Return to Index  

One!life > mondolife: I'm still wait'n! want to reply to this!

May 2 2012 at 8:44 AM
One!life  (no login)

 
mondolife:
Do you know when, you'll get me, a board?
I want to carry this,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/thread/1335856690/About+boids%2C+creepy+crawlies%2C+camelus+humpus+and+bunny+rabbits

http://www.network54.com/Forum/272761/message/1335956130/I+think+it+quite+interesting

jvhlife share'd >
(In all the time mankind has been alive
there has been
no evidence,
no data,
that this
or that invisible, perfect, all-powerful, creating deity actually exists.
There is only faith and belief,
neither of which is evidence of a conclusive nature,
as even the greatest of theologians admit;
this God
or that
is a matter of faith,
not science.

It's the lesser minds however,
and sadly so,
who try to force their belief
of this God
or that into places
where it does not belong;
where it just will be
found wanting for some reason
or other.
A reasonable person
on the other hand
simply looks at such debates
and concludes: "indeed, the God referred to,
due to its purported nature,
cannot be."

But no,
apologetic religionists must have their cake
and eat it too.
They have to prove this God
or that
is grand and great
as well as mundane
and small,
while it would serve them
so much better
in this time of technological grandeur
to have this deity
or that
be so much more
than just that.
Instead believers
themselves
bring their respective Gods down low
by their petty arguing.

As for my part,
every so often
it's fun to beat
the ardent religionists
at their own chess game,
but it just doesn't hold my interest
like it used to really.
All that remains is
the meaning of it;
pointing out their king
hopelessly absent,
therefore their game
already lost
before it even began.
After all,
that's how the game
comes to a halt
when their king of choice
refuses to play
by failing to present itself.

Whether this God
or that
actually exist
isn't even my call
per se.
I do have my "beliefs"
about that
but they fall into
the case category
where beliefs are a personal choice
and I try to
not inflict my personal choices
and 'beliefs' on other people
to the degree
that I possibly can.

Okay, enough about me.
Yours truly )

One!life > over to my board, to reply to it, there.

Thank!

Love Ya, mondolife!

Love All As ONE!
One!life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jvhlife share'd > JVH say
(Login JVH)
Sufi I think it quite interesting May 2 2012, 6:55 AM
.... discussing matters of belief, in a respectful and rational manner that is. However, quite often, so-called believers being addressed do not seem to fathom, and have yet to learn, after all this time, one of the most basal of lessons: self-refutation.

In effect, they simply don't know how to discuss/debate rationally since they believe fallacies are arguments, contradictions thus no such thing - just as they believe, are utterly convinced even, they already know they are right as it is, as their self-righteousness, they cannot help but display, affirms.

It proves therefore quite difficult to apply rational analysis to such a display of ignorance, arrogance; dishonesty even - all in one. Yet, that is the task one takes upon oneself when one cares to address it. It's a sheer impossible endevour though, because one will be confronted with a rather excruciating characteristic of ardent believers: "the fruit loop".

The fruit loop is a mental circle through which fanatic proponents of whatever effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is refuted. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply use or invent another to replace it and forget or even deny the former ever existed, and so on and so forth.

Eventually, when these rigid followers have turned full circle through their endlessly changing fantasy, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny it was ever debunked, thus re-starting the circle once more, perpetuating the fruit loop which saves these zealous confirmationists from ever having to see any of their ideas through to its (ill)logical conclusions.

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, these challenged perpetrators have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote theirs -across the internet, in main stream media, through institutions and so on, even through governmental bodies- to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

It renders all rational efforts virtually futile since among the human species happen to roam individuals and factions who'd rather pose as absurd than to admit being mistaken, even when shown so, while nursing the illusion they save face that way.

Discussion; communication et al., becomes pointless then; when people make up their own meanings of definitions or simply redefine them into something hitherto totally unknown to anyone other than themselves, which, of course, renders it fiction - by definition.



In all the time mankind has been alive there has been no evidence, no data, that this or that invisible, perfect, all-powerful, creating deity actually exists. There is only faith and belief, neither of which is evidence of a conclusive nature, as even the greatest of theologians admit; this God or that is a matter of faith, not science.

It's the lesser minds however, and sadly so, who try to force their belief of this God or that into places where it does not belong; where it just will be found wanting for some reason or other. A reasonable person on the other hand simply looks at such debates and concludes: "indeed, the God referred to, due to its purported nature, cannot be."

