A conundrum

[Jan Ardena]

Wesmorris,

I, am most disturbed by the gaul instilled in you by your cult, or by yourself in pursuit of appeasing the vaccuous emotional conditions that require you to think like a cult member. As a human being, I find any attempts to cite knowledge of the properties of "god" or a "god-consciousness", as the pinnacle of self contradiction and egomaniacal cult thinking. It's kind of disgusting. Poopoo on you and the others who would be so crass.

I have no time for you convoluted cogitations, steming from what can only be described as a contraceptive personality, with all the hallmarks of a recent rectal cranial inversion procedure, performed in the desparate hope of correcting your congenital cluelessness, so please………get stuffed yer little twit, and close di doh on yo way out!

In all seriousness though Wes, why the hostility, you obviously haven’t a clue where I’m coming from, and you don’t have the decency to find out. Instead you hurl accusations and insults at me, and then you call yourself logical, reasonable and rational.
You are a funny guy!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

I am a pretty logical guy. You are not the only one that comment was directed towards. You'll never understand what I mean, because you don't care to. I suppose it's just my opinion, but if you claim to accept the existence of "god", it would seem to me that you'd have a bit more respect than to presume to speak for it, or claim to "understand" it. The very idea of "god" is technically incomprehensible to humans, yet you cult laden freaks spew affirmations based on your claim of "relationship" with it. You claim intimate objective knowledge of a being that created the entire universe (and all the other stuff you claim it has done) all of this because of a book and your emotions. I just think that's pathetic and somewhat disgusting, that's all.

You are certainly entitled to your pathetic claims, and I am certainly entitled to label them as such.

 

[Canute]

Wes - I appreciate that you mean to be logical but what makes you say that "The very idea of "god" is technically incomprehensible to humans"? If it's provably true then it must be provably false.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Canute
Wes - I appreciate that you mean to be logical but what makes you say that "The very idea of "god" is technically incomprehensible to humans"? If it's provably true then it must be provably false.

I mean that it seems (though again, is just my opinion) that if you are willing to make the assumption that "god" exists, then you should be at least gracious and humble enough to extend your assumptions to the acknowledgement of limited human intellect. Given that acknowledgement, I'd think one should assume that "god" would be inconceivable to the limited comprehensive power of a human.. so though if it DOES exist, to make assertions like "that's how god works" or "god is love" or "god is understanding" is a bunch of egocentric bullshit, because there is no feasible means by which to know that god is or is not, even if you're willing to assume that god(s) exist.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I mean that it seems (though again, is just my opinion) that if you are willing to make the assumption that "god" exists, then you should be at least gracious and humble enough to extend your assumptions to the acknowledgement of limited human intellect. Given that acknowledgement, I'd think one should assume that "god" would be inconceivable to the limited comprehensive power of a human.. so though if it DOES exist, to make assertions like "that's how god works" or "god is love" or "god is understanding" is a bunch of egocentric bullshit, because there is no feasible means by which to know that god is or is not, even if you're willing to assume that god(s) exist.

I agree with you that we cannot claim to know everything about even our own concept of a God, if we have one. It would be illogical to do so. Gods must be ineffable by definition. But that doesn't mean we can't know enough about things to make certain limited claims about him. We just can't claim too much. Each case should be judged on its merits.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Canute
But that doesn't mean we can't know enough about things to make certain limited claims about him.

Show me a few examples please.

Originally posted by Canute

We just can't claim too much.

IMO, "GOD IS LOVE" or any of its variants is far too much. Hell man, anything I can think of at the moment that one might say as a claim to knowledge regarding god is more than a human could possible know about god.

Originally posted by Canute

Each case should be judged on its merits.

Well, I disagree.. but maybe your list of exampls will sway me.

 

[Canute]

Wes -"knowledge regarding god is more than a human could possible know about god".

Thus your claim is that 'God is ineffable'. I doubt that you can prove this.

For any logical concept of God I would claim that:

God is infinite (or infinitessimal), eternal (or timeless), monist (but with many aspects), dimensionless (but everywhere at the same time). This is because if this was not true then I wouldn't call it God. (The logical positivist approach).

BTW I would not claim he (she, it) exists since we all mean something different by God. I'd certainly argue that the folk-Christian God cannot exist since the concept is illogical.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Canute
Wes -"knowledge regarding god is more than a human could possible know about god".

Thus your claim is that 'God is ineffable'. I doubt that you can prove this.

