Why do you hate

[Flopper]

Why do so many of you hate God and people of faith?

I don't recall reading any post in which the poster said, "I hate God". I suspect that this is your interpretation. This idea comes from atheists or agnostics defending their belief. I don't go to baseball games but that does not mean I hate baseball.

 

[BreezeWood]

Simply not true. It exists in the mind of anyone who gives a shit about individual liberty and the growth of state power.

whose liberty???not the childs,,,

Not the fetus's, no. The fetus isn't a person and has no rights. Until it is born, it is strictly the property of the mother.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

christians since the 4th century have slept at night persecuting and victimizing the innocent, it's only during periods where their power is removed from them - Roe v Wade - that they toss sleeplessly in regret.

whine to someone else about your misfortune, sinner keep your hands to yourself.

Dear BreezeWood
Back to this issue of addressing what "Christians have done in the past" --

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

Do you believe all people deserve not to be deprived of liberty
or treated as guilty WITHOUT PROOF of what EACH PERSON
did wrong?

Or do you believe it is moral to "collectively condemn" a person "as a group" because of what OTHERS did, especially in the past.

NOTE: If you believe "collective punishment without proof" is okay, what if this were applied to YOU.

For example: Do you approve of people judging you and me "collectively as a group," because we both "use the internet for communication" and "in the PAST" the INTERNET has been used to "persecute, harass and victimize by bullying."

Is the BEHAVIOR and persecution/victimization done by others any justification for judging or condemning you and me by association?

Or would you expect people to PROVE you had personally committed such wrongs before trying to blame you for what others have done?

What do you believe is the better standard to follow?

.

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

when those of the same community have no remorse, then yes they are as culpable -

I have said before, you wrote your bible in the 4th century and do not reflect the events of the 1st century - the 1st century understood jesus was mortal and was not claiming to be a messiah - you on the otherhand promote your 4th century misscharacterization of the events - you have no remorse and are culpable of all the crimes committed using your forged christian bible.

 

[dblack]

dblack on the other hand was honest. He didn't abandon the concept of right and wrong. He said the hell with the concept. I know it's bad and I still choose it. That was honest. He was honest with me and he was honest with himself.

I'm not "choosing" bad. I'm saying your solution is worse.

 

[emilynghiem]

whose liberty???not the childs,,,

Not the fetus's, no. The fetus isn't a person and has no rights. Until it is born, it is strictly the property of the mother.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

.

I understand you have to say that to justify murder,,,its the only way you can sleep at night,,,

christians since the 4th century have slept at night persecuting and victimizing the innocent, it's only during periods where their power is removed from them - Roe v Wade - that they toss sleeplessly in regret.

whine to someone else about your misfortune, sinner keep your hands to yourself.

Dear BreezeWood
Back to this issue of addressing what "Christians have done in the past" --

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

Do you believe all people deserve not to be deprived of liberty
or treated as guilty WITHOUT PROOF of what EACH PERSON
did wrong?

Or do you believe it is moral to "collectively condemn" a person "as a group" because of what OTHERS did, especially in the past.

NOTE: If you believe "collective punishment without proof" is okay, what if this were applied to YOU.

For example: Do you approve of people judging you and me "collectively as a group," because we both "use the internet for communication" and "in the PAST" the INTERNET has been used to "persecute, harass and victimize by bullying."

Is the BEHAVIOR and persecution/victimization done by others any justification for judging or condemning you and me by association?

Or would you expect people to PROVE you had personally committed such wrongs before trying to blame you for what others have done?

What do you believe is the better standard to follow?

.

Do you believe in respecting civil law standards on
DUE PROCESS and not declaring or punishing people as guilty
for wrongs that OTHER PEOPLE did?

when those of the same community have no remorse, then yes they are as culpable -

I have said before, you wrote your bible in the 4th century and do not reflect the events of the 1st century - the 1st century understood jesus was mortal and was not claiming to be a messiah - you on the otherhand promote your 4th century misscharacterization of the events - you have no remorse and are culpable of all the crimes committed using your forged christian bible.

BreezeWood

So if you are falsely accused by others,
and show "no remorse" because you have no idea and no understanding
HOW or WHAT you are being accused of by others.

