latincanuck wrote:

 Jean is always scared of reality, very jittery hence his statement about others going to hell and that he is on the path to god, because lets admit it, he knows very well that he is on shakey grounds with his belief system, and that really he is making a judgement call, something that even in his precious bullshit bible says that only god decides who goes to heaven and that no one else can make that call. That and the fact that there is no heaven, no god, but needs this belief in order to not deal with his fear of death, and that in the end has wasted his life with this absurd belief in god. Aww well typical theists crap about the whole hell part. Can't fear that which does not exist jean, no atheists fears hell, since they don't believe in it. However your fear of reality shows everytime you try to be arrogant. It simply shows how fearful of the truth you really are.

I am an atheist but I believe in hell. Ever had those mornings when you wake up go to the mirror to shave and think I really have a razor at my throat?? That is hell. Ever got caught speeding that is hell.  Ever been to a family reunion and had to sit next to aunt Jean. Now that is hell. Death at least frees you from those things and worse. In the mean time we must make our own heaven on earth. Party on dude.

 

 

Hi Red,

...

For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't. So all of God's enemies do this, just with comedy assuming the very thing they assume not to be. This has many problems. More on that later if need be since i will direct your questions.

...blah blah blah... 

 

I did therapy groups for 10 years and my wife is presently a psychotherapist.  Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy. The treatment of delusions and schizophrenia is a very tricky one. One of the definitions of delusions is that they do not yield to corrective feedback from other people. Consequently, attempting to persuade an individual that the delusion is incorrect is obviously self-defeating. There is a whole body of literature on how to address delusions. In brief, questioning the patient like a journalist without indicating disbelief is one way. This tends to get the patient into a questioning mode. However, that approach is used much later in treatment. Initially, we train the patients to recognize their automatic thoughts and then lead them to recognize some of their non-psychotic misinterpretations. After a strong basis is made on this, we then lead them to consider the more paranoid interpretations of their experiences which we have labeled as their “upsetting interpretations.

Thus, in treating delusions, we try to develop or enhance the patient’s skills in handling some of their emotional problems and then later apply these skills to the delusional misinterpretations. Another technique is something we call “behavioral experiments”– we might have the patient who is afraid of going out of his ‘comfort zone’ go with the therapist or a trusted person for a few feet or yards, or even further, just to test out whether he is vulnerable.  This of course is dependent on the patient’s having a great deal of confidence in the therapist’s wisdom and trustworthiness.

 

TGBaker wrote:

I did therapy groups for 10 years and my wife is presently a psychotherapist.  Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy. The treatment of delusions and schizophrenia is a very tricky one. One of the definitions of delusions is that they do not yield to corrective feedback from other people. Consequently, attempting to persuade an individual that the delusion is incorrect is obviously self-defeating. There is a whole body of literature on how to address delusions. In brief, questioning the patient like a journalist without indicating disbelief is one way. This tends to get the patient into a questioning mode. However, that approach is used much later in treatment. Initially, we train the patients to recognize their automatic thoughts and then lead them to recognize some of their non-psychotic misinterpretations. After a strong basis is made on this, we then lead them to consider the more paranoid interpretations of their experiences which we have labeled as their “upsetting interpretations.

Thus, in treating delusions, we try to develop or enhance the patient’s skills in handling some of their emotional problems and then later apply these skills to the delusional misinterpretations. Another technique is something we call “behavioral experiments”– we might have the patient who is afraid of going out of his ‘comfort zone’ go with the therapist or a trusted person for a few feet or yards, or even further, just to test out whether he is vulnerable.  This of course is dependent on the patient’s having a great deal of confidence in the therapist’s wisdom and trustworthiness.

 

It must take a lot of patience (and patients, ha ha ) to make a living doing what you do. Very worth while vocation, too.

Too bad we can't institute forced therapy for theists... not many would voluntarily seek to rid themselves of their delusions, would they?

Hello Gang,

You know, we are so friendly and close, we should all meet somewhere and have a potluck. Don't talk about poisoning me, come on, bring some food, I'll bring the beer. What do you say?

TGBaker evidently is drenched with heresy. Thus his place in hell will be hotter then most. His wife is into psychology which is a complete joke of a "science." Psychology is completely useless and has no merit in the realm of intellectual understanding. Only Chrisitan psychology before the 20th century is of substance.

100% Atheist is a Commy. (LOL). No wonder you're 100% atheist. You're not really an atheist then since you worship the state. I'm sure you would be first in line in the killing of Christians. Though come to my potluck anyways.

The issue of definition is ambiguous. Again, all is relative for the atheist, so logically this would include definition. This has been shown via the various definitions of atheism over the years.

O'Hair was NOT a soft atheist and believed that it was a belief system. An agnostic is nothing more then an atheist with no guts like all you gutless "atheists" on here.

Belief is philosophically broken down into 3 categories, though of the same being.

1) Knowledge

2) Assensus

3) Trust

Thus, a lack of belief would philosophically equal a lack of understanding. Thus logically you CAN NOT speak about the subject that you lack.

You see, #1 above does not mean you subscribe to the thesis. Just that you are aware of it

You see #2 does not mean you subscribe to the thesis, Just that you are aware as truth but you deny it

You see #3 is the actually committment to the thesis.