Thanks for your confidence. I'm not sure I could absolutely prove it, but I haven't really tried specifically. The argument would come down to epistemology I suppose, and I would claim that theist's knowledge is unethical because it usurps all other possibility. Ultimately, the agnostic position is the only sensible perspective I'm aware of, as it allows for all subjective inputs to be equivalent. The theistic authoritative claim to knowledge inherently precludes all other forms of knowledge.. IMO, that is equivalent to circular logic.

Would you say that it's fair to say that agnosticism leads directly to "god is ineffable"?

I'm not sure, is the backwards approach proof? I can only prove that god is ineffable right now. In other words, I cannot prove that at some point in the future there won't be some information that could change this. For now though, it's easily demostrated in that you cannot say anything provable about "god". You can only tell me of that which you (not necessarily YOU) are convinced, or give me some list of mystical properties which neither be proven nor disproven. Further, you can offer no methodological approach to discern one concept of god (once shown not to violate logic) over the other. I believe the direct implication is that "god is eneffable - for now at least".

Originally posted by Canute

For any logical concept of God I would claim that:

God is infinite (or infinitessimal), eternal (or timeless), monist (but with many aspects), dimensionless (but everywhere at the same time). This is because if this was not true then I wouldn't call it God. (The logical positivist approach).

Okay, so you're carefull not to be illogical. I can buy that, but you still cannot show any compelling evidence to demonstrate that your concept of god has any objective basis at all. You can make up whatever untestable bullshit you want, what should compell anyone else to give it credence? This is just to demonstrate that for all I've considered, there is only ONE case with which a god concept has been shown to be knowable. The one case I refer to is Ghassan Kanafani's expression of Sufi, whereby basically man assumes the role of god. In that case though, I say call man "man", so as not to confuse people.

Originally posted by Canute

I'd certainly argue that the folk-Christian God cannot exist since the concept is illogical.

Agreed.

 

[Canute]

Wes - generally I can see why you think as you do but ...

Originally posted by wesmorris
Thanks for your confidence. I'm not sure I could absolutely prove it, but I haven't really tried specifically.

In that case isn;t it a bit sloppy to believe it?

The argument would come down to epistemology I suppose, and I would claim that theist's knowledge is unethical because it usurps all other possibility.
[/B]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Ultimately, the agnostic position is the only sensible perspective I'm aware of, as it allows for all subjective inputs to be equivalent.
[/B]

You take the scientific, third-person view then. Fair enough. But what if God has no provable third person attributes, like consciousness?

The theistic authoritative claim to knowledge inherently precludes all other forms of knowledge.. IMO, that is equivalent to circular logic.
[/B]

The Dalai Lama writes "Anything that contradicts experience or logic should be abandoned". Yet he does not advocate the non-existence of other people's Gods. Knowing is not the same as proving. It is possible to know things you cannot prove, even in mathematics. Of course it's perfectly possible to believe in nonsense also, that's the catch.

Would you say that it's fair to say that agnosticism leads directly to "god is ineffable"?
[/B]

Not sure. I think you could be an agnostic and still accept that one day he might turn up, as effable as Elvis.

I'm not sure, is the backwards approach proof? I can only prove that god is ineffable right now. In other words, I cannot prove that at some point in the future there won't be some information that could change this.
[/B]

In this case you should maybe think about holding off being so sure about it.

For now though, it's easily demostrated in that you cannot say anything provable about "god".
[/B]

I agree with that - but for entirely different reasons. Your points here do not mean that we cannot know anything about God, it just means we can't prove anything about It.

[You can only tell me of that which you (not necessarily YOU) are convinced, or give me some list of mystical properties which neither be proven nor disproven.
[/B]

Agreed. It's the only option available whether or not God exists.

[Further, you can offer no methodological approach to discern one concept of god (once shown not to violate logic) over the other. I believe the direct implication is that "god is eneffable - for now at least".
[/B]

The first sentence is true, since by saying 'does not contradict logic' it cannot be false.

But perhaps it is possible in theory that the correct application of logic might narrow the options to the point where one concept of God can be shown to be more logical than all others, and perhaps even suggest his existence. It's not impossible.

It's true that saying 'God doesn't exist' is just bar talk, there's no proof either way. But I think one could perhaps prove that God (if It exists) is in principle unprovable, and therefore not entirely ineffable. Perhaps also one could prove that God must be conscious, since unconscious matter would fall outside any known definition of God.

I don't think that your first sentence here has the direct implication that God is ineffable, but rather that Its properties are undecidable by proof.

