LG spends his days like this
and this
Or at least this is where his consciousness is.
We don't exactly register in his consciousness with our concerns about theists, theism, religion and such.
May God bless his spirit.
Pure, Single, Positive Bases of Existence are Absurd
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
LG spends his days like this
and this
Or at least this is where his consciousness is.
We don't exactly register in his consciousness with our concerns about theists, theism, religion and such.
May God bless his spirit.
If the staff lets you get away with your crap, what I do to you is light weight and will be ignore too I only bump you liightly in response to you attacking me and others first. Maybe you cry harder and lie better and can fool the staff into thinking you are innocent of abuse. I am not a snitch like you. Bullies like to abuse but can not take it.
I will never attack you first. But if I feel abused I might forget how to spell your name because the abuse rattles me. It is no try fault at that point. It called cause and effect with you causing this effect. I tell you up front so you know you bring it on yourself. You also know how to avoid it.
I will never attack you first. But if I feel abused I might forget how to spell your name because the abuse rattles me. It is no try fault at that point. It called cause and effect with you causing this effect. I tell you up front so you know you bring it on yourself. You also know how to avoid it.
Last edited:
If you're referring to me then you're mistaken again.
I attack your nonsensical claims and rantings. Not you personally.
You make grandiose statements with zero basis in reality and think it's okay to resort to personal attacks because I simply point out that you post meaningless word salad?
Get a clue.
Oh, I see you edited. And that you still haven't given up on the amateur psychology. Never mind.
I don't mind my ideas challenged but word salad is not a scientific way to prove me wrong. You call me names when you fail to explain your criticism beyond blah blah. That is insulting since you are attacking me at random all the time. Like I said, if your criticism lacks points that can help the discussion, but imply an insult, I will forget how to spell your name. Cause and effect.
If you said the brain does not store memory of law n two places based on research done by so and so, this is valid. Word salad means the same as dymridder. I will abuse you back via cause and effect.
If you said the brain does not store memory of law n two places based on research done by so and so, this is valid. Word salad means the same as dymridder. I will abuse you back via cause and effect.
So you are asserting that you have no free will?
You don't post science. We've been through this.
Where?
Also wrong. I don't "attack at random" I point out that your meaningless drivel is exactly that.
I see. So you expect ME to support my "attacks" but it doesn't apply to you when you make the initial claim? How does that work?
Since you don't actually specify anything solid (i.e. just word salad) then there's nothing specific to go on.
Except that one of those cases (deliberately misusing someone's user name) is an offence under the forum rules.
I could, of course, simply take to reporting you for trolling (which is essentially what your unfounded claims and word salad posts are).
Maybe that would work. It could lead to you getting a ban, then you'd either modify your posting "style", leave or end up with a perma-ban.
Always the one to load others with the sole obligation for reciprocation, eh?
disagree with my ideas = doesn't register my concerns
how quaint!
What you so far have apparently not understood and in all this time, I, and some others, have apparently not been able to make clear to you,
is that we - you and I - are not equals, and that you not only deem yourself superior to us, but we also per default grant you that you indeed may be superior.
In your religious system, we are the karmis, and worse, and we are deemed inferior.
So we say, "Allright, devotee, then show us your superiority. We will sit back, ask some questions, raise some concerns, but we will go along with your hierarchization, and take for granted that we may be less than you."
We are not equals, LG.
Thus there can be no issue of reciprocation between us.
All along, I have for the most part been on the defensive, or at least passive.
I have never cooperated with you. I have never seen you as an equal. I have never seen you as someone whom I could be friends with.
If I would be on the ground, and you would kick me in the face, I would not be surprised.
And if you also felt justified to do so, I would not be surprised either.
When disagreeing with your ideas, one isn't just disagreeing with your ideas:
one is disagreeing with your whole organization, and possibly with God Himself.
You have your whole organization on your side, and possibly even God.
I am on my own. And so are some others.
What is your point really? That if we would just choose to disappear, then you would not have to attack us, destroy us?
we have touched on this in a different thread, how all people in a myriad of ways speak authoritatively and give directives
Its you that have dressed yourself as such
There is no question of obligation by anyone in circumstances where only one person does the "reciprocating"
lol
Its probably easier to have god on one's side than an entire religious organization.
And you don't doubt for a second that you have God on your side, do you?
If having a religious institution on one's side is a prerequisite for having god on one's side, I don't think its even possible.
I asked you whether you believe you have God on your side.
Its more that we are somewhere along the continuum of being on god's side
And you are sure that you are on God's side?
And very much on God's side, at that?
And some people insist on interpreting other people's personal wishes (which those people qualified as such) as being acts of "speaking authoritatively and giving directives."
Why do you interpret them this way?
Not at all.
It is no secret what theists and theistic doctrines believe about those who are not theists.
See BG 7.15, for example.
And yet it is common for theists to consider the non-theists to be obligated to the theists.
Is it not true?
Depends what you mean by very much - somewhere on the 9 fold process from sraddha to prema?
Even if a person would be at the lowest level of that process: as long as they are convinced that this is the process that leads to (proper alignment with) God, they are also convinced they are 100% on God's side (or that God is 100% on their side).