I'm A "Scathing Atheist." Ask Me Anything.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

 

Pan was just invented to describe a type of person or personality. A person who is self centered, thinking only of his own rewards and not for a community effort. It describes those who don't care about screwing others as long as they get ahead. The goat was chosen as a representative of this kind of individual because it would consume almost anything in it's path. I know a half dozen people who fit this description, they are not evil, just tricksters of a sort. They seem to have territories and only fight amongst themselves if they infringe on the others territory. They gobble up all of what the sheep have, leaving them with little to live on. This strengthens the sheep though, once a very powerful sheep emerges, it gives confidence to the other sheep and they destroy the goat. This is coming shortly. The age of the goat is over.

Apparently was musical as well, the rudimentary flute, I still see the squeezebox in its paws or hooves or under the accordian. Pan was a sexual creature that enticed or seduced as well for its own benefit. Goats eat anything, (owned one) and dispite its well deserved name "BIG BITCH" had no idea why it had human protectors, IT COULD digest anything including flavor packets of ketchup, mustard and hotsauce, plastic and all. I see people as animals sometimes (fairlly sure they advanced to very first time human) but the overlay is there. ITS UNMISTAKEABLE. Was Pan an overlay of the Minatour or Centaur? Are they all the same just different myths in different locals? There is the myth here where I live that the coyote is the trickster, and gobble up human energy, to leave them confused, and in the confusion take over the territory. You are saying Pan was an Architype, there are 7 and it was one of them. That one is the taking of ones innocence through experienced sensuality; seduction soul/mind/physical rape, Im glad the age of the goat is over, how comes this?

reply to post by HairlessApe


Past "atheist movements" have led to state atheism in the past. To what end do you hope this particular movement reaches?

Secondly. Do you not feel that proselytizing your opinions about gods is a somewhat embarrassing notion? and that making a movement out of one is even worse?

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Past "atheist movements" have led to state atheism in the past. To what end do you hope this particular movement reaches?

Secondly. Do you not feel that proselytizing your opinions about gods is a somewhat embarrassing notion? and that making a movement out of one is even worse?

The biggest concern the in atheist movement currently would simply be developing a sense of community. People need to realize that there are other venues than churches that one can turn to in order to find his/her community support.

I don't believe everyone within the movement shares a single goal, but some of the more pressing issues the atheist movement deals with are: disallowing the use of religion to protect oneself from the law (i.e. Children not receiving life-saving medical treatment because family beliefs resulting in jail time; Religious figureheads whom commit/cover up pedophilia receiving jail time; etc.),

equal rights for the LGBT community,

stop to blatant tax associated crimes by many religious organizations as well as an end to religious organization's exempt status from taxes.

There are many more.

Richard?

Richard?

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Richard?

I'm assuming I must have said Dawkins somewhere, but I don't know what you're quoting. If my assumption is right, then yes.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Secondly. Do you not feel that proselytizing your opinions about gods is a somewhat embarrassing notion? and that making a movement out of one is even worse?

So I think speaking on the nature of God is embarrassing/taboo? No, not at all. Everyone is entitled to opinions and the topic is obviously very attractive to people because of it's enigmatic nature. I do, however, reject the idea that anyone has any sort of "special mystic insight" that allows them to know more about god than others. I think those discussions are appropriate - what I find inappropriate is the fact that those ideas receive support from the government. A government which is secular by definition, no less.

reply to post by HairlessApe

Mormonism purports the garden of eden to have been somewhere near Alabama,

Actually, I think they purport it was in Independence, Missouri - a suburb on the East side of Kansas City. They have an enormous "temple" there.....

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Richard?

Richard the Third 'Lionheart" fails to manefest.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

Mormonism purports the garden of eden to have been somewhere near Alabama,

Actually, I think they purport it was in Independence, Missouri - a suburb on the East side of Kansas City. They have an enormous "temple" there.....

Well, that's close enough to Alabama for me.