But no, apologetic religionists must have their cake and eat it too. They have to prove this God or that is grand and great as well as mundane and small, while it would serve them so much better in this time of technological grandeur to have this deity or that be so much more than just that. Instead believers themselves bring their respective Gods down low by their petty arguing.

As for my part, every so often it's fun to beat the ardent religionists at their own chess game, but it just doesn't hold my interest like it used to really. All that remains is the meaning of it; pointing out their king hopelessly absent, therefore their game already lost before it even began. After all, that's how the game comes to a halt when their king of choice refuses to play by failing to present itself.

Whether this God or that actually exist isn't even my call per se. I do have my "beliefs" about that but they fall into the case category where beliefs are a personal choice and I try to not inflict my personal choices and 'beliefs' on other people to the degree that I possibly can.

Okay, enough about me.

The idea that this God or that is just, good, loving, all-powerful, omniscient, perfect, omnipotent, et al., seem to be traits placed on something that cannot be known. The promise of "salvation", "eternal life in paradise" etc. also seem to be wishful traits placed on that which cannot be known.

If it's true that this God or that cannot be known or proven, and that the "nature" of this God or that cannot be imagined by us puny humans, then all who do; purport to do, are making stuff up and the religions of the world have phucked over humanity pretty badly. All the wars, pain, sufference, empty hope and promises in the name of this or that God have been, will be, shall be in vain.

It seems that organized and institutionalized religions are a no-win proposition.

What's the point then? Why would people even bother in a practical sense? The pontifications of people throughout history are more about wishful thinking regarding traits of this God or that, and is nothing more than projection.

And then, to form vast institutions that study and advocate one hypothesis over another and have those institutions spawn cultures and spin-off institutions that go to war for their ideals for 1000's of years, each side having their "prophets" and "chosen", and each side giving promise to what will happen in the afterlife, indicates that the so called religious parts of all this is an arce. A load of BS that the world has been sold in A GLOBAL RELIGIOUS CONSPIRICY TO DOMINATE MANKIND!

Cheekyness aside, the religious institutions do seem to lack credibility for themselves and their actions. How can common sense possibly reconcile the numerous accounts of violence and cruelty condonded, ordered, and even performed by this God or that with the "God is omni-benevolent" notion? Yet, that's exactly what believers do, holding on to, and 'defending', irresolvable contradictions.

It looks like science goofed when it claimed Neanderthal Man went extinct.

Anyway, there are millions and millions of believers the world all over; they make up the majority of the world population, and if all those believers, or the majority, or รก majority, would act in accordance what "the word" of this God or that is supposed to mean and/or stand for, the world would be a different place. It isn't. And that indication my friends, should tell us more than any believer ever could.


Having said that, if any proponent of whatever feels I'm mistaken in these views and if they feel they are capable of rational, honest, to the point discussion/debate, then they are free to give it their best shot as long as they keep in mind that most basic of lessons which has not yet penetrated the logic-proof skull of ardent believers, most especially that of the apologetic kind, which it thus still does not grasp and therefore has yet to learn and master : "those who assert must prove".

The "burden of proof" is placed on the affirmative; it lies with those who present or advocate claims something is this or that - it lies not with those who question those claims possibly offering evidence in support, which they don't even have to. Shifting the burden of proof therefore, is not an option. We do not prove negatives, we prove positives - and somehow I don't think that counter-claims precede the claims they counter.

When the burden of proof is not met, the claims remain what they are: claims, and claimee isn't saying much other than implying "I do not fathom I'm supposed to demonstrate true what I claim as true". After all, affirmative positions without (conclusive) evidence can be dismissed the same way.

Yours truly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -

New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability
Respond to this message
********************************************************************************
One!life > mondolife: I'll be wait'n!
May 1 2012 at 7:26 AM One!life (no login)

Response to My mistake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mondolife share'd > My mistake
April 30 2012 at 10:32 PM
Mondo (Premier Login Oscar50)
Forum Owner

Response to One!life > mondolife: what do I need to do to talk about this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry. I didn't see which was first or whose on second.

I'll get to the 2nd one soon ..

Onelife > Thanks!

Love Ya, mondolife!

Love All As ONE!
One!life

mondolife share'd > Forum!life

Respond to this message
Respond to this message

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Find more forums on Religion and PhilosophyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement