You are NOT a Pittsburgh Steeler.

Lose the glaring yellow text, please.

Someday distant future day ALL will laugh at these present God ideas.

That god "word" is a mind twister, .... BUT it's SILLY to let the fundys define, and the atheists to only reject, so I say to you all, WE ARE GOD .....

To the fundys I throw,

"WE ARE GOD" MEANS NO GODS BEFORE US ..... Dig ???? Christianity BLOW BACK, ,,,,,, a simple MosesJesusBuddha message.

yeah , I'm on my last beer, and thats alot of BEER,

PROVE I AM NOT GOD, no one ever has, EVER

so many words, nothing much said .....

No. thanks. Don't feel like carrying your burden of proof 

I'll be happy to read your post and attempt to answer your questions if you'll kindly post your text in a readable format.  In educated circles, we use paragraphs.

Jim and Kelly; Thanks for your super caring effort. Thats what really makes this RRS site special. Wow, isn't Kelly super ! What do think Jim ?

About the yellow print, no problem, some wrong click?, besides Fuck silly tradition, even at rrs Hey I like yellow.

RRS< fighting to free humanity ...? free who ? I would sure hate to see this site become an "intellectual only" club site of pc wizzes ignoring and bashing the curious seeking answers and help.

All self glory of insight and knowledge needs be taught to the "poor in spirit" because they are "down" because they are blessed with a caring saddness for the world. ( jesus)

The religious fundys are the enemy, but put only love on them, as love knows deep indignation. Even that jesus called Peter Satan.

I tell ya , if the fucking TV cared we regular atheists and christians would be digging the buddhist and hindus, and shouting fuck yeah, WE ARE ONE, WE ARE GOD. fix the tv .....

All the many gods of myth and religion are our blessing, THE FUNDYS ARE THE ONES WHO FUCK UP GOD. fuck their god, we are god and god does zero miracles and has nothing to prove.

Check out the Buddhist ideas JIM SMITH, get free. THIS LIFE, US, IS GOD. Ethics and social tradition are a different thing.

THANKS FOR CARING, come again JIM , we need you, we love you, know We are ONE. You are for the good ... me too ...

To the responders who noted that my post has no paragraphs: I have no explanation for this. All such formatting wss present in the preview screen.

 I would like to hear a definition for "free will". Not "free" "will"

One part of Kelly's reply to my post was a response to the following statment of mine:

Quote:

If this belief is a symptom of mind disorder, then we need to be careful regarding which aspect(s) of that belief are pathological. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that the belief in normative ethical-moral standards per se is pathological, since this belief is universal among human beings;

Kelly replied,

"Again, a norm is an observation, so certainly, we all believe that they exist. You have convoluted the definition of "normative" to suit your purposes and muddy the waters."

(End of quote)

Actually, my definition, which I had presented earlier in the post, was, "standards that all are obligated to obey". This is one of the dictionary definitions for "normative", and the word "normative" is typically used this way in discussions of ethics. I gave this definition in my post for the benefit of those who didn't know this.

definitions of "normative":

You either picked out quotes to purposely misrepresent what I wrote or you have serious reading comprehension issues. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't pull this again or I won't take the time to respond. Either reply honestly or expect no responses.

I clearly stated my opposition to your definition of "normative", so why don't you respond to that instead of dodging the point.

I doubt that any other "Rational Responders" will be debating this point with me, since most of us are in agreement that we do, in fact, live in a completely materialistic universe and all observed phenomena arise as a result of physical processes. At any rate, first of all, "free will" is as much of a paradox in the theistic universe, as long as you are assuming the existence of an omnimax creator being. I don't believe that "free will" exists in the sense that anybody has the potential to "will" themselves into or out of any potential pattern of behavior. It is all dependent on an infinite number of factors that have determined your predispositions, and within that there is a range of possibilities within which you may be able to "choose", or at least have the illusion of choice, but one cannot "choose" to go outside of that range. This is a very complex subject, but to sum up, overall, "free will" is an illusion, and most of your behaviors could be accurately predicted assuming that one had all the knowledge of all potential influencing factors (which is impossible realistically).

