether I'm trying to be funny or not. If yrreg is not a sociopath, he should be able to work it out for himself.

Yes, I am an atheist. Yes, I am what some people would call sexually libertarian. Whether that is the same as libertine I don't know, because I don't know what libertine means.

I am polyamorous. That means that I maintain relationships with multiple people at once. I have my family, who I love dearly, which includes three other adults and two teenage boys. I do not currently have a sexual relationship with any of the three adults (although I have in the past), but I do have sexual relationships with two people outside the family. My sexual preferences are pretty vanilla hetero, but I have no objection to male or femal homosexuality. Does this make me a "libertine"? I don't know. But I am certainly more comfortable with sexuality than a great many people I know.

Does being an atheist affect this at all? I think it does, in a way. Atheism means that I don't have to observe artificial restrictions in my practice of sex.

I was liberal in my attitudes towards sex for some time before I realised that I was an atheist. I was already a part of the family, and polyamorously active, when I came to the conclusion. We had not yet had the kids. I have never felt like I had to be sexually exclusive - in fact I considered the idea to be a bit weird. On the contrary, it was only while I was going through my religious phase that I even considered it as a serious lifestyle choice.

I think the point that yrreg misses is that atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with sex. I did not become an atheist because I was poly, and I did not become poly because I was an atheist. They are different aspects of my life.

Religion is what affects sexuality, invariably by placing restrictions on it. Relegion restricts homosexuality. Religion restricts polyamory. Religion makes you feel guilty for masturbating. Discard religion, and you can decide for yourself what you are and aren't comfortable with.

In the words of Eric Schwartz: I don't tell you how to pray, so don't you tell me how to screw.

[gdnp]

THIS POST CONTAINS MINIMAL HUMOR (THE PART ABOUT NOAH, ALTHOUGH MAKING A SERIOUS POINT, WAS ALSO DESIGNED TO BE HUMOROUS. THE PART ABOUT THE HEART IS ALSO A BIT SARCASTIC)


Mankind's reason and intelligence brought man's heart and mind to the knowledge of God's existence as the creator of heaven and heart...
Primative men believed in many Gods. More civilized men refined this down to one god, although many different men believed in many different gods. Science explained away the magic of these gods, and using my mind I have further simplified this to no gods. The heart is of no use for this purpose as it is a muscular organ for pumping blood.

Instead of a God Father almighty creator of heaven and earth, they occupy their heart and mind with the thought on their self-imposed conviction, that there is no God but chaos and it works by chance or accident.It is not my fault that the heavens and earth having been created through a "big bang" several billion years ago fits the available data better than it having been created 7000 years ago in 7 days. This conviction was not self-imposed, it was imposed by available data.

And why would they want to engage in retrogressive thinking -- if indeed that is any thinking at all?Because we prefer a world view based on logic and reason to one based on myths and superstition. It allows us to better predict future events. For example, it allows us to predict that if someone has an infection then antibiotics are more likely to cure them than prayer.

So that they can achieve their kind of retrogressive rational consistency and unbridled total licentiousness in everything they can and want and care to do, according go their again retrogressive judgment or abuse of wilful choice, to make themselves the foundation of all truth and goodness.Well, it does have the advantage of allowing us to reject superstitions that have no logical basis. It may have made sense to not eat pork 2000 years ago when pork was infected with trichinosis, but this disease has been eradicated in the US and thus pork can be safely eaten. Religions, unfortunately, are slow to update their lists of "bad" and "good" things because God doesn't seem to communicate with us any more. Strange that an omnipotent omnipresent being who wants us to behave in a particular way would not make his desires more unambiguous, isn't it?

Now I suppose you could call this making oneself the "foundation of all truth and goodness", but unfortunately there is no alternative. Each individual must decide for him or herself what is right or wrong. Atheists do this on an ad hoc basis. Theists must first choose one of the dozens of religions out there, then choose one of the many different sects of that religion, then choose which particular interpretation of religious teaching is true.

Take masturbation, for example. Some Christians argue that it is a sin based on an interpretation of a passage from the bible involving Onan that does not even involve masturbation. Others believe that this passage is irrelevant and that masturbation is not a sin at all.

Or take killing. "thou shalt not kill" seems pretty unambiguous, but I have heard it would be better translated as "thou shalt not murder". Yet most people seem to think that killing in self-defense or in the defense of innocents is justified, and that there is such a thing as "just war". Therefore, even religious people must decide which killings are just and which are unjust.

So ultimately it is up to the individual to decide what is moral and what is not. We can use books or the words of philosophers and other learned men for guidance, but ultimately we must each make our own decision.

Nonetheless they by retrogressive thinking will not admit these values to have been imbued by God into their heart and mind, but instead credit these values to chaos working by chance.Not exactly. I believe that evolution via natural selection has favored societies where people are cooperative, moral, and altruistic. They have been more likely to survive and prosper than societies where people are "evil". Whether this morality has become hard wired into our genes or whether it is taught from parent to child is not entirely clear. I suspect a bit of both. Some people are born selfish and some altruistic, yet upbringing also has a major influence. I think that if I had been brought up by racist parents I would most likely be racist. This allows me to believe that the nazis were victims of circumstance rather than inherently evil. Had I been born a Mongol under Atilla I probably would have raped and pillaged without giving a second thought as to whether this was wrong.

