The totality of existence and its implications. (beliefs, verses, Christ)

[catman]

Ryrge: First you thought that AREQUIPA raised too many points. Then you realized that you couldn't deal with any of them and thus decided that they were all off topic. An utterly epic fail.

AREQUIPA certainly needs no assistance from me. However, I assure you that he is not the only one aware of your cravenly retreat from his logical objections to your statements.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Too many points raised, just select one point, okay?



Ryrge

I couldn't help laughing at that one! Thanks for getting my day off to a good start.

You asked for ten questions, half a dozen are pretty much on the same subject.

Get on with it.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by catman

Ryrge: First you thought that AREQUIPA raised too many points. Then you realized that you couldn't deal with any of them and thus decided that they were all off topic. An utterly epic fail.

AREQUIPA certainly needs no assistance from me. However, I assure you that he is not the only one aware of your cravenly retreat from his logical objections to your statements.

No, I am just asking her to pick one first and then another... I am only one man not an army.




Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Actually I don't read the whole posts of atheists here because and specially when they are off on a tangent away far far away from the topic of the thread.


I just read at most the first 50 words and if these words are not in the direction of the thread, I skip the rest of the post.


Tell you what atheists here, take a good look and think over it, the title of the thread, then compose your post to relate to the topic of the thread.


I suggest you put your thoughts into a proposition very concise and in clear, plain, simple but precise words, in that way you will not be taking so much time and trouble and I will read your post right away and schedule you for my attention eventually to come to give you my reply.

Like this: you have a load of thoughts in your mind, choose the most important that is relevant to the topic of the thread, then formulate a proposition, and just send the proposition to me, for me to react to.

For example, as the title of the thread here is "The totality of existence and its implications," if your most important thought among so many many many many thoughts is you don't accept that the whole totality of existence is composed of two kinds of beings (according to me, but remember in concepts only), then you formulate a proposition like the following:

There is only one kind of beings [or whatever number of beings you submit to be the quantity of kinds of beings] in the totality of existence [according to your reasoning].

Then build up your explanation and also the support of your proposition.


Otherwise you will lapse again into your most favored way of thinking and writing, like how you atheists describe yourselves:

Humans who just merely lack any belief in God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, angels, etc.

Then adding so smartly, "We (you) just add one less god to deny existence to [compared to Christians], and feeling oh so most most intellectually brilliant, profound.




Ryrge

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Actually I don't read the whole posts of atheists here because and specially when they are off on a tangent away far far away from the topic of the thread.


I just read at most the first 50 words and if these words are not in the direction of the thread, I skip the rest of the post.


Tell you what atheists here, take a good look and think over it, the title of the thread, then compose your post to relate to the topic of the thread.


I suggest you put your thoughts into a proposition very concise and in clear, plain, simple but precise words, in that way you will not be taking so much time and trouble and I will read your post right away and schedule you for my attention eventually to come to give you my reply.

Like this: you have a load of thoughts in your mind, choose the most important that is relevant to the topic of the thread, then formulate a proposition, and just send the proposition to me, for me to react to.

For example, as the title of the thread here is "The totality of existence and its implications," if your most important thought among so many many many many thoughts is you don't accept that the whole totality of existence is composed of two kinds of beings (according to me, but remember in concepts only), then you formulate a proposition like the following:

There is only one kind of beings [or whatever number of beings you submit to be the quantity of kinds of beings] in the totality of existence [according to your reasoning].

Then build up your explanation and also the support of your proposition.


Otherwise you will lapse again into your most favored way of thinking and writing, like how you atheists describe yourselves:

Humans who just merely lack any belief in God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, angels, etc.

Then adding so smartly, "We (you) just add one less god to deny existence to [compared to Christians], and feeling oh so most most intellectually brilliant, profound.




Ryrge

I would say that my posts are a model of Teutonic conciseness when compared to your lengthy meanderings. You have wasted hours of your time and ours in evasive ramblings. Don't delude yourself that appeals to being strapped for time are going to buy you wiggle - room.

And whatever your title it is clear that the subject is the reality of God. You invited Hueff to post ten questions on the subject and accepted them from me. I suggest you spend your valuable time in compiling some responses rather than trying to wriggle through the bars.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Now, about my requesting sincerely people like Hueff to ask me not just two questions but ten even twenty, it is because they say that at least from Hueff that he will be bossy and not react to my replies to him unless I answer his two questions whatever (for I did not even come to the two questions for having just read the beginning of his post the one concerned and skipped everything because the man is again into tergeversations, to my observation.

So, I offer him more than just answering two questions, I give him ten questions I mean the generosity from my part to be ready to answer even ten questions, but he never accepted my generosity.