Not that you cannot control your body--obviously you can in most circumstances. But can a person with Parkinson's Disease "will" themselves to stop shaking? No. This is a purely physical reaction to the lack of dopamine in the neural synapses. Is it possible, in some cases, particulary cocaine-induced Parkinsonism, to repair the damaged parts of the brain, notably the GABA receptors and dopamine transporters/receptors, to diminish or eliminate the symptoms? Yes. But it all comes down to physical processes inside the brain. Just like all of your behaviors, thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. Right down to and including one's proclivity to believe in god and the way in which that proclivity manifests itself.

Now go back, read again, and try addressing the issue. Try not to purposely pick out half-quotes from me to misrepresent my position.

As I stated previously, you purposely redefined the word in order to muddy the waters. I have not only explained why that is problematic, but I have provided you with the real definition, which includes nothing about "obligation". The inclusion of that word implies that there is something to be obligated to, and therefore begs the question since your initial premise is that god exists and he is the one to whom we are obligated to obey and who created these "norms". I don't particularly care if other atheists have accepted your usage of that terminology--they're mistaken if they allowed you to get away with that. I shall do no such thing.

First of all, you are acting as if the entire universe is one configuration of M/E, which is true in a way, but not the way in which we operate within it. You are also failing to take into consideration that this configuration of M/E includes the constantly fluctuating and changing chemical interactions going on within each organism, notably the brains of humans in this case. We seek to show people how their irrational beliefs are flawed and harmful and change their thought processes, so that is the sense in which we seek to influence the current configuration of M/E--within the minds of the individual believers.

Actually, I don't advocate "procuring" such a configuration, but rather realize that inclusion in society necessarily involves the consideration of the greater good. If you read any philosophy regarding the "social contract", you'll see how the sacrifice of individual rights, such as the right to vengance, is inherent in the formation of any group structure.

Because I am. Prove me wrong.

1. True.

2. False. Everything that comprises my being is a configuration of matter/energy and the interactions that arise within it.

3. False. The difference lies in the configurations, patterns, and chemical constituents of my neurology. All of which are physical processes, but not the same physical process, and could have an infinite number of factors that have led up to the interaction occurring in a particular way.

4. False. I do not believe in "free will" in the sense that you do. I already explained that. (Although I am starting to believe that you are "willfully" not reading my posts--must be predisposed to dishonesty.)

5. True, but only to a degree.

6. Already kind of explained that one. Neither true nor false.

It was inaccurate.

I never said that your posts have little correlation to your thoughts.

Please read, think, and post. In that order.

Kelly said,

As I stated previously, you purposely redefined the word in order to muddy the waters. I have not only explained why that is problematic, but I have provided you with the real definition, which includes nothing about "obligation". The inclusion of that word implies that there is something to be obligated to, and therefore begs the question since your initial premise is that god exists and he is the one to whom we are obligated to obey and who created these "norms". I don't particularly care if other atheists have accepted your usage of that terminology--they're mistaken if they allowed you to get away with that. I shall do no such thing.

(End of quote)

"I" did not "redefine" that word, but employed that word as it is used in works on ethics. If you made an incorrect inference because you attached to it a meaning other than a widely-accepted one that I took pains to give so clearly, then I really don't know what you expect me to do about it.

Also, could you please point out for me where I stated an initial premise that god exists?

I confess it is beyond my poor powers to communicate the inconsistency of Responders who in one post assert there is no Free Will, only cause and effect, and in the next express offence at symbols that appeared upon their monitors in reply. But a passing unemployed bard has succored me by penning the following …

Most noble Rational Responders! Most gracious, good, and kindly Rational Responders! I beg you recall the title of this hallowed forum, and treat not uncharitably one whose unworthy participation therein you condescended to invite. Disdain not this petition to temper your most-deserved condemnation of your humbled servant in whatever infinitesimal degree might strike you fit as you hear the following tale.

To begin:

While in these halls last week there appeared upon my computer screen what seemed to be no more than an ordinary post to an ordinary web forum.

I beg of you patience, great Lords and Ladies! I tremble as I relate to you these vile and insulting first impressions, but I do so confident that you will neither allow yourselves to be provoked by them nor impute to them craven sham confession, but will graciously accept the poor excuse that I speak them only so that you not through your very amiability, in the form of becomingly excessive modesty, disserve simpletons such as I by leaving them unadvised that your hall’s modest aspect doth transcendent marvel dissemble. For marvel indeed I found upon examining the unpretentious epistle.

