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.
We'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not wasting any more time discussing the discussion than is absolutely necessary to keep you honest.
Yet you have not shown any dishonesty on my part anywhere? So not sure what you are referring to here. but when I pointed out your own dishonesty, you ran away and refused to acknowledge or retract it. You appear to have it not just wrong therefore, but exactly backwards. I made a statement and you not only misrepresented it.... but you did so to a degree that would make it difficult to misrepresent it any more than you already have.
But at least you have now given me another chance to test "nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of forum posting" which states that "the probability of a user replying to you increases in proportion to the number of times they claim they will not reply to you". So we will see how quickly you reply again.
BTW , as we approach 100 posts no one has yet shown how admitting to a pantheistic God would make any real difference in anything .
actually we have stated a few times that it doesn't matter to us what you need it to mean. Your personal need is the same as "their" personal need. I only pointed out that it is more reasonable to say that there is "something" and less reasonable to say "there is not something".
But if I must, It only has to mean what you want it to mean. The only real meaning to me is that our claim is starting off at a more rational axiom based on observation. It means we are not starting our line of logic to support a personal need with an axiom that has no observational support.
This conversation has only been about if it is more reasonable to say "there is something" or " there is not something." For the 10th time, it is not about what you or me want it to mean. Who says your need is more real than my need anyway? they both allow us to look into ourselves better.
Yet you have not shown any dishonesty on my part anywhere? So not sure what you are referring to here. but when I pointed out your own dishonesty, you ran away and refused to acknowledge or retract it. You appear to have it not just wrong therefore, but exactly backwards. I made a statement and you not only misrepresented it.... but you did so to a degree that would make it difficult to misrepresent it any more than you already have.
But at least you have now given me another chance to test "nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of forum posting" which states that "the probability of a user replying to you increases in proportion to the number of times they claim they will not reply to you". So we will see how quickly you reply again.
my first rule: "If you lock a dog in a room long enough, it's going to poop".
When you hold to the notion that one must build a conclusion off of observations only, "dogs poop." Skittish dogs do it over and over again because the loud thud of truth scares them so.
BTW , as we approach 100 posts no one has yet shown how admitting to a pantheistic God would make any real difference in anything .
Or rather, I have but you refused to admit it.
It's a shame that, if there was anyone who actually was interested in what the OP posited, that they were prevented from doing so by such petty behaviors as the atheists in the thread have practiced.
I don't so buu buu. I think it actually helped that we can look at little pieces of the universe making up bigger pieces of the universe. That stance is rational. Then we can clearly show that this region of space is better described as "life" or "alive" than it is to describe this region of space as "non life" or not "alive".
That starting point is a real base line is dismantling the old Omni dude (call it Ra if we like) and seeing our "truer" place in this universe. this "no anything" is less valid.
I'm not sure how that relates to the childish practice of refusing to acknowledge that people have provided you legitimate responses to the questions you had, and then inanely claiming "victory" in the discussion (as if a discussion is supposed to be "won" ) on the basis that you didn't receive the response that you actually received. Let's not let mystical equivocations obscure the real poor behavior we've seen.
I'm not sure how that relates to the childish practice of refusing to acknowledge that people have provided you legitimate responses to the questions you had, and then inanely claiming "victory" in the discussion (as if a discussion is supposed to be "won" ) on the basis that you didn't receive the response that you actually received. Let's not let mystical equivocations obscure the real poor behavior we've seen.
Nobody claimed any sort of victory. Thats just your confirmation bias again projecting sinister intentions where there are none.
But if you see discussion as something to win or lose....you can win by linking or quoting the very specific question on how you define greater.
It may be helpful to realize that the UU "church" is not creedal, but covenantal. If you ask them what they mean by a particular teaching or practice, you are apt to just get it thrown back at you and asked what YOU think it means. Because in general they are honestly unwilling to say. It is (in theory at least) up to you. They would say something along the lines that they teach meta-principles which you can use to derive your own spirituality.
That is helpful actually, thanks mordant. It might sound odd, but I'm not aware of anybody that I've met or talked with being UU. Nor could I recall seeing a UU church (or whatever name they use for congregations). And I have to admit that, embarrassingly enough, I don't think I realized UU was pantheistic prior to this thread...though maybe I knew that somewhere at some point in my life.
Quote:
That's the primary source of the "whatever people believe is valid and so must be honored and deferred to or you are being rude" vibe. And while it has some positive aspects it does spare them the bother of explaining themselves or taking particular stands. I don't judge it but I'm not sure I buy it either.
Yeah as a general rule of thumb, I have no objections to such a philosophical stance. But in reality, there are very dangerous and harmful (to society) beliefs which....if we cannot challenge for fear of being disrespectful....only allow for harmful actions to be carried out. So the notion that "well of course my beliefs aren't harmful and beyond reproach" is itself, potentially harmful in my view.
actually we have stated a few times that it doesn't matter to us what you need it to mean. Your personal need is the same as "their" personal need. I only pointed out that it is more reasonable to say that there is "something" and less reasonable to say "there is not something".
But if I must, It only has to mean what you want it to mean. The only real meaning to me is that our claim is starting off at a more rational axiom based on observation. It means we are not starting our line of logic to support a personal need with an axiom that has no observational support.
This conversation has only been about if it is more reasonable to say "there is something" or " there is not something." For the 10th time, it is not about what you or me want it to mean. Who says your need is more real than my need anyway? they both allow us to look into ourselves better.
You post as if you think you have addressed the topic of the OP . You have not . If you wish to try again please read and try to understand the point being made a little better before responding with additional items that don't address the point, such as your view that space is alive . You have not yet managed to grasp what I am asking .
You post as if you think you have addressed the topic of the OP . You have not . If you wish to try again please read and try to understand the point being made a little better before responding with additional items that don't address the point, such as your view that space is alive . You have not yet managed to grasp what I am asking .
err, again, what you need it to mean on a personal level is meaningless to me, I will go to people that center love, compassion, and understanding for that. I really only care about how the universe works.
I have tried to tell you a few times that this topic is as meaningful as the ort cloud to some people. the ort cloud does not change some people's lives at all. Nor does dark matter in your life. Others, like myself, only care how the universe works. The observations say there is something there, something "more" than just us. people that claim "nothing" do so at the expense of observation based conclusions.
What you might try saying to yourself "Observations say there is "something" but since I don't need to understand it, it means nothing to me and my life." if you say that, you and I would agree. Other than wanting to understand "it", you and I have the same stance.
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.
in the discussion (as if a discussion is supposed to be "won" 