Logically, you so called atheists are of the #1 category. But not according to your NEO Definition since youlack belief, then philosophically you are ignorant of your opponent. (LOL.).

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, Atheist is "the denial of the existence of God." This was O'Hair's definition as well. 

This is why so many ignorant modern atheists don't like O'Hair. O'Hair was a consistent atheist. She was a freak of nature and liked to hire convicted convicts.  She was a wretch of a person. But many wannabe "atheists" on this board don't even know anything about her other then her name.

So here's the question. If all is relative, and there is NO absolute truth. Then who's right? You or O'Hair. Is it a denial of the existence of God/gods, or is it a lack of belief in God/gods.

If there is no truth and all is relative, Couldn't atheism then be a belief in God?

Atheism is the most hypocritical evil system out there. It worships the self via immorality. It has a lot of double talk.

Atheism is for wimpy people who lack courage and guts. Only Chrisitans give us the answers in life.

Atheism has refuted itself over and over again internally. But atheists still subscribe to it, making Psalms 14:1 ever so true, that they are mere fools.

The Encylopedias, Dictionaries, and Reference Works are on my side. All that is on your side is speculation in the realm of abstract.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I'll Bring the Beer!!!

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm talking about your wife personally, just what she does in psychology as a joke.

 

This  sounds like an explicit  personal attack.  Meaning you are experiencing some sort of sadistic satisfaction of it.  And why am I not surprised.

 

Well, of course it is. They're sadists and masochists. They're obsessed with pain.

When they feel backed into a corner and helpless, they want to lash out, and 'hurt' someone.

This kind of outburst is typical grade school 'Oh ya??? Well, your mother wears army boots!!', kind of infantile non sequitur. Shaking, and peeing their pants, all the while they're spewing their vitriol.

 

This clown is so easy to take on, 1 on 1. He just keeps equivocating, and trying to move the goal posts, long after after the game is over, and claiming that you never scored all those goals.

While you've got the trophy, and you're drinking the champagne...

 

He can't actually hurt anyone, he doesn't know, but he can fantasize.

That's what it is with these people. They are obsessed with fantasizing about others. Fantasies about what sex others are having, who they're having it with, what positions, and then fantasizing what suffering is going to be inflicted on them, by a 'Dominatrix', for their indulgences.

I think they live vicariously through libertines, and mentally derive pleasure from the fornication, then get some pleasure imagining the 'hell' that the 'fornicators' will suffer, and feel superior because they can vicariously 'participate', as voyeurs, yet, still stay outside of the 'physical' ramifications, and not be judged as 'participants' because although they indulged mentally, there was no 'flesh' of their own involved.

It's a mental mind trick. This way, they're 'innocent bystanders'...

They're funny. It's so infantile.

 

...do you play guitar?)

Sandycane wrote:

...do you play guitar?)

Yes.

And I can play with my teeth, just like Jimi...

I've got a bit of Jimi, in me.

 

He's the devil, you know...

Uh huh.

You can see right through me...

No, no, no... pre CBS, 4 bolt, staggered height pole pieces, alder body, maple fretboard, small headstock, original spaghetti logo.

Color? Hmmmm....I'm a natural born sucker for blondes, but, redheads are the devil, too.

Vintage baby!

Oh, ya, and of course, 100 w Super Lead Marshalls, on 11.

Jess like Ed V!

 

That's the jam, Sista!

Sandycane wrote:

Now, I have no idea what you two are talking about...I call 'em 'guitars'.  

S'ok.

The main thing is to feel it, Baby!

 

It's all about how it makes you feel....

 

 

Loud and proud, Baby!

 

If you can't make her scream, you ain't doing it right... 

You've got to give her whatever she wants, whatever she needs, just the way she likes it, whenever she wants it...

 

Dats da sex, Baby!

100% Atheist is a Commy. (LOL). No wonder you're 100% atheist. You're not really an atheist then since you worship the state. I'm sure you would be first in line in the killing of Christians. Though come to my potluck anyways.

The issue of definition is ambiguous. Again, all is relative for the atheist, so logically this would include definition. This has been shown via the various definitions of atheism over the years.

Belief is philosophically broken down into 3 categories, though of the same being.

1) Knowledge

2) Assensus

3) Trust

Thus, a lack of belief would philosophically equal a lack of understanding. Thus logically you CAN NOT speak about the subject that you lack.

You see, #1 above does not mean you subscribe to the thesis. Just that you are aware of it

You see #2 does not mean you subscribe to the thesis, Just that you are aware as truth but you deny it

You see #3 is the actually committment to the thesis.

Logically, you so called atheists are of the #1 category. But not according to your NEO Definition since youlack belief, then philosophically you are ignorant of your opponent. (LOL.).

So here's the question. If all is relative, and there is NO absolute truth. Then who's right? You or O'Hair. Is it a denial of the existence of God/gods, or is it a lack of belief in God/gods.

If there is no truth and all is relative, Couldn't atheism then be a belief in God?

The Encylopedias, Dictionaries, and Reference Works are on my side. All that is on your side is speculation in the realm of abstract.