Ask Occam to evaluate that kind of retrogression to an earlier and cruder stage of human knowledge and insight into the universe of existence, and man's skills in the world of rational and intelligent discourse, and he will state categorically that it is indeed most contrary to parsimonious thinking.The cruder state of knowledge and insight into the universe is the one provided by religion. The bible tells us nothing about planets, stars, evolution, genes, atoms, energy, etc. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Noah got 2 of every species of animal onto a single boat, since there are at least 15,000 different species of mammals, not to mention those lke that Mammoth that are now extinct. Science does a pretty good job describing and explaining the world and how it works. God adds no further predictive power. Therefore the principle of parsimony calls for following the system without god. Sorry.

[yy2bggggs]

I said several times that I am bemusedly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with atheists, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.
Ironic, isn't it?

[Mashuna]

Now I have confirmation from your posts here that Foster Zygote and The Atheist are not really sincere in their words, but are just being funny.

So, my suggestion is that when you post next, please place at the very top of your message whether you are being funny or being serious with your words here in this JREF forum, in reacting to my thoughts.




Yrreg, if you're not able to make simple evaluations over people's humour, what makes you think you can make complex evaluations on people's philosophies?

[HghrSymmetry]

LOL @ this thread!

Entertainment rating: 8.45

(yes, it's a kidney buster)

[Eskarina]

Warning!

This post contains minor confusion.

How did yregg proceed from rational consistency and guiltless masturbation to retrogressive thinking? :confused:

And what's next?

[lionking]

Have yregg and DOC ever linked up? I'd love to see the results.

[yrreg]

[...]

In the words of Eric Schwartz: I don't tell you how to pray, so don't you tell me how to screw.


This is addressed to all atheists:

Please do your own thinking, and use your own wording.

Abstain from leaning on authorities who are only pseudo ones; these authorities of yours can't even construct a systematic presentation of atheists' credulities.


That is why I study atheists instead of atheism, because in studying atheists one can see how they follow people, their fellow atheists who managed to have put their credulities in print, and who they think thereby but erroneously to have been given serious notice by non-retrogressive thinkers.


An example of retrogressive thinking is precisely what atheists are doing in bringing up hoary gods like Zeus and Odin.

By this time in 2008 c.e. and now going to 2009 c.e., you should know if you do some solid thinking that theistic scientists and philosophers and artists understand by God, the author of all existence that is not necessary existing entities, and of all orders and laws whatever of all spheres of existence that run the contingent universe or everything that is dependent on God Himself for its existence.


Here is another mode of thinking or non-thinking of atheists, I call it flippant thinking.

An example of flippant thinking is the insistence of atheists to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.

It gives the appearance of being smart on the part of atheists, but people who really do genuine thinking know that it is all a strategy of camouflage instead of facing the issue.


I am looking for more ways of non-thinking from the part of atheists.

So far, I have already found two modes of non-thinking:

1. Retrogressive thinking or non-thinking more correctly, and

2. Flippant non-thinking.





Yrreg

[Toke]

This is addressed to all atheists theist:

Please do your own thinking, and use your own wording.

Abstain from leaning on authorities who are only pseudo ones; these authorities of yours can't even construct a systematic presentation of atheists' credulities god´s nature and wishes.


Fixed that for you.

[Toke]

Besides, atheism is only about the lack of a god.
Don´t expect much in the way of stratified thinking apart from that.

[Dave Rogers]

This is addressed to all atheists:
Please do your own thinking, and use your own wording.
As opposed to learning the creed of a religion previously generated by others, substituting adherence to that creed for original thought, and referring to the received wording of that creed in order to confirm your correct learning of it? Yes, we can do that.

Dave

[Twiler]

Yrreg, I have thought, and I disagree. The moon became without creator, and the universe has no ultimate cause or meaning. Why should I think any differently?

[slingblade]

retrogressive
A adjective
1 retrograde, retrogressive

going from better to worse


That term more accurately describes Gerry's arguments.

[Darth Rotor]

yrreg, it's not going well for you in this discussion.

Is there a reason to continue? My guess is that you are feeding the martyr Jones you've got. Is that really necessary now, at Christmas time? Might you be better off waiting for the Lenten season for that?

Merry Christmas, yrreg, and where you can, please remember what Jesus said were the two greatest commandments: you know where to find them in the Scriptures. :)

DR

[bruto]

Yrreg, I was not being at all ironic or humorous when I asked for a simple answer to a simple question, so in case you missed it, here it is again:

This entire argument of yours depends, as you have repeatedly stated, on a statement by Foster Zygote with regard to "guilt-free masturbation," as it relates to a concept you have introduced, called "sexual libertinism."

If, as you continue to assert, you wish for clarity, intelligent discourse, and adherence to the subject, then you would do well to let us know if you do, indeed, believe that masturbation is a sin about which one ought to feel guilty, and if consistent with that, you believe that masturbation is an instance of "sexual libertinism," a term thus far undefined. Until you have clarified your own position, you have no position at all and no complaint if others cannot read your mind correctly.

You complain continually about others not sticking to the point, but your responses to most posts, at least those of mine you've answered, are so wildly irrelevant that I am beginning to suspect you are not a real person at all, but a computer "bot." I have asked a simple question here, which can easily be answered simply with no digression, no biblical references, no links and no snarky snipes at atheists or anyone else. Can you steel yourself to the task?

[bruto]

Thinking about the absurdity of this whole thread, perhaps I can make my point to Yrreg with a silly parallel.

Imagine that you had been raised in a bizarre cult. The Church of Marvin. The founding doctrine of this church is that there is no God but Marvin the Martian, and Jerome da Gnome is his prophet. In addition to various rules, peripheral beliefs and ceremonies, you are required to wear a funny hat at all times.

