Oprah speaks for atheists instead of listening to atheists.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oprah speaks for atheists instead of listening to atheists.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oprah-you-cant-be-an-atheist-if-you-believe-in-the-awe-and-wonder-of-the-world/

Oprah, like most theists think there has to be magic in something if it is "pretty". No there is not so nice stuff in the world too, and neither the "awe" inspiring things in life nor the not so nice stuff needs a bearded man with a magic wand vs a man with a pitchfork to explain.

It is a sick thought to me to think of "all this" in which we live in being game pieces for two narcissistic characters fighting over the neurons in our brains as if we were prizes.

Diana Nyad (on celebatheists)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Opie only works for ratings.

Opie only works for ratings.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Opie

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Opie only works for ratings.

No I would not say entirely. I don't think, at risk of giving Beyond Saving a heart attack, that all rich people are out for their own personal fame or personal wealth. 100% of the time.

 

She is for minority rights and gay marriage. But I do think she truly believes a god exists which is why she made those stupid statements. Some of it sure is "Atheists equal ratings" yea sure. But I don't think that is all of it.

 

OH FUCK, I am a leftest commie who wants to end the free market, I am not supposed to defend wealth.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
She doesn't believe in the

She doesn't believe in the same god as other theists do. She is more crunchy granola. She supports yoga guru's and mediums and other "stuff" which is completely outside the normal scope of being a theist.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Opie only works for ratings.

No I would not say entirely. I don't think, at risk of giving Beyond Saving a heart attack, that all rich people are out for their own personal fame or personal wealth. 100% of the time.

 

She is for minority rights and gay marriage. But I do think she truly believes a god exists which is why she made those stupid statements. Some of it sure is "Atheists equal ratings" yea sure. But I don't think that is all of it.

 

OH FUCK, I am a leftest commie who wants to end the free market, I am not supposed to defend wealth.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Opie only works for ratings.

No I would not say entirely. I don't think, at risk of giving Beyond Saving a heart attack, that all rich people are out for their own personal fame or personal wealth. 100% of the time.

 

She is for minority rights and gay marriage. But I do think she truly believes a god exists which is why she made those stupid statements. Some of it sure is "Atheists equal ratings" yea sure. But I don't think that is all of it.

 

OH FUCK, I am a leftest commie who wants to end the free market, I am not supposed to defend wealth.

 

 

Yet, all your political beliefs rest on you believing the government will spend her money more nobly than she will. Have you noticed that the government is not for minority rights and has been fighting against gay marriage for decades?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Opie only works for ratings.

No I would not say entirely. I don't think, at risk of giving Beyond Saving a heart attack, that all rich people are out for their own personal fame or personal wealth. 100% of the time.

 

She is for minority rights and gay marriage. But I do think she truly believes a god exists which is why she made those stupid statements. Some of it sure is "Atheists equal ratings" yea sure. But I don't think that is all of it.

 

OH FUCK, I am a leftest commie who wants to end the free market, I am not supposed to defend wealth.

 

 

Yet, all your political beliefs rest on you believing the government will spend her money more nobly than she will. Have you noticed that the government is not for minority rights and has been fighting against gay marriage for decades?

Since the ink was dry on the Constitution, bigotry and sexism and slavery existed.

Even outside the issue of religion, human behavior always exhibits an alpha male majority reacting to a subordinate.

This behavior is found in other species as well.

 

If you read "The God Delusion" you would know this, if you have, you seem to have forgotten.

 

As far as wealth, you think you have a monopoly on what wealthy people should do but when I point out rich people who agree with me you ignore that. Argue with the owners of Moo Cluck Moo. Argue with Nick Hanour. When other rich people call you a crybaby when you are rich yourself, sorry, you are just pissing in the wind.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
As a result of this I've

As a result of this I've updated the Celebatheists entry for Carl Sagan to add some spirituality views. 

Added an entry for Diana Nyad, and stuck it to Oprah by labeling her a heretic with her god is awe nonsense. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Since the ink

Brian37 wrote:

Since the ink was dry on the Constitution, bigotry and sexism and slavery existed.