Areq did and I answered her ten questions, eight of which unless I am mistaken or seven are just repetitions of how do I substantiate this or that about God, that is the content in her #2 question, the first one of the kind, and I answered her, all of the same kind, with: substantiate by means of evidence because that is the kind of proof atheists want.


Now she is insisting that I have not answered most of her questions, that is not the fact, I answered them all; the fact is that her questions practically are repetitions of the same content.

Toward the end she became incoherent and had to cite texts from the net.

Wait, I better check and be sure that is correct, about her citing texts from the net and making her questions overly incoherent.


Here is her ten questions post:



And here is my post answering her ten questions:



Okay, Areq, you be a lady and don't take too much time from me, just first pick one point among the many points you have to ask me, and send that one first; when I finish with that one, then another one, but please no long long long write-up, which is indicative of lack of command of what you are writing about.



Ryrge

But as I pointed out, those answers are not answering anything. The first is inherently contradictory,

2-7 were answered by referring to answers above which were nothing to do with it,

8- You apparently refused to accept an authoritatively - based definition of evidence and how it works - as requested by you.

9 and 10 were about an adjudicator but I am willing to drop that and since you are whining about too many questions, we can reduce the number to three.

Your contradictory definition of God, your absurd rejection of what evidence is and 2 -7 all combined into one general 'how do you substantiate your God - claim? -that it exists outside, what we will call for want of a better term, your mind, that it is 'He' rather than 'It' or that it made anything let alone everything.

There. I don't know how much simpler I could make it. The eyes of Christendom Your God and the baby Jizzus are upon you. Don't let 'em down.

P.s as Old Cold pointed out I am in fact male or used to be. I am not at all offended - not that I believe for a moment that your was your intention - in fact I have so often been impressed by the steel -trap reasoning of the female of the species that I'm rather flattered.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Actually I don't read the whole posts of atheists here because and specially when they are off on a tangent away far far away from the topic of the thread.

Another interesting trend in this poster is that it claims not to read posts and then copies ideas verbatim from them. For example, this theme of not reading other posts is the first time it has mentioned it, and it comes right after my post where I said I skipped over most of its spam.

I've been toying with the idea that it is some sort of AI. That would explain how it never really understands what it reads, how it repeats itself so often instead of answering, how it picks up key words and phrases from other posts and uses them as its own, and how it would rather add irrelevant rules than discuss. All of these are easier to program than actual comprehension and discussion.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Another interesting trend in this poster is that it claims not to read posts and then copies ideas verbatim from them. For example, this theme of not reading other posts is the first time it has mentioned it, and it comes right after my post where I said I skipped over most of its spam.

I've been toying with the idea that it is some sort of AI. That would explain how it never really understands what it reads, how it repeats itself so often instead of answering, how it picks up key words and phrases from other posts and uses them as its own, and how it would rather add irrelevant rules than discuss. All of these are easier to program than actual comprehension and discussion.

Artificial or "lack of"?

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

First, I fear that we are not together on what is systematic, then also we belong to different faiths, it seems.

Originally Posted by Ryrge

I use the adjective systematic in the sense that a subject is expounded in a logical order, like if I may use the comparison of the human body which is a systematic whole, and anyone wanting to study it must first ascertain that he is dealing with a live person, so also in a systematic treatise on God, the lecturer starts first with the existence of God in His fundamental concept in relation to the universe, which is in frugal but quintessential words, maker of everything that is not Himself.

Anyway, let that pass.

What I had thought you meant by systemic logos was its root, "system of gathering data and analysing it, either as history or science, etc". In this way, I thought you were speaking of how atheism doesn't inspire any sort of organization, and I agreed. However I disagreed that mere theism inspired any sort of organization. You posted about how that one certain Christian denomination studied and analysed its teachings and history, to get better aquainted with the truth of their religion. Atheism has no teachings, and little meaningful history outside of secularism. Within widespread human thought, the goal is secularism, not atheology, the majority of scholarly atheists likely share this belief.

As to whether we belong to different religions, I’m afraid I don’t belong to any religion at all, anymore and yet. As to the point that we have different believes, yes, I assume we do… mine are mostly centered on my conscience (good thoughts), trust in agnostic science/scholars (since I take scientists to be credible authorities), critical thinking, empathy, and a deep distrust of anti-agnostics’ ability to understand their human condition and the truths within reality. I will mention that I was badmouthed by fellow agnostics as to the nature or my “name-calling”, since they saw “non-agnostics” to already have a better and positive name for themselves as “Gnostics” although I was accustomed to using the word “Gnostic” only when speaking about that certain Christian denominations that called themselves such; they, and perhaps some readers, wanted me to use it as a more general term.
I suppose any theistic religion would have to put forth first the premise that there IS a god, but how to go along to prove that premise, I don’t know. I suppose Ignostic thinking could be necessary, so that we are clear on our definitions. It’s not like the fundamental premises of science are all that provable either though. After all, anything can be doubted.

