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

[mamooth]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

 

[emilynghiem]

if you are praying, you are not living.

.

RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
^ ??? ^

Dear BreezeWood:
This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
maybe that's true for some people,
but others can talk and think at the same time.

I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.

Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."

But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.

How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?

How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
of spiritual recovery and/or growth.

How can you assume that none of that is living?
They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?

If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?

Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.

I question if you even know what you are talking about?
Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.

Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
of things you have no knowledge of?

??? X ???
This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

And in recognizing M.D. has his limits, and accommodating those special needs,
maybe he will naturally open up to reciprocate likewise. Recognizing he
also exceeds the limits that other people have, and cannot help it either.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

GT and the Lame Brains. LOL! By the way listened to one of your tracks. Not bad. Is that your voice on "Gone When I Wander"? If so, you should consider something akin to the X Factor. I know as I have a background in music and voice.

 

[G.T.]

GT and the Lame Brains. LOL! By the way listened to one of your tracks. Not bad. Is that your voice on "Gone When I Wander"? If so, you should consider something akin to the X Factor. I know as I have a background in music and voice.

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

 

[emilynghiem]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.

You're the feral animal, who talked at a person who was talking to you. You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object. You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants. You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.

No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.

I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.

LOL! You couldn't explain your way out a wet paper handkerchief.


Inevitable the Drama Queen

Inevitable: Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. Giggle It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. Giggle I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? Giggle I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, God, you know, God. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. Giggle

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. Giggle I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. Giggle

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. Giggle

Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. Giggle I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? Giggle I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. Giggle Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. Giggle

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? Giggle

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. Giggle And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. Giggle And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is People. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. Giggle I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. Giggle I'm so cute and funny that way.


Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

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

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

P.S. is there another option besides Thanks and Agree like "No Thanks" and "Disagree"

M.D. this really does nothing to help either your TAG approach,
people and you to communicate better, or to make more progress removing barriers to either of the above.

This taunting only reinforces barriers so why would you post this, M.D.?

Unless as O man questions: you don't really want to reach agreement.
It looks like you are just trying to bait people not debate or resolve anything.
If you chase people away then only the people who agree with you will be left so you can reach agreement that way?
Not by eliminating and correcting objections but by eliminating the people who give up on you, is this your strategy?

Please make up your mind which way you want it.

If you want to be "in charge" you can't be throwing all your crew mates off the ship
and expect to have any crew left to be in charge of. You'll have your way but only you and Justin will be left on board.

Please decide if you want someone else to steer the ship for you,
and you don't REALLY want to be in charge of defending this proof and getting everyone on the same page.

it's a lot of work, requires far-sighted high-minded leadership to coordinate team members to work on their respective teams. If you have no interest or mind for teamwork, how can you expect to be in charge of all the people on diverse teams.

I will try to connect you with other people on this level you are focused on.
If this is set up right, everyone will be in their right element and nobody should be frustrated.

In the meantime, M.D. I object and ask that you do not post
derogatory mockery like this out of "ill will" that is against what Christ would do for neighbors.

Whatever we do unto the LEAST among us, we do unto Christ.
So please treat Inevitable as you would any other brother in Christ, as you would Justin,
and correct whatever problem or grievance you have with us, without insulting or further rejecting/dividing anyone.

Thank you, M.D.
and sorry for the frustrations in the meantime that are causing these disruptions and distractions
Can we please help keep each other and the points on track?

 

[emilynghiem]

They are your questions, Mad Dog (aka, MD). I have yet to see you answer a single one of them despite the number of times you have posted them. Why? Because you aren't looking for them to be answered. You post them because you think it makes you look smart. What it actually does is make you look desperate and stupid. Even worse, they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that god exists, and as such are off topic. But then, you knew that already. "God did it" is not evidence of anything. It is an unprovable tautology.

Dear orogenicman cc: inevitable, G.T. and amrchaos

Maybe you can help me connect back with M.D. where I thought we'd found a good focus.
In ADDITION to the TAG/Logic approach MD prefers to focus on instead of "science which only verifies
or falsifies" and doesn't prove absolutes, which is why he wants to focus on logic definitions,
I offered to apply the Science part to research studies on "Spiritual Healing" to demonstrate the
patterns and process that Christianity teaches and symbolizes as consistent with natural science health and healing.