Somewhere along the way, you discover, through reason or revelation, that the doctrine of the church is in error. There is no Marvin at all. You abandon the church, relieved that you are no longer bound to their false doctrines, and in passing you remark that you're glad you don't have to wear that damn hat!

What?!?! You abandoned the one true religion for a HAT?

[yrreg]

yrreg, it's not going well for you in this discussion.

Is there a reason to continue? My guess is that you are feeding the martyr Jones you've got. Is that really necessary now, at Christmas time? Might you be better off waiting for the Lenten season for that?

Merry Christmas, yrreg, and where you can, please remember what Jesus said were the two greatest commandments: you know where to find them in the Scriptures. :)

DR


Are you an atheist? In which case congratulations you still harbor a lot of residual Christian theistic ethic and culture.



Yrreg

[Ron_Tomkins]

ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING POST IS VERY FUNNY

I just farted. I blame it on God.

[Ron_Tomkins]

This post contains no humor

Inability to understand sarcasm is often the first symptom of frontotemporal dementia:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2428/sarcasm-useful-detecting-dementia

I actually thought that was slightly amusing



WARNING, THE PREVIOUS RESPONSE WAS A JOKE

[RoboTimbo]

Are you an atheist? In which case congratulations you still harbor a lot of residual Christian theistic ethic and culture.



Yrreg


I note that you have neglected to begin all of your posts with "This is humorous". Please tend to that oversight in the future.

Perhaps "This is trolling" would be a better preamble for your posts?

[yrreg]

To atheists who still harbor in their heart and mind a lot of residual Christian theistic ethic and culture:


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

And peace to men of good will and specially whose reason and intelligence lead them to the existence of God:

The Father Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth.



And rest assured that I harbor no ill will toward anyone of mankind, but except to study in the present instance the atheists' kind of psychology and epistemology in embracing atheism, specially in terms of even unconscious motivated mindset and behavior.

For people who ask me questions which I don't seem to be answering, please look up my posts already published, and if still you don't find my answers to them, then think up your own answers if you were me.

But I wouldn't agree that your kind of answers if you were me are what I would answer, but just the same look up my posts, all of them in this forum, if you care to be curious about me and my mindset and attitude and personality.

And thanks for the compliment if any from taking the time to read my posting here.

And I always follow the path mapped out by true reason and intelligence and adherence to evidence.



Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Warning! The following post contains humor and may confuse Gerry.

And to those of you who don't harbor any residual Christian theistic ethic or culture, or never had it to begin with, **** you and everybody that looks like you.

[Terry]

Warning! The following post contains humor and may confuse Gerry.

And to those of you who don't harbor any residual Christian theistic ethic or culture, or never had it to begin with, **** you and everybody that looks like you.

Thanks, nothing like a good **** to make for a cheerful day.

[six7s]

Warning! The following post contains traces of yrreg and may provoke a mild reaction in nuts.

And peace to men of good will Why are you bastardising the words of Luke?

and specially whose reason and intelligence lead them to the existence of God:Please name one such man, or woman

The Father Almighty
Creator of heaven and earth.Please, stop spamming the forum with this ridiculous nonsense

[six7s]

Warning! The following post contains humor and may confuse Gerry.

And to those of you who don't harbor any residual Christian theistic ethic or culture, or never had it to begin with, **** you and everybody that looks like you.

And to those of you whose cups overfloweth with theistic woo, please wipe up any mess once your done polishing your icons

[articulett]

Thanks, nothing like a good **** to make for a cheerful day.


It always puts a spring in my step.

Christian charity at it's finest. Yeehaw!

Do they ever tire of spinning the delusion of superiority?

The exuberance of the holier-than-thou always hits a high point at the holidays leaving me in fits of irreverent giggles. It's the most wonderful time of the year...

[six7s]

it's the most wonderful incredibly fantastical time of the year...
ftfy :)

[Silentknight]

This post contains as much seriousness as a response to Yrreg's arguments warrants.
This is addressed to all atheists:

Please do your own thinking, and use your own wording.
In that case I'm going to have to invent an original slang term for wanking. Let's see. Oh okay, I think I've got one. See the end of my post.

Abstain from leaning on authorities who are only pseudo ones; these authorities of yours can't even construct a systematic presentation of atheists' credulities.
You're right. Richard Dawkins never bothered to warn me that you were incapable of making a point. I'm so disillusioned.

That is why I study atheists instead of atheism, because in studying atheists one can see how they follow people, their fellow atheists who managed to have put their credulities in print, and who they think thereby but erroneously to have been given serious notice by non-retrogressive thinkers.
I'd tell you to go back and double check your thesaurus before you butcher another definition, but you'd probably think I was talking about a dinosaur with characteristics of a definite article of speech.

An example of retrogressive thinking is precisely what atheists are doing in bringing up hoary gods like Zeus and Odin.
Yeah, instead, let's bring up the ancient Midianite deity of the winds whose name sounds like a popular search engine. No one in their right minds would still believe in him either.

By this time in 2008 c.e. and now going to 2009 c.e., you should know if you do some solid thinking that theistic scientists and philosophers and artists understand by God, the author of all existence that is not necessary existing entities, and of all orders and laws whatever of all spheres of existence that run the contingent universe or everything that is dependent on God Himself for its existence.
So God exists, therefore God exists? I think the hamster just fell off your wheel.

Here is another mode of thinking or non-thinking of atheists, I call it flippant thinking.

An example of flippant thinking is the insistence of atheists to call God the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.
No, no, those terms refer to examples of alternate possibilities that the reasoning often used to prove God would also lend support to. The alternate name for God is "Imaginary Beared Sky-Daddy." Get it straight!