Bigotry, sexism and slavery existed long before any of the people who thought up the Constitution existed- what's your point?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Even outside the issue of religion, human behavior always exhibits an alpha male majority reacting to a subordinate.

This behavior is found in other species as well.

The term alpha male majority is contradictory. The very definition of alpha male is someone who doesn't work with a majority. There is one alpha male and all the others (the majority) is not. Fortunately, human society has gotten beyond the primitive construct of having society led by a single alpha male.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you read "The God Delusion" you would know this, if you have, you seem to have forgotten.

 

If you have read anything about the social structure of various animal groups that feature alphas you would realize how ignorant you sound. In nature, the alpha is not always male and many (most) species don't base their social behavior on such a model. Humans tend to have a much more flexible social structure which is why we might recognize someone as alpha in a particular situation, but completely irrelevant in another. For example, you might obey your bosses commands at work, but would ignore them if they involved your life outside of work. It is ridiculous to try to boil down human social interaction as a basic alpha-beta-omega social model. Very few species can correctly be characterized in such basic models and humans certainly cannot.

 

Brian37 wrote:

As far as wealth, you think you have a monopoly on what wealthy people should do...

I think no such thing. I do not think I should have the power to tell anyone what they should do. I have the crazy idea that Oprah should decide what to do with her money. You are the one who thinks that government should control what people do or what their money should be spent on.

 

Brian37 wrote:

but when I point out rich people who agree with me you ignore that. Argue with the owners of Moo Cluck Moo. Argue with Nick Hanour. When other rich people call you a crybaby when you are rich yourself, sorry, you are just pissing in the wind.

No, I don't ignore it, I laugh at it because your devotion to them is absolutely hilarious. Inevitably, you pick rich people to worship who have done the very things that you criticize as being wrong. For example, you bitch every time some company saves costs by laying off people and reducing wages... Nick Hanour made his billions doing exactly that. I have pointed that out to you dozens of times and you blatantly ignore it and then move on to the next thread and repeat the same lame argument. 

 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Since the ink was dry on the Constitution, bigotry and sexism and slavery existed.

Bigotry, sexism and slavery existed long before any of the people who thought up the Constitution existed- what's your point?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Even outside the issue of religion, human behavior always exhibits an alpha male majority reacting to a subordinate.

This behavior is found in other species as well.

The term alpha male majority is contradictory. The very definition of alpha male is someone who doesn't work with a majority. There is one alpha male and all the others (the majority) is not. Fortunately, human society has gotten beyond the primitive construct of having society led by a single alpha male.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you read "The God Delusion" you would know this, if you have, you seem to have forgotten.

 

If you have read anything about the social structure of various animal groups that feature alphas you would realize how ignorant you sound. In nature, the alpha is not always male and many (most) species don't base their social behavior on such a model. Humans tend to have a much more flexible social structure which is why we might recognize someone as alpha in a particular situation, but completely irrelevant in another. For example, you might obey your bosses commands at work, but would ignore them if they involved your life outside of work. It is ridiculous to try to boil down human social interaction as a basic alpha-beta-omega social model. Very few species can correctly be characterized in such basic models and humans certainly cannot.

 

Brian37 wrote:

As far as wealth, you think you have a monopoly on what wealthy people should do...

I think no such thing. I do not think I should have the power to tell anyone what they should do. I have the crazy idea that Oprah should decide what to do with her money. You are the one who thinks that government should control what people do or what their money should be spent on.

 

Brian37 wrote:

but when I point out rich people who agree with me you ignore that. Argue with the owners of Moo Cluck Moo. Argue with Nick Hanour. When other rich people call you a crybaby when you are rich yourself, sorry, you are just pissing in the wind.

No, I don't ignore it, I laugh at it because your devotion to them is absolutely hilarious. Inevitably, you pick rich people to worship who have done the very things that you criticize as being wrong. For example, you bitch every time some company saves costs by laying off people and reducing wages... Nick Hanour made his billions doing exactly that. I have pointed that out to you dozens of times and you blatantly ignore it and then move on to the next thread and repeat the same lame argument. 

 

 

 

 

My devotion? Your breath smells  like Ayn Rand's dead pussy.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
help b>sapient

Sapient wrote:

As a result of this I've updated the Celebatheists entry for Carl Sagan to add some spirituality views. 

Added an entry for Diana Nyad, and stuck it to Oprah by labeling her a heretic with her god is awe nonsense. 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
feild required to post in comment box

Sapient wrote:

As a result of this I've updated the Celebatheists entry for Carl Sagan to add some spirituality views. 

Added an entry for Diana Nyad, and stuck it to Oprah by labeling her a heretic with her god is awe nonsense. 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:As a result of

Sapient wrote:

As a result of this I've updated the Celebatheists entry for Carl Sagan to add some spirituality views. 

Added an entry for Diana Nyad, and stuck it to Oprah by labeling her a heretic with her god is awe nonsense. 

I bleieve Nyad when she says she doesn't believe in a god, I'll take her word for it. But I do not see any need to give any part of our biological physical bodies the term "soul" or "spiritual",  "Sense of awe" is all I am fine with. And love of the good parts of humanity and nature, I am also fine with. But there is also lots in humanity that is bad and lots of things in nature that are also destructive.

I think she, like Harris, needlessly use that word "spirituality" and by attempting to incorporate such words rooted in myth and superstition, they allow the believer like Oprah stupidly think "see see you do secretly believe, but don't realize it".

Attempting to adapt the antiquated words by old cultures rooted in myth does atheists, nor believers any good, in an attempt to pull humans forward away from myth. I understand the empathy behind it, but I don't think it helps us or believers to employ such tactics.

Our sense of awe, and  our evolutionary trait of having deep emotional reactions and empathy for others is nothing magical, knowing that does not change how good that feeling can be when we see good in nature or in others.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nick Hanour made his

Quote:
Nick Hanour made his billions doing exactly that.

 

No no no don't equate him to Mitt. The climate Mitt's types created which most of the corporate world is full of created a 30 year domino affect that gave the honest players no choice. When someone says "put more money in workers pockets" they cant always do that, and most of the time it is because of the other greedy people who drag the rest of the business world into their mess.

I got two raises from my prior owners without even asking, they had to make cuts too because of the tanking economy, but they didn't go as deep and they sure as hell cared and after talking to them after they sold it to my new owner, who cut even worse, they are sorry they sold it to him.

I'd believe Nick more than Mitt. Now if you are saying they are both corporate vultures,(Ironic since you cheered for Mitt and predicted his win, funny for someone who brags about being great with numbers) and Nick is a liar, that still would not mean that he is wrong about putting more money in workers pockets. And I still gave you examples of other businesses that do just that too.

Climate is the problem, pay gap is the problem. You cannot have less government and "it is fine when I get everything I want, but robbery when the other guy wins", take a "fuck you I got mine" and expect those you fuck over not to use the same voting booth you do to explode that pay gap. Either the government is ours or it is not.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:My devotion?

Brian37 wrote:

My devotion? Your breath smells  like Ayn Rand's dead pussy.

                   

                   and your breath smells like Michelle Obama's live pussy which ...judging by her looks... must be infinitely worse.  Stay classy Brian

 

                                                                     

 

                                                

 

                                                     

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, the cruel beauty of cultured Black Pearls

   . . cruel beauty of cultured Black Pearls (triple meaning)

 

 Link ::

 http://www.politicalcontext.org/blog/2012/04/black-pearls/


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 583
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  and

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  and your breath smells like Michelle Obama's live pussy which ...judging by her looks... must be infinitely worse.  Stay classy Brian

 

I don't know about you, man, but that picture of Michelle Obama looks to me like she's one bite away from joining the ranks of the undead.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Nick

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Nick Hanour made his billions doing exactly that.

 

No no no don't equate him to Mitt. The climate Mitt's types created which most of the corporate world is full of created a 30 year domino affect that gave the honest players no choice. When someone says "put more money in workers pockets" they cant always do that, and most of the time it is because of the other greedy people who drag the rest of the business world into their mess.