Below is where I THOUGHT MD and I agreed on applying science to spiritual healing:

Ultimately, my real concern in all this is that you have a solid scientific foundation for spiritual healing, which I believe in. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In order to have such a foundation you must uphold the correct, formal terms and conventions of logic and science. Then and only then do you have a bullet proof, scientific foundation from which to assert a legitimate and compelling case for spiritual healing in terms of inductive probability based on comparative empirical data. But when you start dragging religious biases into the matter, like the notion that the ultimate cause of spiritual healing could not or is not an operation of divine healing, well, there goes your scientific foundation. Leave religion out of it. Stick with the comparative empirical data. Whatever religious convictions, if any, others bring to its purely scientific, evidentiary probability as they apply the recommended principles is fine, just don't arbitrarily precluded this or that potentiality in the name of science. Otherwise, people are perfectly justified to dismiss spiritual healing as religious mumbo jumbo.

This is what I was getting at here: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 344 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In these previous posts, we didn't seem to connect and he thought I was pushing either religion instead of science,
or was trying to push junk science instead of absolute logic:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 344 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 318 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

My question is, why can't we work on both TAG AND Spiritual Healing:
A. TAG team and alignment on Trinity or Terms for God/Jesus
why can't Justin, M.D. and other TAG theologians, logicians, theists and trinitarians or unitarians focus on the Definitions and Points about God and reach a consensus on THAT level for those who want that to work out

B. Spiritual Healing research team
why can't we have a team of science-minded researchers look into setting up studies on Spiritual Healing for those who do want replicated scientific demonstrations

(Clearly MD wants A but others want B. why is this a conflict, why can't we have both and use whatever helps people?)

C. Mediation and consensus team for political and religious outreach
(and documenting stats to show correlation between "Forgiveness with resolving conflicts
and restoring working relations" versus "unforgiveness with retribution, inability to resolve conflicts, and destroying relations).

If we can organize teams around A, and if we can prove that forgiveness correlates with the "spiritual healing" of mind, body, relations in B, can we also apply this to the larger context of " Proof" in the real world:
using forgiveness therapy, healing and spiritual mediation to cure *collective levels of religious or political conflicts
we see in society* (conflicts over gay marriage, health care and free choice, govt reform and party politics, religious issues),

As above, MD seemed to support a scientific approach to Spiritual Healing.

And I ask others, especially Hollie who is demanding concrete proof to be demonstrated, about substituting Spiritual Healing as a focus that CAN be replicated and researched to show the natural process and pattern.

So O man, if this is a good focus to correct the problems,
what does it take to get Hollie M.D. and others to AGREE to take that approach,
and prove "Spiritual Healing" works naturally and effectively? Instead of arguing back and forth over TAG?

Why continue to argue over TAG if people DON'T all agree that's the best approach.

Why not look into scientific understanding of Spiritual Healing,
especially if we all agree that's better?

How do we redirect our focus from endless conflict in circles, to aligning on common goals
and enforcing higher standards on points we actually AGREE on. How do we get to that point?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.

Have a peanut butter sandwich and go to bed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I thought the thread went just fine. The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's not to be taken seriously. Just how stupid is that? You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!

Scotty, beam them up.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I thought the thread went just fine. The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's not to be taken seriously. Just how stupid is that? You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!

Scotty, beam them up.

Hi M.D. to you it seems obvious because you are speaking from that default position.

To someone else whose default position isn't the same as yours,
it looks projected from another angle.

Imagine this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swim-i.jpg

is really this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swimwrongview-i.jpg

If you're not standing where someone else is,
or they're not standing where you are,
you may be looking at the same thing and not see what the other sees.

This is just human, M.D.

I've had friends, I've known 10-20 years, take the same situation and interpret
the reasons it happened and their reactions to "What I said and thought"
totally different than how I experienced it and how I MEANT it. And we were both there and equally involved.
We just didn't experience it or see it or say it the same way.

M.D. having "relative" views does NOT mean we HAVE to "throw out the absolutes"
Even when my friend and I disagreed, I WANTED to resolve the conflict so we could be on the same page. I believed we could have BOTH and INCLUDE where we were both coming from
but meet where we agree and quit imposing anything other than what we both agreed to.

What it's meant to do is to peel away the layers that aren't necessary conditions,
and hold fast to the core points that are in common underneath. Somehow we lose sight of that because we get emotionally caught up in the differences and conflicts on top.

I'm trying to stick to the core we have in common.
But we can't run off on dramatic slams at each other which are distracting.

You seem to have a background in music, and I wonder if you've performed in theatre.

You know what happens if the prima donna types get everyone in the cast caught up their side drama. You can't get the show on the road if the cast implodes on itself.