It gives the appearance of being smart on the part of atheists, but people who really do genuine thinking know that it is all a strategy of camouflage instead of facing the issue.
Yeah, it really gives the appearance of intelligence on the part of people who require others to explicitly state whether or not they're joking, who are unwilling to address the majority of the responses to them, and who are incapable of comprehending the few responses they do address.

I am looking for more ways of non-thinking from the part of atheists.

So far, I have already found two modes of non-thinking:

1. Retrogressive thinking or non-thinking more correctly, and

2. Flippant non-thinking.





Yrreg
That statement sounded angry, and since anger comes from stress, and studies have shown that stress can be relieved by scourging one's savior, I think the recommendation goes without saying once again.

[bruto]

Are you an atheist? In which case congratulations you still harbor a lot of residual Christian theistic ethic and culture.



YrregYou don't pay much attention, do you? Darth is a Christian, and at his salted cynical sithy pithy worst (which he has withheld here with restraint worthy of virtual sainthood), he could not match you for unwarranted, condescending arrogance.

[Dunstan]

For people who ask me questions which I don't seem to be answering, please look up my posts already published, and if still you don't find my answers to them, then think up your own answers if you were me.

Ah, sort of like how you ignore other people's answers and just make up the ones you wish they'd given?

[articulett]

ftfy :)

teh awesome!

[bruto]

Yrreg, I would gladly think up answers for you, but you have made it clear that you disdain the opinion and outlook of just about everyone here, so that does not make for a very useful discourse. Of course I'm making the rash assumption that you want useful discourse, which I actually very much doubt. But the remnants of my Christian upbringing keep intruding, so I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, you seem to have enough time and energy to post here from time to time, so I will repeat my questions: Do you believe that masturbation is a sin or offense for which one ought to feel guilty, and do you think that masturbation is an instance of what you have called "sexual libertinism?"

If you actually care to argue a point of view, why hand the understanding of your position to the speculation of a bunch of atheists and contrarian Christians like Darth? Are you incapable of making a short, honest answer to a short, honest question?

You ought to be able to find time to answer this pair of simple questions. I would settle for a pair of adverbs and a single (if you'll pardon the expression) copulative:

"Yes and yes", "yes and no", "no and yes," or "no and no" would do it.

Are you up to the task?

[fuelair]

I frankly don't see the connection between "guiltless masturbation" and "sexual libertinism." I can recall many instances in which guiltless masturbation made it easier to avoid the temptations of libertines and focus on my studies with rational consistency.
And, regardless of any other aspect, masturbation is not afaik forbidden by most religions - and is, indeed, not mentioned. As a connected note, Onanism is not - though some religions pretend it is - masturbation. Onanism is very specifically coitus interruptus and more specifically coitus interruptus to prevent having a child by your dead brother's wife as required by O.T. rules. Those using Onan against masturbation rely on the "spilled his seed upon the ground" which really only referred to the result, not the procedure/rule he had violated.

[gdnp]

[B]
That statement sounded angry, and since anger comes from stress, and studies have shown that stress can be relieved by scourging one's savior, I think the recommendation goes without saying once again.

Thanks. Now I have to explain to my kids why I just broke out in hysterical laughter.

[yrreg]

Here are more non-thinking tergiversative ways of atheists in their postings in web forums and also writings in the web.

I already mentioned retrogressive thinking or non-thinking and flippant thinking, I will just repeat them again in this post and add other tergiversative non-thinking ways of atheists in their non-communication.

1. Retrogressive non-thinking, for example, bringing up hoary gods like Zeus and Odin.

2. Flippant non-thinking, for example, defining God as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.

3. Coital, genital, and anal non-thinking, for example, using the words ***** and ***** and dwelling on genitals and anus and copulation and defecation and their eflluvients instead rising above these in themselves biological items, in reacting to theists' attempts to bring them to exchange of ideas.

4. Literalistic non-thinking, for example, when they read some religious text about finding God under stones and beneath the barks of trees, they insist that they find only worms.


If readers can't imagine that atheists do such kinds of non-thinking, then they should read websites and forums of atheists and see for themselves.

And that is why they can't come to the knowledge of God though God has given them reason and intelligence, because instead of using reason and intelligence they dwell on copulation and defecation, and the discharges of these otherwise essentially life functions.

And that is why Americans judge them to be the most distrusted minority in the US.


This post should really be in a new thread on the non-thinking ways of atheists' talk and writing in websites and web forums and certainly also in print publications outside the web.

And I am thinking of such a thread as the most enlightening endeavor for people who sincerely want to find out what is the genuine but appalling heart and mind of atheists.



Yrreg
Edited for Rule 10. Please review, regarding masking.

[bruto]

I see from your latest topically challenged post that you're back, and seem to have time to do some typing. I hope you had a merry Christmas and didn't hit the egg nog too hard, so that you will have the clarity of mind actually to hunker down and answer my very simple, very direct, on-topic question with an honest, on topic answer, without which your initial assertions cannot be weighed honestly and answered seriously.

In case you missed it the last couple of times, here it is, a two parter:

Do you assert that masturbation is a sin or an offense about which one ought to feel guilty?

Do you believe that masturbation is an instance of "sexual libertinism?"

Simple answers for simple questions.

[theMark]

This post should really be in a new thread on the non-thinking ways of atheists' talk and writing in websites and web forums and certainly also in print publications outside the web.

I've followed this thread for some time, and I must admit I find it increasingly hard to make up my mind whether the OP is an elaborate hoaxer or a genuine person.

In my evaluation of the contributions to the various discussions, the OP's author constantly showed a serious lack of desire to engage in meaningful exchange and instead continued pontificating instead of expounding on his ideas. His condescending, hostile attitude, several jumps whenever the topic didn’t suit him any more, coupled with the repetitive nature of his accusations, made me feel all the more sympathetic towards the largely coherent arguments of atheists’ side.

Which probably goes to show that no matter how bad someone is at what he does, he can always serve as a bad example.

[yrreg]

For people who are wondering why I have departed from my earlier threads, the reason is because they have become futile undertakings owing to the non-constructive reactions from atheists here.

So I started another new thread, and then another, hoping to come up with one where I can really arrive at the nerve center of atheists' non-thinking, and size them up for what they are without themselves knowing it, because they don't have the habit and skill of self-introspection.


This latest thread on atheists and sexual libertinism I seem to see is paying off, and the finding has been looking at me all this time only I missed it for being distracted by the non-thinking antics of atheists, when people truly and sincerely want to engage them in ideas.

What is now really paying off is my realization that atheists are into all manners of non-thinking, that is why one cannot really have any reasonable and intelligently productive exchange of ideas with them.


And why do they resort to such non-thinking antics?

Because if they do think truly according to reason and intelligence, they cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence.



And that is why in some earlier threads I started using the term tergiversation to describe the heart and mind of atheists in regard to the existence of God.

Please look up again those threads, or look up the dictionaries for the meaning of the term tergiversation.

-------------------

Would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?



Yrreg

[Terry]

So I started another new thread, and then another, hoping to come up with one where I can really arrive at the nerve center of atheists' non-thinking, and size them up for what they are without themselves knowing it, because they don't have the habit and skill of self-introspection.

Wait, atheists aren't in the habit of introspection? You're saying it doesn't take any introspection for someone who was raised at least nominally religiously (which I believe would be the majority of atheists in the USA at least), to become atheist? Really? I may be biased, but to me, it seems that people who just "go with the flow" and stay religious would be the ones who have a tendency to avoid introspection.

[Paulhoff]

Which so-called god is being talked about here? The word “GOD” doesn't explain anything, and is just an easy way out for people who can't be bothered to read and learn what science has learned about the universe. It is the old “so-called god did it” saying, or “so-called god wants it to be that way” etc. No thinking needed, just make it “so-called god’s plan” and all is good.

Oh, don’t forget the old stand-by, “so-called god’s will”.

That old-time favorite.

Paul


:) :) :)

[Redtail]

I like to ask atheists whether sexual libertinism is the real motivation for embracing atheism, and rational consistency is just an attempt at convenient justification supposedly afforded by the atheism worldview.



Many would be surprised at how many Christian swingers there are. Thus I'm gonna say no.

[yrreg]

[...]

Would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?



Yrreg


So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?



Yrreg

[bruto]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?



YrregWhy should anyone here waste the effort on responding to your appeal for "exchange of ideas," when you lack either the will, the honesty or the capability to stay on the subject of your own thread, and answer simple questions regarding the meaning of the ideas you purport to exchange?

This is a thread that you began on the topic of whether or not indulgence in something you call "sexual libertinism" but have not adequately defined, is the reason that persons become atheists, based on a statement in another thread in which Foster Zygote remarked that one of the advantages he found in atheism was "guilt-free masturbation." Since you cited that statement, and coined the phrase "sexual libertinism" for the thread title, it is incumbent on you to begin by making your ideas clear. I have asked repeatedly for simple clarification so that we can proceed intelligently to discuss the question at hand. It is vitally important to that question, I believe, to understand what you mean by "sexual libertinism," and whether or not you believe that masturbation is an activity that falls properly under that head. Why should anyone participate in any other thread you begin, for any purpose other than to point out how bad a job you are doing of making your ideas clear and of arguing them intelligently?

I have to say that if you truly believe you are doing a good job of arguing here, you are seriously deluded. I have tried thus far to stay on topic and not to indulge in mockery and derision, but I think my effort would be seen by many as perverse. You have given little evidence that any attempt at intelligent discourse is anything but hopeless.

So, Yrreg, how about it. One more time. Can you address the subject that you put forth as the subject of this thread? Can you answer an honest and simple question honestly and simply? Is such a simple job beyond your ability or are you just so arrogant that you will not so condescend?

[bruto]

Many would be surprised at how many Christian swingers there are. Thus I'm gonna say no.It's a pity Davidjayjordan got himself banned. He'd give Yrreg a run for his money!

[gdnp]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

I am afraid I do not know the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists. I am an atheist. Does it have something to do with being eternal, the creator of everything but himself, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, beneficent, just, and/or perfect? Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The quintessential concept of God among atheistic scientists, philosophers, and artists is much easier. It is that God does not exist.

[X]

Please answer my question, yrreg:

Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn?


I'm not mocking you. My question has a purpose.

Please answer.

[six7s]

And that is why Americans judge them to be the most distrusted minority in the US.These are the same Americans that voted for George W. Bush, right?

Or just the Americans like this sample?

fJuNgBkloFE
Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE)

[Hokulele]

Would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?


Ineffable.

[six7s]

Ineffable.That means they cant be effed providing a concise, coherent and consistent definition of their pet woo, right?

[Hokulele]

That means they cant be effed providing a concise, coherent and consistent definition of their pet woo, right?


Close, it is more like...

That means they can't provide a concise, coherent and consistent definition of their pet woo.

[Doubt]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas


Yrreg

The problem here is that whenever somebody tries to respond to you in a sincere way, all they get back from you is a steaming pile of garbage.