[Okay, so you're carefull not to be illogical. I can buy that, but you still cannot show any compelling evidence to demonstrate that your concept of god has any objective basis at all.
[/B]

Quite true, although I like to think that I might do better than you'd expect.

[You can make up whatever untestable bullshit you want, what should compell anyone else to give it credence?
[/B]

Other than common logic nothing at all. But perhaps you should consider how your hypothesis of God's ineffably might be tested and thus rescued from being 'untestable bullshit'. You must always 'do as you would be done by', as the children's tale says.

[ This is just to demonstrate that for all I've considered, there is only ONE case with which a god concept has been shown to be knowable. The one case I refer to is Ghassan Kanafani's expression of Sufi, whereby basically man assumes the role of god. In that case though, I say call man "man", so as not to confuse people.
[/B]

Man, god, what's in name. The majority of eastern philosophies claim that man is god in some senses, and that the consciousness we experience is, at a fundamental level, the same consiousness that God experiences.

Who knows? Perhaps it is no coincidence that we cannot prove to anyone else that either God or our own consciousness exists.

(If I don't continue it's because I'm away for a bit)

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Canute
In that case isn;t it a bit sloppy to believe it?

First of all, I don't really "believe" much at all. I have faith in reason. As such, my arguments result directly from what I deem to be reasonable. Given all my thought and argumentation on the topic, I present to you my best conclusion at a given time. If that is sloppy then I embrace my sloppiness with a dorkish fervor.

Originally posted by Canute

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

When theist assumes "god exists" or "this is evidence of god", she/he has an associated opportunity cost. If god exists then god doesn't not exist. If I know god is purple, god is not any other color. I mean that by making the assumption that god has the properties that a theist claims that they do, the preclude other theories from plausibility. IMO, as a reasonable person I think that unnacceptable. Hence agnosticism regarding epistemology.

Originally posted by Canute

But what if God has no provable third person attributes, like consciousness?

Then god is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Canute

The Dalai Lama writes "Anything that contradicts experience or logic should be abandoned". Yet he does not advocate the non-existence of other people's Gods.

So what? It's likely that he's playing to wisdom, not truth. IMO, wisdom dictates "god(s) exist to the people who think they do" while the truth dictates "those people are cult members who are almost surely deluded by their cult mentality resultant from the mind virus that perpetuates their cult". Which do you prefer to discuss?

Originally posted by Canute

Knowing is not the same as proving.

Hmm... good point, but I have to disagree (it's my job ). Knowing is reached by proving. Proving is impossible without assumptions. All assumptions are subject to scrutiny. As such, there is only opinion. (I'm saying this for the sake of simplicity, as I do believe you can mostly prove things about physical interactions and the likes) What disturbs me most about religions is that in practice it's not generally acceptable to question the assumptions.

Originally posted by Canute

It is possible to know things you cannot prove, even in mathematics. Of course it's perfectly possible to believe in nonsense also, that's the catch.

Agreed, but that's why I constantly tout "all knowledge is tentative". Note however that as previously mentioned that type of thinking is generally unnacceptable regarding religions.

Originally posted by Canute

Not sure. I think you could be an agnostic and still accept that one day he might turn up, as effable as Elvis.

You fail to take into account the size of the claim. Elvis was a person within my lifetime, not the eroniously proclaimed creator of the universe. I don't care if Elvis really existed or not, though he likely did. Regardless it has no impact on my life either way. According to all that I'm aware of which is religious, I HAVE to care about whether or not some sadist in the sky exists. As such, in order to BELIEVE that god exists, I want some kind of proof, which doesn't exist. Further, religion takes god as an assumption. I scrutenize that assumption and hear only cultish ramblings or completely untestable, ridiculous or out of context assertions as evidence. So all in all, Elvis is far more effable than god expecially considering the low impact of his existence on the conditions of my existence.

Originally posted by Canute

In this case you should maybe think about holding off being so sure about it.

What is that? If you're going to presume to advise me, please do me the service of at least a minimal supporting argument. Are you sure you KNOW how sure I am about anything? I'm arguing my perspective, I think it's valid. The entire "case" (that in all liklihood any attempt by a human to describe 'god' would fall tragically short of the splendor of the creator - to the point that all attempts as of now (especially given no valid supporting evidence) are basically egocentric) which sparked this tangent was pretty solid. I haven't seen you point out a valid mistake in my reasoning, only points you didn't get completely. If you can show me a valid mistake in my reasoning, I'll gladly accept it and learn from it. Otherwise, please refrain from childish statements like "you should maybe think about holding off being so sure about it". :bugeye:

Originally posted by Canute

I agree with that - but for entirely different reasons. Your points here do not mean that we cannot know anything about God, it just means we can't prove anything about It.

