Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[emilynghiem]

Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.
. . .

Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.

Hi M.D. Rawlings

I hope these are old msgs. I like the tone of your post about the focus on the objective.
I'd rather stick to content, points and principles
and steer away from the personal condescending remarks to denigrate others back and forth.

If we can USE these denigrating msgs to make a point about
A. God's logic and forgiveness/rising above retribution on A SPIRITUAL level
B. man's logic and retribution, tit for tat, and backlash to fight for pecking order on a MATERIAL level

I don't mind using them for that, if we can stay productive.

So MD for this message about calling other people fools
A. God's logic would remind us that whatever makes others look like fools
also applies to us and makes us look foolish.
So if you can accept that, that it goes both ways, fine.
Otherwise, it makes little sense to point out the foolishness on one side
and then reject any acknowledgement that you and I look foolish to others from their view.

From God's view we all have biases that make us fall short and look like we are missing the obvious

M.D. it seems to me you stoop to man's logic of bashing each other, instead of rising above.

B. As for logic
Does it make any sense, M.D., do you really expect anyone to listen and take you
seriously if you are calling them a fool and bashing their viewpoint?
If this doesn't work on you, to get you to listen or respect others,
why would you expect this to work on someone else?

Can you see how this demonstrates man's logic
as failed compared with God's logic to rise above and speak the
truth with love not animosity and condemnation/rejection?
We KNOW this doesn't solve the problem
but we do it anyway because it "makes us feel good."

that is MATERIAL, man's selfish ways,
that is apart from God's ways of unconditional love for the greater good.

C. as for your arguments vs. Boss's

I can see how both of you get what you are saying
and totally don't get what the other person is saying.

I don't think that makes me a fool, I think it is wiser
to speak to people using their own systems and not imposing a foreign one.

So I don't reject you because I am wise and open enough to see
there is some truth you are trying to express and share.

And same with Boss, and Justin and others here.

Don't think that is foolish at all to see the wisdom
and truth in what each person offers from a different perspective.

Sure, we can point out and correct the flaws
but don't you agree this is easier done by working
civilly as peers on a team, instead of fighting as adversaries to suppress or dismiss someone else?

D. Overall I believe the more we can forgive our faults or conflicts,
the better we'll be able to speak and see clearly to resolve them.

This bashing business of looking or talking down to other people
as "fools" seem foolish to me as it harms more than it helps the process.

I much prefer the civil discourse that stays intelligent and above board.

Thanks, M.D. and I hope we are getting past the mud rucking stage
and can pave some smoother roads in the future to build bridges and
stable foundations for greater developments from here on....

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

 

[Boss]

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.

You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've LOST me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your 7-Things argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.

 

[emilynghiem]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

too busy yapping
same reason you don't get there is actual
some good stuff going on here beyond all the barking and yapping

silly pups!

 

[emilynghiem]

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.

You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've LOST me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your 7-Things argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.

Give it time, Boss.
The blowhardedness will blow over.

People are releasing steam
probably because this is the first time we have enough people
willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.

People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.

Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
and will stick to the points that work.

Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.

Thanks, Boss
as you and I work to forgive and let go,
M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force. Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best. It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter. Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine. Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them. No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a sane feel.

Amrchaos: "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?

If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."​

See what I'm talking about, Emily? As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.

Amrchaos came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic! That's an absolute claim. He repeats it again. But if that's true, how can there be any "productive . . . more meaningful" approach?

He doesn't want the real communication of mutual tolerance and understanding at all. He wants to be right, to dominate, to dictate.

If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication. That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL, bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That is the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression. There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.

He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong. He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult, all the while presupposing some kind of universally recognizable standard of logic. Right? Otherwise, what is his justification to say that I'm wrong or stupid as I so obviously fail to grasp something self-evidently absolute.

Moron.


As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make? His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.

Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true. He won't let the fallacy go. He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion. He's vested up to his neck in it. Pride, foolish pride. So:

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

 

[G.T.]

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a sane feel.