My own short effort at dealing with you shows me that you cannot deal with somebody pointing out factual errors in your thinking.

In short, you reap what you sow.

[Lonewulf]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas,

Sorry, only interested in talking with a theist who is sincerely interested in exchange of ideas.

You, are not.

[RoboTimbo]

For people who are wondering why I have departed from my earlier threads, the reason is because they have become futile undertakings owing to the non-constructive reactions from atheists here.

tr. You angry atheists won't answer the way I want you to.

So I started another new thread, and then another, hoping to come up with one where I can really arrive at the nerve center of atheists' non-thinking, and size them up for what they are without themselves knowing it, because they don't have the habit and skill of self-introspection.

tr. I get to ad hom them in another thread under the guise of debate.

This latest thread on atheists and sexual libertinism I seem to see is paying off, and the finding has been looking at me all this time only I missed it for being distracted by the non-thinking antics of atheists, when people truly and sincerely want to engage them in ideas.

tr. I have no intention of engaging anyone intellectually.

What is now really paying off is my realization that atheists are into all manners of non-thinking, that is why one cannot really have any reasonable and intelligently productive exchange of ideas with them.

tr. I have no idea how to respond to thoughful questions so I spew nonsense.

And why do they resort to such non-thinking antics?

tr. Why won't they play my game by my rules?

Because if they do think truly according to reason and intelligence, they cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence.

tr. If they would stop thinking entirely, they would come to the same conclusions I have.

And that is why in some earlier threads I started using the term tergiversation to describe the heart and mind of atheists in regard to the existence of God.

tr. I paid for a thesaurus and I mean to use it.

Please look up again those threads, or look up the dictionaries for the meaning of the term tergiversation.

tr. I enjoy making you go to extra effort to try to decipher nonsense.

-------------------

Would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

tr. Please define god for me since you don't believe in him. Please don't explain how that makes no sense in anyone's world except my own.

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?

tr. You angry atheistic tergiversatives, you.

Yrreg

tr. Finger in ears, head shaking, chanting "nom nom nom..."

[Mojo]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?


You're asking the wrong people.

Atheists, you see, are people who don't believe in gods. They do not have any "quintessential concept of God"; "god" is merely a word for any of a potentially infinite number of apparently imaginary entities.

If you are sincerely interested in knowing what is the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e., you need to ask theist scientists, philosophers, and artists. They might be prepared to tell you, if you can manage to ask them without insulting them.

I suspect, though, that you are not sincerely interested in knowing what is the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.

If you were, then you would simply ask them rather than asking atheists.

[Silentknight]

Minor Correction: In my last post I meant to say "Imaginary Bearded Sky-Daddy" not "Imaginary Beared Sky-Daddy." This was in no way meant to imply that Yrreg worships Alaskan Kodiaks.

Anyway--
Here are more non-thinking tergiversative ways of atheists in their postings in web forums and also writings in the web.
Do tell.

I already mentioned retrogressive thinking or non-thinking and flippant thinking, I will just repeat them again in this post and add other tergiversative non-thinking ways of atheists in their non-communication.
"Look at me! I'm making a list! That gives me authority on the subject!"

1. Retrogressive non-thinking, for example, bringing up hoary gods like Zeus and Odin.

2. Flippant non-thinking, for example, defining God as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot.
Whoops. I must have quoted the wrong post, because I know you already said this and I already refuted it. I could have sworn I quoted your latest... Hmm, nope, apparently it was from one of your latest posts. That's weird.

3. Coital, genital, and anal non-thinking, for example, using the words ***** and ***** and dwelling on genitals and anus and copulation and defecation and their eflluvients instead rising above these in themselves biological items, in reacting to theists' attempts to bring them to exchange of ideas.
Okay fine, if genitals offend you, then let's focus on another body part. How about the hand? There's nothing wrong with the hand, right? Unlike genitals, the hand is capable of many things, like forming a fist to strike someone, or wrapping around someone's neck to strangle them. The hand can even pick up and wield knives and guns in order to threaten or kill other people, which is something the genitals can hardly boast.

You're welcome to try holding up a bank with the former, though I doubt you'd be taken seriously. It would give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "All right, everyone put 'em up!" Yes. We can see that.

4. Literalistic non-thinking, for example, when they read some religious text about finding God under stones and beneath the barks of trees, they insist that they find only worms.
It doesn't help your case to admit that worms are easier to find than God.

If readers can't imagine that atheists do such kinds of non-thinking, then they should read websites and forums of atheists and see for themselves.
Or you could tell them what atheists think and believe, just like you always do.

And that is why they can't come to the knowledge of God though God has given them reason and intelligence, because instead of using reason and intelligence they dwell on copulation and defecation, and the discharges of these otherwise essentially life functions.
Says the one who started a whole thread about sexual hangups.

And that is why Americans judge them to be the most distrusted minority in the US.
Well that's a relief. I thought for sure that it had to do with the baby-eating thing. Glad that doesn't matter nearly as much as I thought it would.

This post should really be in a new thread on the non-thinking ways of atheists' talk and writing in websites and web forums and certainly also in print publications outside the web.

And I am thinking of such a thread as the most enlightening endeavor for people who sincerely want to find out what is the genuine but appalling heart and mind of atheists.
Such modesty! I mean this when I say that as far as new threads go, nobody makes them quite like you.

For people who are wondering why I have departed from my earlier threads, the reason is because they have become futile undertakings owing to the non-constructive reactions from atheists here.
Yeah, you're right, atheists should really learn their place and allow you to tell them how to think and what to say. Not that that's ever stopped you before.

So I started another new thread, and then another, hoping to come up with one where I can really arrive at the nerve center of atheists' non-thinking, and size them up for what they are without themselves knowing it, because they don't have the habit and skill of self-introspection.
Unfortunately, the nerve center of atheist thinking is located in equidistant proximity to the three lower-pelvic chakras that are used in black magic, and you've already said that discussing this anatomical region makes you squeamish, so there's not much I can do to help you.

This latest thread on atheists and sexual libertinism I seem to see is paying off, and the finding has been looking at me all this time only I missed it for being distracted by the non-thinking antics of atheists, when people truly and sincerely want to engage them in ideas.
Those darn sexual libertine atheists are so insidious, they even managed to write an entire book of the Bible (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=26&chapter=1&version=31)!

What is now really paying off is my realization that atheists are into all manners of non-thinking, that is why one cannot really have any reasonable and intelligently productive exchange of ideas with them.
Oh, give yourself a little credit. This thread is one of the funniest threads on the JREF forums right now, and laughter is the best medicine, so it's gotta count for something. Don't worry, we're not laughing with you...

And why do they resort to such non-thinking antics?

Because if they do think truly according to reason and intelligence, they cannot otherwise than come to the knowledge of God's existence.
No, no, see, if you're making a double negative, you have to remember to include the second negative.

And that is why in some earlier threads I started using the term tergiversation to describe the heart and mind of atheists in regard to the existence of God.

Please look up again those threads, or look up the dictionaries for the meaning of the term tergiversation.
Seriously, your thesaurus was being put to much better use propping up your desk, before you actually started reading it.

Would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?
You shouldn't ask people to put words into your mouth. After all, who knows where it's been? (The latter, that is.)

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?


Yrreg



So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?



Yrreg


So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?


I guess not.


Anyway, this is what I think is the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists:

God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.



What do you say to that?


If you disagree, then please produce your own account of the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.

So that at least we can together for a start work out a mutually accepted concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.

And from that point get into a constructive exchange of ideas on God and no God.


----------------

Here is another of your non-thinking ways in web forums and in web writing:

Name-calling people who want to exchange ideas with you on God or no God, like calling them fundies, trolls, IDiots.

Please abstain from such unconstructive ways of exchanging ideas with people who like to hear from you your reasonable and intelligent thoughts on God or no God.




Yrreg

[paximperium]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?


I guess not.
Why should people who don't believe in your claims define what you supposedly believe?


Anyway, this is what I think is the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists:
God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.

What do you say to that?I don't believe in any gods so I can't really agree with that definition.
What's your concept of god?


If you disagree, then please produce your own account of the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.Why? I'm not going to define something that I don't believe exist. It is for the claimant or believer to define what he/she believes in, not the other way around.
Why don't you produce your own account of the concept of god?


So that at least we can together for a start work out a mutually accepted concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.No. No single person here can speak for others.

And from that point get into a constructive exchange of ideas on God and no God.Sure. When you define your version of god.

[Paulhoff]

God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.


What do you say to that?

Which so-called god, and what does that explain anyway, nothing, it is a cheap answer, even a child with no education can make that statement.

In short, it says nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

[HghrSymmetry]

Which so-called god, and what does that explain anyway, nothing, it is a cheap answer, even a child with no education can make that statement.

In short, it says nothing.

Paul

:) :) :)

Indeed. You'll notice they tend to say what this thing does, but they don't tell us what it is.
I imagine there's a reason for that...specifically, because they can't.

[Silentknight]

Here is another of your non-thinking ways in web forums and in web writing:

Name-calling people who want to exchange ideas with you on God or no God, like calling them fundies, trolls, IDiots.

Please abstain from such unconstructive ways of exchanging ideas with people who like to hear from you your reasonable and intelligent thoughts on God or no God.

There's a difference between insulting someone and accurately describing them. A fundamentalist is someone who practices strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. It's generally not used as a compliment, but it's more of an attack on said principles / beliefs than on the individual. A troll is someone who posts provocative or inflammatory remarks for the sole purpose of getting a response. While not always a bad thing, for example trolling for information or answers, when the term is used in a derogatory sense it's an expression of contempt for someone's debating tactics. Again, it's not a personal attack. Third, the term ID-iot is an attack on intelligent design, which is a belief or idea, no matter how you look at it.

Also, don't lecture people on word definitions when you clearly don't understand them yourself. An "exchange" implies a two-way interaction. Your sitting there putting words in people's mouths, telling them what to think, and dictating what they believe, is not an "exchange" at all. You're just preaching with the top half of your head encased in a block of cement.

[bruto]

So, God is defined the creator of the universe. If there is a creator. If there is not, then he isn't. Or if God is something else, then maybe he isn't.

So now that we have sorted out that issue, so utterly irrelevant to the subject of this thread....remember the subject of this thread? Hint: look up a bit on the page, where it says "Jref Forum > General Topics >Religion and Philosophy > Atheists and sexual libertinism"

If you didn't think that was a suitable subject you shouldn't have started the thread. You did. Any progress, then, on figuring out a response to those basic questions I keep asking?

[Macoy]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?


Silly sausage!

We have learned not to end our sentences with the interrogator, haven't we?


Anyway, this is what I think is the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists:God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.What do you say to that?

Complete toss(ers).

If you disagree, then please produce your own account of the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.

No.

Here is another of your non-thinking ways in web forums and in web writing:

Name-calling people who want to exchange ideas with you on God or no God, like calling them fundies, trolls, IDiots.

Please abstain from such unconstructive ways of exchanging ideas with people who like to hear from you your reasonable and intelligent thoughts on God or no God.