Why shouldn't we equate him to Mitt? He makes his money in an extremely similar way. Should he get a pass because of his political views? Should we hold him to a different moral standard? (I don't think either is immoral, but if you are going to attack one business model as evil I think you should be consistent.)

With Nick it had nothing to do with not being able to pay people more or hire more people but wanting to, the entire business model of Amazon.com- which is what made him a billionaire instead of a mere millionaire (he inherited the millions)- was designed precisely to eliminate jobs. Amazon is successful because it brings in massive amounts of revenue and uses relatively few employees, allowing them to sell books and all the other stuff they now sell, significantly cheaper than old fashioned brick and mortar stores. It really single handedly destroyed the retail book industry and drove many places out of business causing the many to lose jobs and a few to make a boatload of cash. It is EVERYTHING that you bitch about as an example of the terrible "climate" and the "race to the bottom" that you are constantly bitch about. And don't even talk about pay gap. Amazons pay gap is gigantic even among employees even before you factor in the billions made by the investors. Many of their programmers make hundreds of thousands a year while the low guys on the totem pole in the warehouses make shit. Amazon is absolutely guilty of everything you point out as a huge problem, and you seem to give Nick a pass for no reason other than you got a hard on over one of his speeches.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Climate is the problem, pay gap is the problem. You cannot have less government and "it is fine when I get everything I want, but robbery when the other guy wins", take a "fuck you I got mine" and expect those you fuck over not to use the same voting booth you do to explode that pay gap. Either the government is ours or it is not.

I spend every day shrinking the pay gap. I take my money and I give it to other people to help me make more money so I can give it to other people to go make even more money. What have you done to shrink the pay gap? You spend a lot of time bitching about problems but you do absolutely nothing to help solve them. Instead, you point fingers of blame and are under the laughable delusion that government is the solution. Hate to break it to you, government is never going to solve your problems, real or imaginary. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:If you

Beyond Saving wrote:
If you have read anything about the social structure of various animal groups that feature alphas you would realize how ignorant you sound. In nature, the alpha is not always male

 

NO SHIT, the term is used like "mail man" is the "mail man" always male?

 

"Alpha male" in biological evolution means the dominate being over the subordinate.

 

In given context a male lion will dominate a particular situation in a group, but would have it's hand full with a group of lionesses protecting cubs. In that context he is not the "alpha male".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NO SHIT, the

Brian37 wrote:

NO SHIT, the term is used like "mail man" is the "mail man" always male?

 

No it isn't. You would never see a biologist refer to an alpha female as an alpha male. Never. Ever.

 

Brian37 wrote:

"Alpha male" in biological evolution means the dominate being over the subordinate.

 

No, it doesn't. It is used to describe the animal that is the head of a social structure in which one animal is dominant and all the others are subordinate.

 

Brian37 wrote:

In given context a male lion will dominate a particular situation in a group, but would have it's hand full with a group of lionesses protecting cubs. In that context he is not the "alpha male".

Wrong again. Among lion prides, one of the FEW species which features an alpha male, the alpha male is always alpha. 100% of the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. That one male will remain alpha until he dies or is chased off by another dominant male (usually younger) at which point that male will never be alpha again anywhere, anytime and usually dies in the near future.

The alpha male of a pride doesn't kill the cubs and never fights with the females. The alpha is the head male that is accepted by the females. A new group of males that has defeated the old group of males becomes dominant by killing or chasing off all of the cubs and young males, which the females will resist. If the new group is successful at getting rid of all the cubs, and males in the tribe the females will accept the new alpha and breed. If the females are fighting against a male, he is by definition not accepted as the alpha yet. 

And in context, humans are not lions and our social structures are neither based on, nor particularly similar to lion social structures. Your simplistic characterization of humans as a simple dominant/submissive structure is completely absurd.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NO SHIT, the term is used like "mail man" is the "mail man" always male?

 

No it isn't. You would never see a biologist refer to an alpha female as an alpha male. Never. Ever.

 

Brian37 wrote:

"Alpha male" in biological evolution means the dominate being over the subordinate.