Knowing that you my judges would be as exacting in examination of my response as you are generous in nature, I bent my faculties —How unworthy they were of the object of their attention!— to examine the text without regard for who its author might have been, and as though it were a work of pure logic in whose crafting no mere mortal had arrogated to participate.

Well it is indeed that I did so, for such the epistle proved to be.

With such eloquence, such perfection of reason, and such gentleness of admonishment that I believed it of divine provenance until it convinced me of divine inexistence, the marvelous text, which was now revealed to my eyes as immaculate white script to whose ethereal glow the black background opposed not a single impertinent photon, made known it had appeared to me through a chain of pure cause and effect, unsullied by any taint of Free Will.

My hosts, being long familiar with the effects that first comprehension of this liberating message has upon the superstitious, will not wonder at the speed with which now I threw off the shackles of Free Will’s enslaving illusion. But of course the chain of cause and effect that had brought me within rationality’s compass could not pause to receive thanks from such as I, and no one could therefore hold remarkable that ensuing unwilled movements of my now-unfettered fingers caused more words to appear on the screen, before a final mouse-click effected the White Epistle’s disappearance.

Most estimable Rational Responders, I fear my prolixity wears welcome thin and tests even you inexhaustible patience. I beseech you therefore permit me only those few additional words necessary to explain that I recounted the foregoing not in vain hope of exculpation, but that I might relate to you how I came to receive a second epistle, that to which I responded unseemly. I also beg indulgence to offer you —and only most apologetically— grounds for contemplating whether the missive that occasioned my solecism was not an outrage that even august and equanimous Responders might have found difficult to read unperturbed.

I entreat you therefore not think pettifoggery, that which I now relate of said missive:

It was from a human being who claimed not only to rank among the greatest of you, but to have authored the White Epistle.

Let not your outrage distract you, noble ones! For there is more, and worse:

Said boasting charlatan did then slyly and most foully attempt to seduce me from your realm of rationality and lure me to the very blackest of superstition’s pits, by mocking me for the words my fingers had occasioned to appear on some distant screen, and by then issuing challenge to defend those words, lest every Noble Responder deem me a Dolt and a Scurrilous Prevaricator.

Most temperate Responders, can you much longer bear so coarse and ill-bred a blockhead as I? Could densest stone have failed foresee that so shocking an intelligence, bluntly spoken, would fall like very thunderclap upon your keen sensibilities, strained to their utmost so that some uttered trifle might your compassion move?

Dear Lords and Ladies, I see I must now turn self’s accuser, and even dare to importune, for fear your mercy prove more than is meet. Pardoned for giving sharp reproof to villainous imposter, good conscience demands I confess myself Usurper, for reproof was not mine to give, but yours.

Was it for neophyte, precipitate, to judge dilatory those wiser than he? For him, was it, to confute them by confronting with ill-mannered obtusity, that for which they had no doubt prepared a genteel and devastating riposte? Or for him to take for poltroonery, a forbearance surpassing his own?

Thus ends a tale too lengthily told. Unmerited pardon for grave offense having been granted me, this churl and base dullard begs leave to retire.

Hambydammit wrote: 

Have you actually read anyone's defense of the idea that there is no free will?

You know what a category error is, right?  And a fallacy of composition/division?

You also know that a term must be defined before it can be defended, right?

 (end of quote)

But "Hambydammit" does not exist. "Hambydammit" is just a label that lazy people apply, for their own convenience, to a bunch of subatomic particles that are simply going about their business. Just as they have for the last 12 billion years. Said bunch's "ideas" (perhaps one of them is that this bunch is a Free Thinker) are nothing but configurations of the Universe's matter/energy that occur as those particles follow the Universe's impersonal laws. So are those of the bunch known as Kent Hovind. And who's to be arbiter between these two bunches, other than some other bunch of particles?

The bunch named "Kelly" has given an answer to this question, and I treat it in the next post.

I could not read your nonstop sentence, but the very title of your post reeks of ignorance and plagiarism. Religious fanatacism is not a mental disorder, and please be aware of paragraphs, they make reading so much easier.

Make no mistake about it, religious fanaticism is about indoctrination, intimidation, guilt, and primarily, fear. More than anything, the entire premise and tenets of Abrahamic religion is one of sexual jealously.

I have to disagree that religion is a mental disorder, it is A SOCIETAL DISORDER, IT IS A DISORDER ON THE SCALE OF SHEER MADNESS. Charles Manson was not a madman in the context of the Old Testament, and likewise, neither are the modern day adherents of these insane tenets.