This automatically makes you guilty of that accusation by others?

You really believe justice works this way?

Do you really AGREE to be judged by accusations of others
MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU SHOW NO REMORSE?

???

 

[emilynghiem]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

 

[ding]

dblack on the other hand was honest. He didn't abandon the concept of right and wrong. He said the hell with the concept. I know it's bad and I still choose it. That was honest. He was honest with me and he was honest with himself.

I'm not "choosing" bad. I'm saying your solution is worse.

I’m not sure how it’s worse as no one died but putting that aside sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

Don’t you believe in personal accountability? Isn’t being accountable hard sometimes? Should one not be accountable because being accountable is hard?

 

[ding]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

I agree. We should not judge the person. But is there anything wrong with judging the behavior or act? In fact, isn’t it necessary to judge behaviors and actions?

 

[ding]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

The point of my question that you responded to was why would someone who did not believe in the concept of good and evil or right and wrong need to rationalize anything as good or evil; right or wrong? Does a wolf rationalize his eating of the sheep? No. It just is. Does the sheep cry that it isn’t fair? No. Concepts of right and wrong, good and evil and fairness are human constructs. Doesn’t the atheist let the cat out of the bag that he believes we are more than just animals when he cries about things not being fair? I can totally understand an atheist arguing for preference. As in he prefers this over that. But the moment he argues for fairness he has let the cat out of the bag that he believes in some universal code of moral decency that he expects everyone to know and follow. If he didn’t believe this he would say, hey, I prefer to take your money and leave you bleeding on the side of the road. The hell with your made up human constructs. Or I prefer that poor people abort their babies, we already have too many people on this planet.

I’m not judging anyone. In fact, I am arguing that they don’t need to rationalize their behaviors as good or moral because that only validates the human construct of good and evil when they clearly say they believe no such concept exists.

 

[emilynghiem]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

I agree. We should not judge the person. But is there anything wrong with judging the behavior or act? In fact, isn’t it necessary to judge behaviors and actions?

Sure ding
If we can do this without taking it personally or sounding like it.
To avoid projection which comes across as hypocrisy
or "telling others to do what you yourself are not doing"
1. Forgiveness of the problems helps REMOVE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT
that otherwise get projected onto others coming from elsewhere
2. Addressing your own faults equally as the other person
keeps the process more focused MUTUALLY
3. Refraining from COLLECTIVE representation of "whole groups or generalizations"
but really focusing one on one addressing individuals in the present

 

[ding]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

I agree. We should not judge the person. But is there anything wrong with judging the behavior or act? In fact, isn’t it necessary to judge behaviors and actions?

Sure ding
If we can do this without taking it personally or sounding like it.
To avoid projection which comes across as hypocrisy
or "telling others to do what you yourself are not doing"
1. Forgiveness of the problems helps reduce the tendency
of attached emotions to get projected onto others coming from elsewhere
2. Addressing your own faults equally as the other person
keeps the process more focused MUTUALLY
3. Refraining from COLLECTIVE representation of "whole groups or generalizations"
but really focusing one on one addressing individuals in the present

I couldn’t agree more. You do realize it’s a two way street though, right?

 

[emilynghiem]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

I agree. We should not judge the person. But is there anything wrong with judging the behavior or act? In fact, isn’t it necessary to judge behaviors and actions?

Sure ding
If we can do this without taking it personally or sounding like it.
To avoid projection which comes across as hypocrisy
or "telling others to do what you yourself are not doing"
1. Forgiveness of the problems helps reduce the tendency
of attached emotions to get projected onto others coming from elsewhere
2. Addressing your own faults equally as the other person
keeps the process more focused MUTUALLY
3. Refraining from COLLECTIVE representation of "whole groups or generalizations"
but really focusing one on one addressing individuals in the present

I couldn’t agree more. You do realize it’s a two way street though, right?

Yep #2 it's about keeping the exchange MUTUAL.
I find it's easier to focus on asking the other person to clarify and explain to me
where they are coming from. First we establish respect, trust and terms we both use to
talk about sensitive issues especially with relationships, religion or politics.
Then whatever they need to ask of me, they will feel free to tell or ask me what they don't understand.