Amrchaos: "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?

If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."​

See what I'm talking about, Emily? As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.

Amrchaos came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic! That's an absolute claim. He repeats it again. But if that's true, how can there be any "more productive . . . more meaningful" approach?

If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication. That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL, bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That is the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression. There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.

He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong. He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult. As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make? His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.

Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true. He won't let the fallacy go. He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion. He's vested up to his neck in it. Pride, foolish pride. So:

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

Nobody cares, donkey

 

[emilynghiem]

This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.

Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.

Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on. "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.

roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a sane feel.

Amrchaos: "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?

If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something more meaningful. That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."​

See what I'm talking about, Emily? As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.

Amrchaos came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic! That's an absolute claim. He repeats it again. But if that's true, how can there be any "more productive . . . more meaningful" approach?

If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication. That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL, bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That is the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression. There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.

He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong. He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult. As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make? His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.

Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true. He won't let the fallacy go. He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion. He's vested up to his neck in it. Pride, foolish pride. So:

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

Hi M.D. Rawlings
That's why I try to find the points we DO acknowledge we agree on.
People are more likely to verbalize where we AGREE rather than try to explain where we had to backtrack.
You don't like doing this either.
It's easier just to drop X, and stick to Y or Z where we know we agree on target.

Can we make the same points or corrections by moving forward?

It's like instead of arguing over the flat or sharp missed notes that were out of tune,
correcting them by hitting the right notes and agreeing that's where we need to focus.

So I asked amrchaos to look at the Forgiveness issue
as a potential "real application" example of demonstrating the
difference between man's logic and God's higher logic which we can actually tap into and use.

And also look at the msg of yours I agreed with on
science and spiritual healing.
I think that would connect with Hollie, G.T. amrchaos and Sealybobo
who want to see real world application and science, not just stating the obvious.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nobody cares, donkey

I care!
And if no one else cares, where is all the fuss coming from?

Seems to me everyone cares about something here,
enough to object, reject or project in response to someone else.

 

[G.T.]

Nobody cares, donkey

I care!
And if no one else cares, where is all the fuss coming from?

Seems to me everyone cares about something here,
enough to object, reject or project in response to someone else.

Good luck with it

 

[Justin Davis]

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic

I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!

I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.

Dear M.D.
That is good to resolve issues on all levels and all fronts.

For the UNDERSTANDING of how God's logic works
and how Forgiveness transcends man's logic,
this is best shared and understood by example.

MD we can argue day and night that forgiveness heals
and helps resolve conflicts.

But until people personally experience it and practice it,
it doesn't have the same meaning as on the page.

We need to do more than just use the words and logic on the page.

To fully absorb and embrace the meaning
means to experience this process in our relations and in our lives.

so applying it to the very relations and conflicts we have here,
that demonstrates the power of forgiveness on healing and resolving conflicts.

the compelling influence of that truth on that higher level
trumps these other loops and pitfalls people are falling into.

it is like pushing on the gas to straighten out the wheels.
You can argue all the angles and mathematical logistics you want, and be 100% correct,
or you can just physically straighten out the wheels and demonstrate directly by action.

A lot of the people here respond to more direct demonstration.
When can we get to that part?

It is doubtful than any progress will be made on that because there is only one basis for real communication, which is objectivity. Boss is obviously wrong, his logic is obviously false. He's not gong to admit it.

 

[Boss]

Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.

The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
is also going to be influenced.

The more we forgive the negatives
the more we receive the positives.
The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.

Let me say this, Emily... I applaud your efforts here. You are honestly trying your best to resolve conflict and bring everyone together in universal understanding. I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever accomplishing that, but you're not giving up, and I like that.

I'm similar to you in some ways. I am not your typical theist "God-believer." I can pretty much accept anyone's perception of a spiritual God because I understand that is human nature. That being said, I don't think MD and Justin are making an argument for a spiritual God. They have now taken God out of spiritual context and attempt to project their own personal template of humanism onto God. Then they want to arrogantly parade around being rude and obnoxious like WWE Wrestlers.