Hambydammit wrote

 ...(W)ould you mind defining "obligation"? Without a good definition, I'll respond that I'm obligated to pay taxes, so we are not nihilists.

(End of quote)

I think it's very clear that my point was precisely that you and (as far as I can tell) everyone else here are NOT nihilists.

I also hope you might be charitable enough to either overlook an occasional slip of the fingers that I commit while typing, or to ask me (preferably civilly) for a clarification. I'd rather not elaborate, but the conditions under which I type are not the best.

I think I can best respond to some of your other objections by answering an earlier question of yours to which I never responded directly: yes, I have read defenses of materialism. I in fact used to consider myself a Materialist, and nothing cured me of it as much as reading its defenders.

This because I worked very actively with Amnesty International back then, and I had a hard time squaring the idea that we are all just bunches of subatomic particles whose actions are solely by cause and effect, with my knowledge that some of those bunches of particles are children crying because their daddies are in prison, where they're getting electric shocks applied to their testicles. And that their mommies are in other prisons, where their guards ritually rape them.

Instead of accepting that I'm a bunch of fundamental particles that need to wait for a cause, I exercised my Free Will to tell my fundamental particles to get their collective little hindquarters onto a trajectory that might help those people.

I can make a slightly different observation regarding Materialism as it applies to RRS and Kent Hovind. When a Materialist finishes convincing me that there really is nothing in the Universe but matter/energy, then I have to conclude that RRS's and Hovind's opinions are no more than infinitesimally different rearrangements thereof.

Let's take, for example, Hovind's approval of massacreing captive Muslim insurgents, then throwing them into mass graves topped off which pig guts. RRS--I assume--disagrees. Both Hovind and RRS seem to think that this difference of opinion is cause for me to send a check to one or the other of you. But Materialsim gives me no indication either of to whom I should send it, or why I should send one at all.

This is why I concluded that the defenses of Materialsm are a lot Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the tortoise: both are chains of impeccable logic leading to conclusions that are crippling nonsense.

By the way, these statements of Hovind's are worth reading, since many Hovind fans who read them sing a different tune afterward. You can read them in the guest book of Carl Marychurch's site "An Analysis of Kent Hovind" (www.kent-hovind.com). Someone always keeps those statements at or near the top, in a posting that usually starts with "Are you aware that ... .

I wiil not reply to your response--you get the last word.

This will be my last post on this topic. I didn't want to leave it without giving a final answer to Kelly's repeated accusation that my use of "normative" in my initial post was a knowingingly incorrect use of that word, in a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. She has never, to my knowledge, retracted that accusation. Instead, she has repeated it.

I stated how I would use the word "normative" by means of the following sentence in my initial post:

Defining “normative” standards as “standards that all are obligated to obey.”

Here are some examples of her replies. In her first response,

You have convoluted the definition of "normative" to suit your purposes and muddy the waters.

In responses to my subsequent explanations for why I had used that word, she said

I clearly stated my opposition to your definition of "normative", so why don't you respond to that instead of dodging the point.

and later

You purposely redefined the word in order to muddy the waters. I have not only explained why that is problematic, but I have provided you with the real definition, which includes nothing about "obligation".

and even

I don't particularly care if other atheists have accepted your usage of that terminology--they're mistaken if they allowed you to get away with that. I shall do no such thing.

Kelly is flagrantly and demonstrably wrong in believing that my use of the word "normative" was incorrect.

The reader may see this by searching google for "online dictionary". Second on the list of hits will be Merriam Webster's online dictionary.

If you go to that webpage, and enter "normative" you will see that the third definition is

3 : prescribing norms <normative rules of ethics> <normative grammar>

Please note: "prescribing", NOT "describing".

If you then consult the same dictionary for "norm", you will find

2: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior

I rest my case; Kelly and others may respond as they choose, and I will not reply.

To close, I ask all readers to check out the stomache-turning things Kent Hovind has said in favor of committing atrocities against Muslim insurgents. See the end of my previous post. I am sure those quotes will prove valuable to you.

Jim, I'm happy to forgive the occasional slip of the finger, but your posts are god damned hard to get through. You use crazy formats that are hard to read. You form long run-on sentences. Your grammatical structure is awful. It's hard to tell what the various phrases in your long sentences are referring to.