 

[ding]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

And I supposed ding to ask a related question from the opposite approach,
if God's will is supreme, and God created atheists who think in secular terms following natural laws without personified representations of these forces and authorities as "humanized" deity "figures" -- then why would we judge people for thinking in nontheistic terms? Wouldn't God have a reason for creating "sheep in a separate fold of the one flock"? What is wrong with natural laws being a distinct expression of universal laws, if God created ALL authorities governed under Universal Laws of Justice (personified as the Lordship of Jesus).

Given that the SAME God created the "natural laws of justice/right and wrong" hardwired into Jews and Gentiles alike, why would we judge or approach people as if they are in conflict. Why wouldn't we embrace them as neighbors, with the understanding we both speak in different tongues.

I agree. We should not judge the person. But is there anything wrong with judging the behavior or act? In fact, isn’t it necessary to judge behaviors and actions?

Sure ding
If we can do this without taking it personally or sounding like it.
To avoid projection which comes across as hypocrisy
or "telling others to do what you yourself are not doing"
1. Forgiveness of the problems helps reduce the tendency
of attached emotions to get projected onto others coming from elsewhere
2. Addressing your own faults equally as the other person
keeps the process more focused MUTUALLY
3. Refraining from COLLECTIVE representation of "whole groups or generalizations"
but really focusing one on one addressing individuals in the present

I couldn’t agree more. You do realize it’s a two way street though, right?

Yep #2 it's about keeping the exchange MUTUAL.
I find it's easier to focus on asking the other person to clarify and explain to me
where they are coming from. First we establish respect, trust and terms we both use to
talk about sensitive issues especially with relationships, religion or politics.
Then whatever they need to ask of me, they will feel free to tell or ask me what they don't understand.

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

Yes, again ding what matters and what we can change is what
WE DO. Not focusing on "changing OTHER people's minds that are suffering"
worrying about what WE can do, what steps WE do to cut that suffering in half.

Sometimes it IS about offering help or support to a neighbor.
Just knowing we care is sometimes the most of it.

Other times, showing we are trying to listen and change
what we are doing or saying to upset someone else
lets them know we ARE trying to understand, and we DO care to fix it.

It's ironic sometimes and never fails to catch me by surprise.
The times I thought I needed to do all kinds of stressful effort
but all someone really wanted was to know I cared or was listening.
Sometimes that's enough to help them release the fear and stress
so they can solve their issues on their own. Just want someone
to hold their hand or be there while they talk themselves through it.

 

[ding]

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

Yes, again ding what matters and what we can change is what
WE DO. Not focusing on "changing OTHER people's minds that are suffering"
worrying about what WE can do, what steps WE do to cut that suffering in half.

Sometimes it IS about offering help or support to a neighbor.
Just knowing we care is sometimes the most of it.

Other times, showing we are trying to listen and change
what we are doing or saying to upset someone else
lets them know we ARE trying to understand, and we DO care to fix it.

It's ironic sometimes and never fails to catch me by surprise.
The times I thought I needed to do all kinds of stressful effort
but all someone really wanted was to know I cared or was listening.
Sometimes that's enough to help them release the fear and stress
so they can solve their issues on their own. Just want someone
to hold their hand or be there while they talk themselves through it.

I care more than you know.

Not all situations call for the same solutions.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

Yes, again ding what matters and what we can change is what
WE DO. Not focusing on "changing OTHER people's minds that are suffering"
worrying about what WE can do, what steps WE do to cut that suffering in half.

Sometimes it IS about offering help or support to a neighbor.
Just knowing we care is sometimes the most of it.

Other times, showing we are trying to listen and change
what we are doing or saying to upset someone else
lets them know we ARE trying to understand, and we DO care to fix it.

It's ironic sometimes and never fails to catch me by surprise.
The times I thought I needed to do all kinds of stressful effort
but all someone really wanted was to know I cared or was listening.
Sometimes that's enough to help them release the fear and stress
so they can solve their issues on their own. Just want someone
to hold their hand or be there while they talk themselves through it.

I care more than you know.

Not all situations call for the same solutions.