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

 

[Justin Davis]

[
Nobody cares, donkey

Shut up. You are not everybody. You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation: GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.

 

[Justin Davis]

Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.

The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
is also going to be influenced.

The more we forgive the negatives
the more we receive the positives.
The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.

Let me say this, Emily... I applaud your efforts here. You are honestly trying your best to resolve conflict and bring everyone together in universal understanding. I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever accomplishing that, but you're not giving up, and I like that.

I'm similar to you in some ways. I am not your typical theist "God-believer." I can pretty much accept anyone's perception of a spiritual God because I understand that is human nature. That being said, I don't think MD and Justin are making an argument for a spiritual God. They have now taken God out of spiritual context and attempt to project their own personal template of humanism onto God. Then they want to arrogantly parade around being rude and obnoxious like WWE Wrestlers.

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.

You are so obviously wrong. You're just a sociopath.

 

[Justin Davis]

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.

Sociopath

 

[amrchaos]

Ok emily--

About 1

Some problems to address

When you talk about "spirit" to someone that may not believe in supernatural things is generally a no go.

The best way I deal with the word "spirit" is to directly equate it to the mind, or some aspect of the mind such as personality or character depending on context.

Note that this is generally not what most theist mean. There is something else theist may refer to when they talk about "spirit" and "spiritual matters". However I first got this notion from a theist(forgot his name--I should look it up for reference) that claimed the spirit contains the mind.

Also note that when we begin to talk of the after life, what happens to the spirit/mind diverges between theist and non-theist, between non-theist and atheist, between individual non-theist, and between individual atheists. As long as you wish to stay away from the after life topic, there should not be much problem with the use of "spirit/spiritual" as long as the context used allows one to interchange with the term "mind/psychology" in either way.

I think taking this viewpoint will this topic to progress--However, the constant interchanging between terms can produce a very quirky dialogue.

You already know where the skeptics with any interest about this topic are going for their understanding: Psychology is the science. and, s strange as it my sound, there is research on how a healthy attitude can help people heal from different types of affliction.

The problem is: Is the research any good.

About 2)
I find MD's presentation of "logic" questionable.

I doubt that any change of approach will redeem MD's TAG.

About 3)

I responded to this: given the amount of information I do have, all I can say is "I don't know"


PS
That reference about "sheeps and goats"--I admit, is not something I wish to do nor will I.

If we are going to use a biblical term to describe what is going on(independent of what I do or have done)--then it is really a stoning.

The offenders are identified. The circle already formed. The rocks have been tossed.

From this, I am realizing that stoning was a really messy ordeal.

WWJD? He would try to stop the stoning.

If you notice, I am not exactly doing what Jesus would do, now am I?

 

[G.T.]

[
Nobody cares, donkey

Shut up. You are not everybody. You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation: GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.

Nice rant, fanboy.

 

[Justin Davis]

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.

You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've LOST me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your 7-Things argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.

Give it time, Boss.
The blowhardedness will blow over.

People are releasing steam
probably because this is the first time we have enough people
willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.

People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.

Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
and will stick to the points that work.

Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.

Thanks, Boss
as you and I work to forgive and let go,
M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!

Nah. Boss is the blowhard. His idea is so obviously stupid a child could see through it. His pride is sociopathic. What kind of religions but cults spew his crap? Boss has probably got himself a harem of hoes and bros under his thumb right now. The Cult leader of Created Logic, Made Up Logic, Phony Logic, Goofy Logic, No Logic, My Logic So There. The religion of Bossism or the religion of Human Logicism.

 

[Justin Davis]

[
Nobody cares, donkey

Shut up. You are not everybody. You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation: GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.

Nice rant, fanboy.

Sociopath

 

[G.T.]

[
Nobody cares, donkey

Shut up. You are not everybody. You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation: GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.

Nice rant, fanboy.

Sociopath

Neener neener?

Yea