I seem to notice that you are from your written thoughts not reminiscent of a Christian background.

I was born to a Christian family, though the Catholic side was rather irreligious in that they barely attended Mass or studied much into their denomination. My brother was a Protestant, as were most of the people in my Uncle’s side. I attended Mass once with my Aunt, and hated the snobby way in which the priests disallowed me from communion… however I hated more how boring and uncomfortable Mass was, it seemed like a complete waste of time and living space. My brother’s Protestant church was livelier, and they seemed more accustomed to critical thinking and surer of their beliefs. However, though more aware of my existence, the pastor was rudely disrespectful to something my brother had taught me, directly laughing at and mocking my beliefs at the time, before the entire congregation. My view grew that Protestants were far too fervent and too illegitimately sure of themselves, something which was bad in such a denomination as it inspired rudeness and disrespect. Then, my brother seemingly and rudely disallowed me from attending Halloween trick-or-treating with my friends, it grieved me how hateful and horrible Protestantism was, never once did the Catholic side of my family ban me from such a secular delight.

Are you a theist of the Hindu shall I use the word, school, namely, of the common ethnological spirituality of the most number of peoples in India, what is called Hinduism?

I learned about Hinduism from my secular schooling, the internet, and television, my only Hindu friend was very secular and could hardly bear to discuss his Hinduism around my Christian friends, whom he feared would immediately disown him and/or try to covert him away from his family’s religion… though I had a feeling he was not very educated in Hinduism also.

You see, in Christianity there is reason that does bring man to the existence of God, but there is also revelation from God to inform man from the part of God that God is more than what reason can succeed in bridging man to God.

That is a very big topic in Christian faith, the distinction between God known by reason and God known in addition by revelation.

I understand this, and many atheists also know this argument. However, atheists will not accept it, because to them it would mean that everything is arbitrary by decree of an illogical sustainer God.

In Hinduism, correct me if I am wrong, man came to know God by meditation leading to enlightenment, of which enlightenment the ancient masters wrote about which makes up the sacred books of Hinduism.

Are you then a Hindu or should it be, Hindi? I am not really conversant with nomenclature in Hinduism, and at one time a forum member in India in a past forum where I wrote messages said that my calling him a Hinduist could be insulting him.

Hindi is the language, isn't it, and Hindu is the adjectival name for the adherents of the religion of Hinduism?


Well, please enlighten me.



Ryrge

I’m not sure as to whether or not Hindus believe the writers of their books and mythologies ever actually experienced the paranormal, though I’m sure a lot of the fundamentalists and lay-people do..as I once heard a Hindu proclaim experiencing a miracle in which a statue produced milk on an empty bowl, so maybe there is writings by some claiming to have experienced the gods or God itself. I did hear, however, that the Upanishad proclaims the agnosticism of man.
Likely in the same way Muslims dislike being called Islamists, and Christians would likely dislike being called Christianists, or Jesusists, or Paulists, or Mesiahists, Hindus dislike being called Hinduists. Plus, it is not yet an established English word, and making up words for things you don’t belong to is often seen as insulting.

I believe you are correct; the more native common language in India is called Hindi.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Another interesting trend in this poster is that it claims not to read posts and then copies ideas verbatim from them. For example, this theme of not reading other posts is the first time it has mentioned it, and it comes right after my post where I said I skipped over most of its spam.

I've been toying with the idea that it is some sort of AI. That would explain how it never really understands what it reads, how it repeats itself so often instead of answering, how it picks up key words and phrases from other posts and uses them as its own, and how it would rather add irrelevant rules than discuss. All of these are easier to program than actual comprehension and discussion.

Just an observation - when I was first challenged by a theist colleague to 'Read the Bible' and my disbelief was challenged - because I was MADE into a militant atheist by theist badgering - I did my research and presented my reasons and was astounded at the response - it was the complete disregard for what I had submitted. Instead it was a sort of ...I definitely got this feeling...skimming over the text while deliberately avoiding absorbing the actual argument and picking on a few 'keywords' that would flag up a bit of Gospel text or something in Romans or Isaiah which would then be trotted out and made the basis for a irrelevant little sermon with a bit of rehearsal of ill -informed prejudice about unbelievers.

Subsequent experience has convinced me that this is how many theist apologists operate - which is why I have a lot of time and indeed liking for Thom R and Campbell 34 because they really do listen and address the argument and that is all to their credit.

The rest almost entirely practice the eyes wide shut and fingers in the ears approach.