> Peter van Velzen writes:
>
> "But I am seriousIf they do not think your posts deserve a serious
> answer, they should refrain from making any reply."
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> V:
>
> Very wise advice Peter van Velzen...limiting idle speech.
>
> Maybe the atheists will vote you in as their new leader?
>
> Michelle Malkin AA#1 does a lousy job at guiding her flock and they
> seem to need some help here.
>
> And your advice would help the atheists with their perennial problem
> of giving themselves black eyes.
>
> If you took the entire lot of my groupies and sat them down for a pow-
> wow on wisdom, they could not have offered such sage wisdom as you
> Peter.
>
> I applaud you Peter van Velzen for not being an 'atheist kiss ass' as
> the rest of my groupies, Raven, Robibnikoff, Bilbo, Michael Gray,
> Kate, Floyd, Neil, Michelle, Ghod, Parsifa, Martin, Lucifer, Syd M,
> John #1782, Enkidu, Hollis, Gail, Rev. Karl E. Taylor, Martin are and
> for speaking out when you see a wrong.
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=532.0
>
> I wrote about 4 pages on the subject of the 'self defied atheist' to
> Buddy Thunder.
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0
>
> Here is his reply Peter
>
> Buddy Thunder writes:
>
> (V's verbal sewage deleted)
>
> Why are these rant-screeds always so painfully long? Is it more
> convincing for running to novella length? Does it lend credibility if
> a bibliography is required? Does it make the irony-meters cheaper to
> reorder when the original point is so elegantly made by the reply?
> Could there be a better example of my point than "The Self Deified
> Atheist"? I hope that was a "knowing" rant. I fear not."
>

> V:
>
> Nice 'witty' reply Buddy Thunder offered.....easier to delete than to
> answer a post...but academic smarts are not peace smarts...are they
> Peter.
>
> It is not ego when I say atheists cannot answer me because I am truth
> based...it is just what is.
>
> Could my groupies Raven, Robibnikoff, Bilbo, Michael Gray, Kate,
> Floyd, Neil, Michelle, Ghod, Parsifa, Martin, Lucifer, Syd M, John
> #1782, Enkidu, Hollis, Gail, Rev. Karl E. Taylor, Martin have done any
> better?
>
> Attention Atheists:
>
> ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin,
> literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an
> argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument
> or assertion rather than the argument itself.
>
> Avoid ad hominem argument atheists.
>
> We should never find joy in the destruction of others belief systems.
>
> We can discuss them if we desire.
>
> But for our inner peace we should not try to 'break' other people to
> the 'glory' of our ego.
>
> It is always good to inquire within us as to why we do things?
>
> Do we act out of an honest intent to help other find peace?
>
> Or do we act to destroy others peace and try and boost our self worth
> through ego and pride?
>
> No one does this evaluation perfectly, but we can still have it in
> mind when we come in contact with others.
>
> Ask yourself why you wish to do something. Is it for inner peace?
>
> Or to massage your ego?
>
> Or because it feels good?
>
> Or to improve ones karmic debt?
>
> Or to fit in?
>
> Or because others say so?
>
> Or to hurt another?
>
> Or to try and escape the consequences of our actions? What is your
> driving force?
>
> Fear based reasons for doing something are not authentic and natural
> actions.
>
> The persons actions are based on negative consequences otherwise they
> would not do them.
>
> My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my
> peace - it is my choice.
>
> Put your inner peace foremost and you will have your answer.
>
> When you align real and authentic actions with those that promote
> inner peace you have found enlightenment.
>
> Take care,
>
> V (Male)
>
> Agnostic Freethinker
> Practical Philosopher
> AA#2