Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mystic seems to have some psychological need to believe in a God , but I sort of doubt GR is serous . I think it more likely that adopting Mystics beliefs have allowed him a stance from which to stir things up with everyone, theist and atheist, because he can insult everyone here except Mystic. And that's really his game . Not discussion , just arguments and insults . It feeds a different psychological need for GR than Mystics theism does his, but both are feeding some deep need with their pantheism. I think Mystics is real while GRs is adopted for convenience in feeding his need to argue and stir up things .
Mystic seems to have some psychological need to believe in a God , but I sort of doubt GR is serous . I think it more likely that adopting Mystics beliefs have allowed him a stance from which to stir things up with everyone, theist and atheist, because he can insult everyone here except Mystic. And that's really his game . Not discussion , just arguments and insults . It feeds a different psychological need for GR than Mystics theism does his, but both are feeding some deep need with their pantheism. I think Mystics is real while GRs is adopted for convenience in feeding his need to argue and stir up things .
You could very well be correct, wallflash. Gldn even admits that he is a troll. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Must be some sad life, is all I can say.
Mystic is serious, that much I know. It just baffles me that he is such a hypocrite when it comes to his belief vs others beliefs. He is obviously a smart guy (book smart at least), so it baffles me.
Me, too. I have explanations, but getting my head around it eludes me. We see the posts here where Mystic is arguing that what he s doing (labelling reality "God") is not what he is doing or it is, but it is correct to do so. It is baffling, not that he believes this and I completely get why he does, but that he seems unable to get why we quite justifiably do not.
Me, too. I have explanations, but getting my head around it eludes me. We see the posts here where Mystic is arguing that what he s doing (labelling reality "God") is not what he is doing or it is, but it is correct to do so. It is baffling, not that he believes this and I completely get why he does, but that he seems unable to get why we quite justifiably do not.
Yea, it isn't that he believes this that baffles me, necessarily, it is that he doesn't understand that what he is doing is simply renaming. It is also baffling that he can't see the hypocrisy when he tells us that since we don't know for sure, we should default to his position. I don't know, I am just saying it is strange is all.
I am of the firm belief that athiesm is simply the absence of a belief in diety's and supernatural entities such as ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, etc. To me, equating athiesm to a "belief in no God" is akin to saying "abstinence is a sex position" a statement most rational people would agree is a fallacy.
At its core, athiesm is simply the lack of belief in any gods or dietys, in contrast to an active belief in no gods or dietys.
I am of the firm belief that athiesm is simply the absence of a belief in diety's and supernatural entities such as ghosts, spirits, angels, demons, etc. To me, equating athiesm to a "belief in no God" is akin to saying "abstinence is a sex position" a statement most rational people would agree is a fallacy.
At its core, athiesm is simply the lack of belief in any gods or dietys, in contrast to an active belief in no gods or dietys.
I like that last line. It's just that claiming a lack of belief and actively denying it seems to be common. I say denying because the evidence suggest something and ignoring evidence to remain actively against is a tell. regardless of what one claims. also, abstinence is taking a position on sex, not one in sex.
Yea, it isn't that he believes this that baffles me, necessarily, it is that he doesn't understand that what he is doing is simply renaming. It is also baffling that he can't see the hypocrisy when he tells us that since we don't know for sure, we should default to his position. I don't know, I am just saying it is strange is all.
I am sure that Faith is the bottom line. The common factor in ALL theist argument is a Faith -based assumption that God is real, and arguing about evidence (which is only based on flawed human perception, after all...Mystic argued this once, though he may have forgotten) is only a means to an end. I believe this is why debunked arguments are endlessly re -presented, and demonstrated untruths are still regarded as valid.
Because Faith is "true" and whatever supports it is Right, even if not rue.
While non -belief is designated a Lie (on the basis of Faith) even if all the evidence supporting it is true.
Understand that and it is the key to understanding all theist argument, from Mystic to Eusebius.
I like that last line. It's just that claiming a lack of belief and actively denying it seems to be common. I say denying because the evidence suggest something and ignoring evidence to remain actively against is a tell. regardless of what one claims. also, abstinence is taking a position on sex, not one in sex.
You seem to be confusing ...understandably because atheists (you are of course a sortagod theist) often confuse it... disbelief or non -belief (they are the same thing) in a possible god with irreligion and an active campaign to roll back the influence of organized religion in society.
The confusion is exacerbated because the creatorgod -argument is used to wangle a sortagod onto the table as a springboard to Biblegod. We don't let them get that far because we argue the logical and evidential reason NOT to take "God" as a 'given'
You may ecall the thread or two that Bulmabrief started to argue for a Creator. Got pretty heated but essentially it failed to make a case for any sorta god.
I can imagine this being read in an erudite British accent by a man in a smoking-jacket. You little people can't possibly understand ... but (pat-pat) I'm sure it DOES seem rather illogical to you since you don't have the requisite philosophical background, don't you see. Quite. Rather. Very much. Where's my hot toddy?! And why hasn't Eton called and asked me to speak yet? Bah! They lack the philosophical background, too, I should think. Reminds me of my days in Darjeeling. None of this atheist rubbish in Darjeeling! No, sir! What's that, old horse? Time for my hydrotherapy? Again? Really -- I must object in the MOST strenuous of terms!
Not one of their best, but reminds me...and I get your point. Mystic punctuated his posts with "..." lacunae or obscure prose that seems to convey as much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but essentially it failed to make a case for any sorta god.