WHAT? I obviously (from my objections above) completely disagree. I think at best one might guess about something about god, but there is literally no manner by which to confirm it, so I re-iterate: You cannot KNOW about god. Even to trust your own experience regarding the topic is in error given known potential phsychiatric problems that can lead to problems interpreting external stimulous. It's far too easy to point to a cloud a say "look, there's elvis" when man, it's just a cloud. Pattern matching, some people are bad at it. If you ARE bad at it, I'd guess you could make all kinds of stupid assumptions like "the sun is a god". Does your (the proverbial you) retarded interpretation have any bearing on reality?

I reiterate: You cannot KNOW about god (in a manner that you should expect others to believe, so if they shouldn't believe it, should you, do you KNOW what you saw or did your mind provide the wrong match to the pattern you NEED TO SEE? Get my point?).

Originally posted by Canute

Agreed. It's the only option available whether or not God exists.

Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself with that statement. I see, you didn't really, it's your separation of "know" and "prove" that makes it seem that way to me. Well, I've already addressed that.

Originally posted by Canute

But perhaps it is possible in theory that the correct application of logic might narrow the options to the point where one concept of God can be shown to be more logical than all others, and perhaps even suggest his existence. It's not impossible.

Well if that's the case, bring it on. James R's signature about the educated mind is quite pertinent. However until such a proof or argument exists, my assessment is relevant. Note that nowhere I say "god doesn't exist" or "don't look for god".

Originally posted by Canute

But I think one could perhaps prove that God (if It exists) is in principle unprovable, and therefore not entirely ineffable.

Uhm, if it is in principle unprovable, you cannot show it to exist. I believe that renders it ineffable. Again that does not mean it doesn't exist, merely that it is ineffable. I generally contend that thus far the point is moot due to the weight of this argument.

Originally posted by Canute

Perhaps also one could prove that God must be conscious, since unconscious matter would fall outside any known definition of God.

So you (and I see SO many people do this, hell I probably do it to, but that doesn't make it right) redefine to word (god) to suit your argumentative whimsy? What is it exactly that you are trying to discern then? IMO, if you're talking about something unconscious, you're out of the typical realm of the word "god" so please, find a better word to describe what it is you're talking about.

Originally posted by Canute

I don't think that your first sentence here has the direct implication that God is ineffable, but rather that Its properties are undecidable by proof.

That is a part of the argument that it is ineffable. It is completely supportive of the point. If I cannot decide its properties, how can I know it?

Originally posted by Canute

Quite true, although I like to think that I might do better than you'd expect.

Well, I wouldn't want to jack up your happy fantasy so I'll leave it alone. Feel free to bring it if you think it's worth your time.

Originally posted by Canute

Other than common logic nothing at all. But perhaps you should consider how your hypothesis of God's ineffably might be tested and thus rescued from being 'untestable bullshit'.

Well, perhaps.... but I think I give one mean argument that if you consider in its entirety (which is tough I understand cuz I talk a lot of shit) demonstrates its validity clearly. Maybe that's just MY happy little fantasy. So be it I suppose.

Originally posted by Canute

You must always 'do as you would be done by', as the children's tale says.

Man it's so annoying when you tell me what I should do.

Originally posted by Canute

Man, god, what's in name. The majority of eastern philosophies claim that man is god in some senses, and that the consciousness we experience is, at a fundamental level, the same consiousness that God experiences.

Can you please demonstrate to me something about "the consciousness that god experiences"? *sigh* Can you?

Originally posted by Canute

Who knows?

Well, I'm pretty sure I do but hell I've been wrong before. I've got me convinced, but I do keep saying "all knowledge is tentative" so.. *shrug*

Originally posted by Canute

Perhaps it is no coincidence that we cannot prove to anyone else that either God or our own consciousness exists.

Indeed that is apparently the nature of the beast. I've used the following analogy before, please tell me if you can see or agree with the point: Knowledge always the negative of a perfect truth. You can take an impression of a key and from it make a new key but always the impression. Your mind is like the wax, with it you take the impression from the key but you can NEVER really KNOW the key.. you are destined by your subjectivity only to konw the impression.