Yrreg

Do you think jesus' created wine was incorruptible?

[X]

Anyway, this is what I think is the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists:

God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.



This is not a definition. It is a claim of what "god" has done.

Perhaps it would help you to learn the definition of the word "definition":

Definition: a statement of what a thing is

Saying what you believe god did tells us nothin about what yor god is.



If you disagree, then please produce your own account of the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.


The trouble with this is that you can say "well that's not the god (I beleive in" to any definition of god we put forward.
Note your responses to people who talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You ask us to define god, and when we say FSM or Zeus, you insult us.

No. We are not going to define your god for you.
If you want to have a discussion about your god, you had better tell us exactly what you mean by the term "god".
There are so many different gods that are being/have been followed that unless you tell us what you mean by the term, we can't really have a constructive conversation.
Heck, it's challenging enough to find two parishioners of the same church who have the same concept of god.

So please, define your god for us.

To help you, I'll list some commonly-used terms:* all-powerful (omnipotent)
* all-knowing (omniscient)
* all-loving
* all-good (omnibenevolent)
* female
* eternal
* invisible
* pasta

Please note that these are all descriptive terms. Not vague statements of accomplishments.



So that at least we can together for a start work out a mutually accepted concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists.

And from that point get into a constructive exchange of ideas on God and no God.


You're the theist. Tell us what you believe god is (not what god has done).

Because otherwise, you'll merely complain that we're attacking strawmen when we present our definitions.




And you still haven't answered my question: Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[arthwollipot]

This is addressed to all atheists:
Please do your own thinking, and use your own wording.Wow. He takes 21 words out of my 392-word post, and berates me for not using my own wording. I wonder who wrote my other 371 words?

[Mojo]

Minor Correction: In my last post I meant to say "Imaginary Bearded Sky-Daddy" not "Imaginary Beared Sky-Daddy." This was in no way meant to imply that Yrreg worships Alaskan Kodiaks.


Why is yrreg angry at Alaskan Kodiaks?

[arthwollipot]

Warning: Humor follows

...tergiversative...You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[phantomb]

So I started another new thread, and then another, hoping to come up with one where I can really arrive at the nerve center of atheists' non-thinking, and size them up for what they are without themselves knowing it, because they don't have the habit and skill of self-introspection.

You could have at least pretended that your investigation was going to be objective. Why even bother with the threads when you've got your conclusion right there in this post even before you've started:

Atheists are non-thinking and don't have the habit and skill of self-instrospection (as opposed to the other kind of introspection of course).

[gdnp]

It doesn't help your case to admit that worms are easier to find than God.



Nominated for pith.

[gdnp]

So, would you like to tell us, atheists here who are sincerely interested in exchange of ideas, what you know to be the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists today in 2008 c.e., now going to 2009 c.e.?

Without going into your bad habit of non-thinking tergiversative ways?


I guess not.

Once again, you guess wrong. Here is my response from earlier in the thread:

I am afraid I do not know the quintessential concept of God among theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists. I am an atheist. Does it have something to do with being eternal, the creator of everything but himself, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, beneficent, just, and/or perfect? Perhaps you could enlighten me.

It seems I was pretty close to what you think:

Anyway, this is what I think is the quintessential concept of God from theistic scientists, philosophers, and artists:

God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything.

apology accepted.

Here is another of your non-thinking ways in web forums and in web writing:

Name-calling people who want to exchange ideas with you on God or no God, like calling them fundies, trolls, IDiots.

Please abstain from such unconstructive ways of exchanging ideas with people who like to hear from you your reasonable and intelligent thoughts on God or no God.


Here is another of your non-thinking way in web forums and in web writing:

Ignoring responses to your posts and then claiming that your question has been ignored.

[Belz...]

I said several times that I am bemusedlly angry or more correctly disappointed in trying to engage constructively with athiest, because they cannot keep to the issue and bring up reasonable and intelligent thoughts.

Haven't you heard ? When becoming atheists we undergo an operation that removes the part of the cortex that allows these reasonable behaviours. That's why ALL atheists are incapable of it.

Any other sweeping generalization you want to make ?

[chillzero]

Several posts being moved to AAH. The rest of the thread will follow if you can't have a civil discussion, on topic, without attacking each other. Don't report anything I missed, I'm not going back through it all. Just make sure that you are on topic from here on, the topic being atheists and sexual libertinism.

[Toke]

Ok, so why would a theist feel guilty about mastrubating in private?

I am brought up with god being something that happens in church, but not really relevant to me. And I have problems understanding alot of the guilt stuff*.

I just learned that one (or more) have sex in private.

*Guess that is an advantage, learning of some of the anguish theist and former theist suffer.

[articulett]

Sex is for making more babies for god?

Sex is unholy so save it for the one you love?

Virgins are god's favorites?

I think the idea was about keeping men from feeling cuckolded and since religions turned out to be a decent means of controlling people, most have incorporated rules about sex that gave the leaders access to the goods and produced more children to indoctrinate into the pyramid scheme.

In Christianity there's something about original sin and sex... in fact, original sin may be sex... that's why all gods and such are said to be born of virgins.

[Toke]

So if you want to controll people through guilt, and make sex a sin, you will have the faithfull by the balls.
And if you do it heavyhanded enough you will leave them so emotionaly crippled that they cannot manage outside of the church structure.

It is a big world, guess there are churches like that.
Betty Bowers must have some real life example to parody.

[articulett]

Yes, and clearly they've worked their "magic" on yrreg.

[MattusMaximus]

deleted