Sure ding with each person, who is a unique soul,
each relationship between two unique souls is a unique line.
So every situation is unique between those two people.

They may not understand how much we care,
but they don't have to think we have some selfish motive either.
If we are giving the person the 'wrong impression'
what can we do to change and improve our way of
expressing and sharing where it doesn't come across wrong.

 

[ding]

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

Yes, again ding what matters and what we can change is what
WE DO. Not focusing on "changing OTHER people's minds that are suffering"
worrying about what WE can do, what steps WE do to cut that suffering in half.

Sometimes it IS about offering help or support to a neighbor.
Just knowing we care is sometimes the most of it.

Other times, showing we are trying to listen and change
what we are doing or saying to upset someone else
lets them know we ARE trying to understand, and we DO care to fix it.

It's ironic sometimes and never fails to catch me by surprise.
The times I thought I needed to do all kinds of stressful effort
but all someone really wanted was to know I cared or was listening.
Sometimes that's enough to help them release the fear and stress
so they can solve their issues on their own. Just want someone
to hold their hand or be there while they talk themselves through it.

I care more than you know.

Not all situations call for the same solutions.

Sure ding with each person, who is a unique soul,
each relationship between two unique souls is a unique line.
So every situation is unique between those two people.

They may not understand how much we care,
but they don't have to think we have some selfish motive either.
If we are giving the person the 'wrong impression'
what can we do to change and improve our way of
expressing and sharing where it doesn't come across wrong.

M, everything works itself out in the end. It’s a conflict and confusion process. Truth will always win in the end because eventually error will fail.

We live in a logical universe where every effect has a cause. Everything is connected.

I do the best I can with what I have. I leave the rest to God.

How many minds here have you changed?

 

[alang1216]

How about a fetus that is deformed and would endure a life of pain?

Do you have anymore fringe arguments you want to trot out?

Why, so you can ignore those too?

 

[ding]

How about a fetus that is deformed and would endure a life of pain?

Do you have anymore fringe arguments you want to trot out?

Why, so you can ignore those too?

No. I'd like to deal with them in one fell swoop.

 

[emilynghiem]

I find it doesn’t really matter what I do. They are going to do what they are going to do.

The only thing that changes anyone’s mind is suffering. And even that doesn’t always work. Some people have to learn things the hard way.

Yes, again ding what matters and what we can change is what
WE DO. Not focusing on "changing OTHER people's minds that are suffering"
worrying about what WE can do, what steps WE do to cut that suffering in half.

Sometimes it IS about offering help or support to a neighbor.
Just knowing we care is sometimes the most of it.

Other times, showing we are trying to listen and change
what we are doing or saying to upset someone else
lets them know we ARE trying to understand, and we DO care to fix it.

It's ironic sometimes and never fails to catch me by surprise.
The times I thought I needed to do all kinds of stressful effort
but all someone really wanted was to know I cared or was listening.
Sometimes that's enough to help them release the fear and stress
so they can solve their issues on their own. Just want someone
to hold their hand or be there while they talk themselves through it.

I care more than you know.

Not all situations call for the same solutions.

Sure ding with each person, who is a unique soul,
each relationship between two unique souls is a unique line.
So every situation is unique between those two people.

They may not understand how much we care,
but they don't have to think we have some selfish motive either.
If we are giving the person the 'wrong impression'
what can we do to change and improve our way of
expressing and sharing where it doesn't come across wrong.

M, everything works itself out in the end. It’s a conflict and confusion process. Truth will always win in the end because eventually error will fail.

We live in a logical universe where every effect has a cause. Everything is connected.

I do the best I can with what I have. I leave the rest to God.

How many minds here have you changed?

Dear ding
A. The changes have been more like mutual changes in tones in our relations
going from hostile or blocked, to more open and without the same friction or constant negative resistance back and forth.
I think all relations have opened up more, over time,
but it's not like changing someone's mind completely on any one particular point.

B. the most pronounced changes I felt were GENERALLY a change in CONNECTION with conservative/rightwing approaches.
After Obama's ACA went through and I started arguing most focused
with fellow liberals and progressives to explain how that was violating Constitutional principles and process.