Further, perfect knowledge could only be represented by the perfect means to describe it (the perfect language). I think it's like absolute zero or travelling the speed of light in a sense.. you can get closer and closer to boundary of perfection but as you get there it becomes harder and harder to attain it.

Eh, I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think that humans as a species are anywhere close to getting it yet.

At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by wesmorris

You'll never understand what I mean, because you don't care to.

How do you know what i care to do or not, how is this assumption based on logic? But you are right, i don't understand your point, as your reaction comes from me saying "this is god-consciosness", please explain.

I suppose it's just my opinion, but if you claim to accept the existence of "god", it would seem to me that you'd have a bit more respect than to presume to speak for it, or claim to "understand" it.

"It" "god"

it seems you have no respect either for people who believe in God, and not so importantly, for english grammar. But you presumption is incorrect, and i have not claimed to "understand" "Him", but through observing myself, people, nature, i have developed some understanding.

The very idea of "god" is technically incomprehensible to humans, yet you cult laden freaks spew affirmations based on your claim of "relationship" with it.

I feel very sorry for you. You are a sad person.

....all of this because of a book and your emotions.

A book?
Which book would that be?
Do you not have emotions? Or are they very logical and predictable.
You see wes, i'm a human being not a mind-controlled robot, I have emotions, I use them, I have a brain, I use it. If someone suggests something, I look into what they have said, I either agree or disagree. As far as my personal power will allow, I will not sell my individuality to anyone or anything.
My belief in God is not just based on books or emotions, but based on my entire lifes experience (when looked at panoramically). It may be right or wrong to you, but I have to go with my decision as it is me who it affects.

I regard institutionalised religions i.e. christianity, islam etc, as a man-made version of the real Christ-ianity and Islam, as put foreward by the acharyas, Jesus & Mohammad, peace be upon them. Their teachings are very rarely put up for discussion and debate, but you will find it quite different from the institutionalised dogma, called religion.
So if you want to discuss these teaching then please do so, but don’t make claims as to my personality, i.e. emotions, as you do not really know me. Seen?

I just think that's pathetic and somewhat disgusting, that's all.

Disgusting? A strange description, but……….you’re entitled to your opinions.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan.......

We do not understand you, because you do not make sense. Go eat something, sleep some and afterwards rethink your philosophy. If you, after all this, are still mad enough to argue AGAINST reason, drink boiling water. I HOPE this will cure you.

Thank you...
The devil needs your love.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
Jan.......

We do not understand you, because you do not make sense. Go eat something, sleep some and afterwards rethink your philosophy. If you, after all this, are still mad enough to argue AGAINST reason, drink boiling water. I HOPE this will cure you.

Thank you...
The devil needs your love.

I think you are a liar. You understand me perfectly well but your brainwashing has not been adapted to understand natural human reasoning, only the BS that is fed to you.

I suggest you read my reply to you again, probably with mum and dad this time, and try your very best-est to reply with some effort.



Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan.......

Stop humping my leg....or get got your balls cut off.

"but through observing myself, people, nature, i have developed some understanding"

SHES MAD, BURN HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
Jan.......

Stop humping my leg....or get got your balls cut off.

"but through observing myself, people, nature, i have developed some understanding"

SHES MAD, BURN HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah! I see we have found our mental true level.

At least your being honest. That is to your credit.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan,

You and your supreme-self god should try bieng more honest. It does the soul good to admit it has delusions. In spite of you trying to split hairs, in spite of me not fully understanding you, I have remained honest. But I doubt strongly somesoul possesing a self-god, as you do, could be very honest at all.

And about the mental thing. Do not compare me to you for I have reason on my side. You have fragile need. And no, need isnt reason enough.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by =SputniK-CL=
Jan,

You and your supreme-self god should try bieng more honest. It does the soul good to admit it has delusions. In spite of you trying to split hairs, in spite of me not fully understanding you, I have remained honest. But I doubt strongly some soul possesing a self-god, as you do, could be very honest at all.

And about the mental thing. Do not compare me to you for I have reason on my side. You have fragile need. And no, need isnt reason enough.

Tell me Sputnick, how did we get from talking about faith, to this hostile situation?

You say it does the “soul” good to admit it has delusions, so i can take it you believe the soul exists. That’s a good place to start spiritually based discussions, if of course you do believe the soul exists.

When you say split hairs, what exactly do you mean?

You say you don’t fully understand me, but at the same time you “claim” that my philosophy is against reason, this is very confusing. If we follow this train of thought, then I can only come to the conclusion that you do not fully understand reason, which is a double blow for you. If you do understand reason then why claim something, which you do not understand, is against reason. Surely the logical thing to do, is to first understand, then make the claim based on such understanding. Do you think that is a logical and reasonable statement?

