And your a frigging nutjob, stay off the drugs.
Still waiting on proof of one's god.
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
I believe you are right. The money is in the Vatican and that's where it stays. The majority of priests are good hearted people who believe in a myth but that does not stop them from doing some good in the world. The REAL reason they are forbidden to marry is that it would burden the Chirch with widows and possibly children at some time and, as we all know, that costs money.
Having said that . I believe the Catholic Church is a curse on humanity because of their opposition to progress. Consider the difference it would make , and would have made , had it not opposed the use of condoms in Africa. Think of the tiny, parentless children who are infected with AIDS. Meanwhile, a bunch of dogmatic old men in the Vatican continue to pursue policies which have disastrous worldwide implications in many ares of life.
Just to cheer you up, can I tell you that if you talk to Ronan the best has yet to come.
To part an ocean you would need some supernatural power (or advanced technology). No one has ever demonstrated supernatural powers so if you didn't want to call it a miracle you would have to at least admit there was something unique and special about the entity that could do it.
If the color yellow is enough to qualify as a miracle, is there anything that isn't a miracle?
Sure it's possible.
I'm saying that in this hypothetical situation which you have created I wouldn't instantly do the bidding of a god just because they were one. They could be an evil god I don't know. If we are talking about the supposed loving god of the bible (pretending that the OT doesn't exist for a second), then yes I would follow and obey.
That's what they say. There's a small problem though when it comes to providing hard ecidence.
What grounds have you for believing it ?
I bloody well hope so. lol
I wonder what I should answer to such a post, If you want to talk about someone who is hear listenning, why don't you talk directly to him and answer to his arguments by arguments.
So far, the only argument has been: no brain, no consciousness.
But: no consciousness, no brain
some have attempted to say that consciousness has to come from somewhere but finnaly they admit that the matter they believe cause consciousness has never come from somewhere. Why do they change their opinion regarding consciousness?
If you really think what I am saying is the consequence of having be under influence of drugs. Why can't you simply show some good arguments?
I would be pleased to hear them but please give ones that are justified.
So far, the only argument has been: no brain, no consciousness.
But: no consciousness, no brain
some have attempted to say that consciousness has to come from somewhere but finnaly they admit that the matter they believe cause consciousness has never come from somewhere. Why do they change their opinion regarding consciousness?
If you really think what I am saying is the consequence of having be under influence of drugs. Why can't you simply show some good arguments?
I would be pleased to hear them but please give ones that are justified.
Because nobody wants to talk gibberish, and lunacy, they all want a proper debate. Something they are unable to get from you.
Ronan
Dont you think it's odd that everyone thinks your wrong, have you had one post where someone has agreed with you, doesn't that suggest you go and rethink your possition.
You dont seem to be doing to well with your stance.
Come forward with something that makes sense and people will willingly debate and probably agree with what you say, but you do need to rethink your possition.
thanks geeser
Dont you think it's odd that everyone thinks your wrong, have you had one post where someone has agreed with you, doesn't that suggest you go and rethink your possition.
You dont seem to be doing to well with your stance.
Come forward with something that makes sense and people will willingly debate and probably agree with what you say, but you do need to rethink your possition.
thanks geeser
Right, I plan when I ll have time to clarify my position.
But I don think the number means that you are wrong when you are alone.
I still agree that maybe I express badly my idea especially because it require other people to rethink what they have learn all their life (in our scientific societies).
But here was a thread to express why we believe in god and to give our proof.
I did. if people do not like, it is their choice but then to attack the person instead of the arguments is really not nice from them.
But again, broseph, you offered no proof. All you said was that we are conscious, therefore we are god. None of what you said made sense. It's all just baseless talk. Being conscious isn't proof of god, it isn't proof of a deity, it isn't proof of anything spiritual, and it isn't proof that god is in nature. It's philosophy. Rubbish philosophy, at that.
I mean, what's the difference between what you said, and me saying "I am fork, therefore lemon" ? What's the difference?
I mean, what's the difference between what you said, and me saying "I am fork, therefore lemon" ? What's the difference?
Your logic cannot be faulted.
No tea leaves and hot water = no tea.
no tea=no tea leaves and hot water.
My problem is knowing what is conscious of being conscious.
Do you know the story of the mother who attended a passing-out parade. She said to a friend: " look, everyone is out of step but my Ronan ! "
What the point to attack my person ?
You just take part of this thread to do that.
Why ?
Have you get so much out of step that you try to find someone that seems to be out of step and jump on it to make you a little in the step ?
Stay a nice soldier but please do not be a snitch.
You show little understanding ofg what I am saying.
Maybe I express not so good but I never said that we are god, at least not in the way you seem to indicate.
I never said: we are conscious therefore we are god!
So all your critics of this post, you should send them back to you, You are the one with such idea, not me.
I said: There is consciousness , self-evident.
and: this consciousness cannot be the 'I' that we identify with our habits, our body, our thoughts...
It is beyond all that.
First thing to start a debate is to hear what the other has to say and if you feel it does not make sense maybe it is because you did not read correctly or that you did not understand some point or that the other did not express correctly on some point.
So if you do not understand, just ask, attack the person doe snot lead anywhere.
Yer damn right about that!
Not attacking you, bronan. I'm just saying that what you say does not fly. There is no proof for what you say. Understand? It's not because I don't understand what you're getting at, it's because what you're getting at is imaginary. There is no proof for such a thing.
no proof of consciousness?
come on!
You can see the evidence: consciousness exists.
If you already agree on that, then you will be able to follow me.
First, why are we so sure of the existence of consciousness?
It is because of the Cartesian doubt:
cogito ergo sum.
If you doubt all your perceptions as representing the real even the perception of yourself, then you are left with the process/entity that permits you to have this perceptions.
So what we have is: consciousness exists, it is not our perceptions.
Ok?
why are you so interested in other people's experiences? i've had revelations prophecy interpreted to me, and it was done through experiences that had to do with spiritual interactions and artistic expressions of various sorts, and it's changed me and my life forever. why don't you describe to me, some of your hallucinations? i've already described to you some of my spiritual interactions.