 

No, it doesn't. It is used to describe the animal that is the head of a social structure in which one animal is dominant and all the others are subordinate.

 

Brian37 wrote:

In given context a male lion will dominate a particular situation in a group, but would have it's hand full with a group of lionesses protecting cubs. In that context he is not the "alpha male".

Wrong again. Among lion prides, one of the FEW species which features an alpha male, the alpha male is always alpha. 100% of the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. That one male will remain alpha until he dies or is chased off by another dominant male (usually younger) at which point that male will never be alpha again anywhere, anytime and usually dies in the near future.

The alpha male of a pride doesn't kill the cubs and never fights with the females. The alpha is the head male that is accepted by the females. A new group of males that has defeated the old group of males becomes dominant by killing or chasing off all of the cubs and young males, which the females will resist. If the new group is successful at getting rid of all the cubs, and males in the tribe the females will accept the new alpha and breed. If the females are fighting against a male, he is by definition not accepted as the alpha yet. 

And in context, humans are not lions and our social structures are neither based on, nor particularly similar to lion social structures. Your simplistic characterization of humans as a simple dominant/submissive structure is completely absurd.

 

Ok, like economics if you "just do it my way all the time it works out".

 

Sorry, male or female in ANY  species do not always dominate. Age alone will allow a subordinate to challenge you and defeat you. Luck and conditions also play into the success of an individual or group. Empathy the part you lack, is also part of evolution.

Don't lecture me about either/or and black and white thinking when your economics lacks compassion for those bellow you.

 

You are what you describe, "fuck you I got mine", MALE OR FEMALE

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, like

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, like economics if you "just do it my way all the time it works out".

 

I have never said that. I have in fact stated the opposite dozens of times. I don't pretend to know what way works best, that is why I support businesses doing things whatever way they think is best.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Sorry, male or female in ANY  species do not always dominate.

Did you read what I wrote? Nope. In lions, yes the alpha male usually only keeps the role for 3-4 years before being ousted by lions outside of his pride, he is not replaced by a subordinate within the pride, he is replaced by another alpha. But again, you are wrong. The Queen Bee is ALWAYS Queen until she dies.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Age alone will allow a subordinate to challenge you and defeat you. Luck and conditions also play into the success of an individual or group. Empathy the part you lack, is also part of evolution.

Which is what I said. But once defeated, the alpha is no longer alpha, by definition.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Don't lecture me about either/or and black and white thinking when your economics lacks compassion for those bellow you.

 

What does black and white thinking have to do with compassion?

 

Brian37 wrote:

You are what you describe, "fuck you I got mine", MALE OR FEMALE

I have never said that either. I think I should buy you an online reading comprehension course. If I paid for one, would you take it?

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 Diana Nyad is clearly an

 Diana Nyad is clearly an atheist. I don't know why Oprah tried to spin this and make it seem like she believes in a higher power when she clearly doesn't. I find it hard to believe that Oprah is very religious herself. I mean she only worships money.

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
not just Oprah

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 Diana Nyad is clearly an atheist. I don't know why Oprah tried to spin this and make it seem like she believes in a higher power when she clearly doesn't. I find it hard to believe that Oprah is very religious herself. I mean she only worships money.

 

                I've  run into nieve types over the years who have tried to convince me I'm not realy an atheist {I am, well over 50  years and counting}, including frustrated fundies who believe it "takes more faith to be an atheist then a believer". Oprah has come under fire before by mainstream religions for promoting "spirituality" over organized religions.  I'm not a big fan of Oprah's but if she can irritate the religious she can't be all bad.

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Though passion may have strained, it must not . .

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

My devotion? Your breath smells  like Ayn Rand's dead pussy.

                   

                   and your breath smells like Michelle Obama's live pussy which ...judging by her looks... must be infinitely worse.  Stay classy Brian

 

                                                                     

 

                                                

 

                                                     

 

 

 

 

  See Image :: Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection



Unrelated   (that mean it's unrelated to post or cell) ::

 

The Hebrew Bible however uses the term "nephesh hayah" which always means "living soul", .. correct ?