Some soul possessing a self-god……what exactly does that mean?

Please, let us not fight.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
How do you know what i care to do or not, how is this assumption based on logic? But you are right, i don't understand your point, as your reaction comes from me saying "this is god-consciosness", please explain.

Oh man, you're an idiot. I already explained.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

it seems you have no respect either for people who believe in God,

I have no respect for the belief. I can still respect the person. In your case, I respect you. I wouldn't want you to die. I'd help you out of a dangerous situation, even incurring risk to myself to do so. I have NO respect your idiotic belief system OR your intellect. You are an idiot regarding this topic Jan because your eyes are CLOSED. IMO, your presumption and your mind are one and you bask in ignorance as a resultant.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

and not so importantly, for english grammar.

Then why mention it? Jan, I'm a lot smarter than you are about all this. **** for reducing it to grammar, you ****. (it's somewhat comical to note that the grammar of your sentence proclaiming me to have shitty grammar, was shitty)

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

But you presumption is incorrect, and i have not claimed to "understand" "Him", but through observing myself, people, nature, i have developed some understanding.

Hehehehehehehe. See Jan, this is why it's frustrating talking to you: (paraphrasing) "I don't proclaim to understand god, it's just that after thinking about him for a while, I have developed some understanding about him." Do you even see that you just did that or would you rather divert the conversation and talk about uhm... oh how about spelling?

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

I feel very sorry for you. You are a sad person.

Why do you think that? Jan, I'm rarely sad. Pity yourself you ****.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Disgusting? A strange description, but……….you’re entitled to your opinions.

As are you.

Moderator edit: I have removed some of the insults, but left some intact to retain the overall flavour of the post. Lay off the personal insults, please.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I already explained.

You gave an opinion, not an explanation.

I have no respect for the belief.

Then why waste time arguing. It would appear you are the idiot for wasting precious time, vehemently arguing, with severe negative emotion, about something you have “no” respect for.

I can still respect the person. In your case, I respect you. I wouldn't want you to die.

That is total nonsense.

I have NO respect your idiotic belief system OR your intellect.

I do not respect your bits and peices intellect either, and as for your belief system, faith in reason, what does that actually mean?

You are an idiot regarding this topic Jan because your eyes are CLOSED.

All you do is pass judgement and spew insult, and if you manage to intimidate someone into some sort of compromise, then the insults may become milder. Where is the respect? Or another question, what kind of respect is it?
One thing which is apparent on this board, is that most (if not all) the people who express belief in God and spirituality, have a very good visible standard of respect to others, irregardless of their mind-set. You should take a leaf out of their book.

IMO, your presumption and your mind are one and you bask in ignorance as a resultant.

Firstly, I do not presume God exists, I believe God exists.
With regard to ignorance, you are one of the most ignorant people on this board. It is quite amazing, your level of ignorance, and then you claim to be a man of reason. Where is your reasoning?
Instead of trying to put people down, why don’t you explain or give reason for your opinions, as to why you think they are wrong in their belief?

Hehehehehehehe. See Jan, this is why it's frustrating talking to you: (paraphrasing) "I don't proclaim to understand god, it's just that after thinking about him for a while, I have developed some understanding about him." Do you even see that you just did that or would you rather divert the conversation and talk about uhm... oh how about spelling?

This is what I mean about being brainwashed, that is not what I said, nor is it what I meant.
Please try as hard as you can Wes, to actually listen to what people say, without any preconceived ideas. You may just surprise yourself and learn something one day. Otherwise, your claim of being a man of reason, will remain as a dry joke.
Yeah?

Cool.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[=SputniK-CL=]

Jan...

The soul, for your information, has no connection with the supernatural...
There is the body and there is the soul. Both are equally physical. Your soul is your MIND, WILL & EMOTIONS...nothing more. I have a soul, as does a dog. It is the unprovable spirit that your ignorance talks about.

O and about question regarding the hostile situation, take the following as an example of how you manipulate and misuse...

You said "...I think you are a liar..."

TWO-FACE!!! (No, i dont care if u dont understand why...your points are moot!!!)

And about the logic thing...LOL. Im against religion and the concept of god...you never did say something usefull. So far ive been against any philosophy that includes the divine. I was only trying to find out what youre on about.


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as bieng self-evident."

Let us hope the generations to come live free...