Suddenly it seemed the conservatives (I used to annoy with my long liberal messages overanalyzing and deconstructing
everything) weren't so annoying after all if I was going after liberals about ACA being unconstitutional.

Some discovered I had a sense of humor and could JOKE about this unfunny outrage going on.
So that helped smooth things over while deep difficult discussions became burdensome otherwise.

Even with adding this humor and being able to connect with more people,
it also meant getting more jumped on by my fellow liberals, including and especially over the LGBT arguments.

So one channel became more open IN GENERAL
but the other became a harder struggle in comparison.

ding that is NOT SOMETHING that can be explained or changed overnight.
Letting go of all that past karmic buildup of persecution of LGBT by Christians,
now flipped the other way, is just a microcosm of the collective political flips from
"jumping on Obama voters" to "jumping on Trump voters."

Overall, I'm just grateful if we can restore some trust and respect in all the hostile mess back and forth.
Even a "slightly less broken connection" is a positive change and step in the right direction.
Even someone deciding not to ignore or cut me off completely, but bother to read or reply to a msg
and try to say SOMETHING is better than nothing.

I'll take that as a change, though it probably doesn't meet
the expectations you are asking about.

C. As for specific points where I changed MY mind (and assume this impacted
how I interacted with others on related points)

1. drifter changed my mind about my stance opposing drug use
actually being a BIAS. I thought I was open either way, and just PREFERRED to
promote spiritual healing first to make sure people had FULL KNOWLEDGE
before making decisions about drug use or policies. But actually having
this knowledge CREATES A PROJECTED BIAS causing conflicts with others who think it isn't real or justified.

This doesn't change my mind about my beliefs, but makes me TRY to be more CAREFUL
NOT TO JUDGE if people don't believe me and/or start to attack my judgement
because they just CAN'T IMAGINE spiritual healing can really change people like that.

drifter was the only person who directly expressed understanding
that this spiritual healing research is REAL and it DOES CHANGE and IMPACT everything deeply
So we helped each other to proportional degrees.

And this helped me be more understanding and patient and not judge
if people outright reject and attack me for bringing this up, thinking it's totally false and dangerous.
(the worst arguments over this were with Penelope and now TheProgressivePatriot
thinks this Spiritual Healing is complete propaganda garbage that is harming the LGBT
and reinforcing anti-gay bigotry) So this problem isn't solved and people aren't changing
their minds or beliefs. Even if there is proof it helps people, to the depths that totally transform lives and relations,
the changes happen "equally all around" and by the time things change enough to be visible,
I suppose everything will change around us by then, so it won't matter.

2. g5000 brought up that voting regulations couldn't be proven to reduce voter fraud
so from that, I figured out this is like gun regulations not reducing gun violence.
That changed my mind on how I explain and talk to people about the opposition to such legislation.

3. Anonymous originally jumped on me for talking about Freedmen's Town, accusing me of
using it as race bait to entrap or incite white/black posters to mouth off and get themselves investigated,
thinking I was some FBI mole or IMPLANT/IMPOSTER trying to get people in trouble or arrested.

so that took some work to resolve, where we could communicate on a transparent basis
without fear that something nefarious was going on

4. I did make some progress working things out with JakeStarkey to understand where my "opposite evil twin"
was coming from to make sense of these "labels" of RINO (and DINO). Though I still can't communicate on
Constitutional laws with CCJones, I made some progress with other liberal posters, here and there, over time very gradually.

5. currently I'm still working on smoothing out harsh communications with harmonica and IM2
who still objects to me CONDONING "abuses of individualism" or "white language/cultural perception" crap of "false equivalencies" and "white people assuming they know better how to tell black people how to think because they don't count"

It's all over the place, ding
Like I said above, by the time changes go through, it's going to be so comprehensive
affecting a little of everything, that it won't matter who changed to what degree because
everyone is constantly changing how we deal with everyone else. It's a continual process.

 

[rightwinger]

So the only question that needs to be answered to close this circle is why would an atheist even care about the law of right and wrong unless it was hardwired into him?

It’s not hard
It is basic compassion

Why do the religious need it spelled out for them?