I'm not trying to be mean, Jim. I wrote that last post to show you just how difficult your sentences are to read. I was recreating for you the same process I went through trying to understand your post. As you've pointed out, I still got it wrong.

There are ways to improve your writing, Jim. It would make it a lot easier for other people to understand you if you would do some reading on basic grammar structure. I've given up trying to respond to your arguments because I simply don't want to put in the time trying to decode your writing.

I'm telling you this in the hopes that it will help you, not to be mean to you. Do with this information what you wish.

Yet when I commented on Brian 37's malformed posts, this was the response:

For a "heavily moderated" subforum "with strict rules" there doesn't seem to be much enforcement of this policy.

As an unmuddied lake, sir. Clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

I've noticed the frequency with which people on this forum revert to ad hominem responses laced with invective and/or outright obscenity. It's disappointing that some posters are either unable to unwilling to express themselves in a more civilized manner.

Now, to the point at hand: The operative clause in Sapient's post stressed the importance of addressing message over form. The posts quoted above were criticisms of the OP's form. While I agree that reading comprehension is important, that comment isn't particularly relevant.

That you felt it necessary to threaten me with a ban seems bizarre. I choose to interpret your comments as an invitation to enter into debate rather than a puerile threat.

This is the most accurate statement I've ever seen posted here.

You're part of that problem... this is projection.

Brian37's posts can be read, in my life I've read thousands of his posts. Along the way I've seen thousands of spelling errors, yet I've understood his point in every post he's ever made. In this particular thread the o.p. posted about 6 paragraphs in to one bright yellow paragraph. To be honest, I only saw the first post and had to turn my head as I was unable to read, it almost instantly hurt my eyes. I haven't read the first post, I would've made it through a few sentences before getting a headache... I am not embellishing.

Subsequent posts from Jim were also hard to read and were written in an odd style, making it hard to do exactly what I cautioned you to do in the past... "get under the surface of what they're saying." The O.P. broke all kinds of board formatting as well, I remember spending 20 minutes with Kelly trying to fix an html error in one of her posts caused by his board incompetence.

Virtually everyone who offered advice offered so in a constructive manner to convey exactly the point I would want conveyed. They were alerting the op that he was alienating his viewpoint by making it so hard to read. In Hambydamnits most critical opinion on the posting ability of our o.p. he went out of his way to sugar coat his objections.

On the other hand.... your situation...

Your first post on this page pointing out every word that Brian got wrong, every single word can be deciphered in context (with white lettering on black background)

Then the rest of your drama was shown here for the audience to decide how conducive you were to our aims and purposes. Because we pride ourselves on free exchange the fact that you were a dickface was overlooked at the time, to give you a chance to acclimate yourself to our world. In that world you may have learned that some of the people you've taken jabs at (thaiboxershorts, myself, kelly, and brian37) are all important to our movement.

Brian37 in fact was instrumental behind the scenes running around like a maniac for Margaret Downey as a personal assistant at the recent Atheist Alliance Convention. He didn't have to do this, and Margaret reported that his efforts helped her immeasurably. Make no mistake, this is a community for activists interested in helping the world overcome irrational thought. It is a stomping ground for us to meet and exchange ideas that we use in the real world. It is a place for atheist activists, and many others are extended a free visit to join our community. I'll take 10 brian37's who actually get off their ass and do something spelling errors and all over 20 ivory tower elitists (at 17 yrs old) that can't muster much more than scholarly deconstructive criticism.

Unfortunately you've pushed the rules a little too far for my liking and I'm removing your ability to post. However, it's rare I do this... please feel free to write us in 6 months or more asking us to reinstate your account, and we will, for one more chance.

You asked for an explanation of a ban, here it is...

In addition to your past posts that were trollish, called mod action in to question in public rather than private, attempted to act as a mod through pointing out your perceived board deficiencies, you also have caused us to lose time addressing your issues (extensively, several times).

This post took 20 minutes so far, I'm sure Hamby took some time out of his busy schedule to address you, here's another rule...

"other posts that create unreasonable janitor-chores for the moderators may be removed without notice and sanctioned either by exile or temporary ban depending on the nature of the spam at the call of the moderator."

It wasn't a threat. It was more of a warning, unfortunatly it's too late.

Those are big words from the 17 year old who is talking down to the highly successful businessman who happens to be worlds more mature and intelligent than you are. (for those not following along I'm referring to hamby)