We're collecting quite a diverse cast of characters to tell the whole story.
We've gotta stick to the story and not get lost in the backstage drama.

That's just good sense.
So what I don't understand is how can anyone think they have THE universal answers
and then cut other people out of those answers. That makes no sense. You know YOU don't respond to being bullied, and know Boss and BW aren't going to submit to that, so why try
to use bullying to put people in their places; you know this only backfires and goes in circles!

If we all had the universal answers, we could work with anyone else and include them in our system. so that's what I want to work toward, how to be that understanding where we see our views do not need to clash; and NO WE DON'T COMPROMISE for relativism either. Just because I translate and allow others to speak Spanish does not mean I give up or corrupt my English for them, both languages remain intact; this is not about competing or replacing one with the other but using whatever language people normally use to resolve their understanding.

MD if you didn't push your TAG as the end all be all,
maybe BW wouldn't have to tear down the Christian God as non-inclusive
and defend the Almighty as trumping the God-creator in your TAG etc.

If I don't "whip out my penis" to show it's bigger than yours,
then you won't have to whip yours out and bean me over the head with it to show me who's got the bigger prick, etc.
We can keep our weenies in our pants and not go there.

If we know there is one universal God, why don't we make that assumption the default,
that all of us have some connection or perception of the one source we all call God or
the Almighty or the Absolute or the universal laws/knowledge/truth.

why do we make the 'default assumption' that our way is best and the
other ways are less or competing, wrong or conflicting.

Why can't we work out our differences without ranking one person above or below another.
Why can't we approach each other side by side, not for or against?

M.D. what can we do to INCLUDE what each other is saying and trying to clarify?
Do we have to take these things as a threat or conflict? Why?

Does every debate have to turn into some kind of penis pissing war?
Is that just part of the internet ritual, to establish the alpha male pecking order first?
Are we done marking territorial lines now?

I'll be happy if we can talk and share as equals now.
if everyone has established their guidelines, limits, boundaries and space.

if you listed your 7 points, and your 25 questions
Hollie listed her unanswerable questions she wants answered before calling people to account
I listed my three great commandments and three ways to answer using
Christian forgiveness and healing, Buddhist compassion and wisdom, and Constitutional due process and equal protection of interests.

Are we good to go?

 

[Hollie]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I thought the thread went just fine. The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's not to be taken seriously. Just how stupid is that? You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!

Scotty, beam them up.

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching M. Pompous Rawling and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I thought the thread went just fine. The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's not to be taken seriously. Just how stupid is that? You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!

Scotty, beam them up.

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching M. Pompous Rawling and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

saddest thing is they don't really disagree over the toy
they just don't want the other person to be in charge of it

but when they are asked to be in charge,
they only want to dictate one side of the Rubik's cube that's convenient for them.

they really do not want to be responsible for the other sides of the cube
that are part of the same puzzle. To them the other sides are wrong.
very messy looking in the process, but there is a solution to the cube.

 

[Hollie]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I thought the thread went just fine. The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's not to be taken seriously. Just how stupid is that? You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!

Scotty, beam them up.

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching M. Pompous Rawling and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

saddest thing is they don't really disagree over the toy
they just don't want the other person to be in charge of it

I saw it very differently. M. Pompous Rawling is the stereotypical, hair-on-fire bible thumping fundie christian / Flat Earth'er while Boss has his own version of gawds in the form of something he calls "spiritual nature".

I was hoping we could have these two fine folks equipped with weapons and ammo and allow them to settle their gawds issues like reasonable adults.

 

[Boss]

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?

I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice. I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it. Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it. You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.

Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?

I kinda liked your Civil Rap... then again, I am kinda weird.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hi M.D. to you it seems obvious because you are speaking from that default position.

To someone else whose default position isn't the same as yours,
it looks projected from another angle.

Imagine this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swim-i.jpg

is really this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swimwrongview-i.jpg

If you're not standing where someone else is,
or they're not standing where you are,
you may be looking at the same thing and not see what the other sees.

This is just human, M.D.

Hmm. Well, imagine this: you're a finite mind thinking you could exist if God the Creator doesn't exist. How does that work?

Yeah. See. The problem is not a matter of projection. The problem is the blindness of one who has been turned over to a reprobate mind by God. The problem is spiritual.

 

[Boss]

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching M. Pompous Rawling and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

I can't actually hurl my God since it's spiritual energy. If I could, I'd hurl it at you and not MD. I also haven't been fighting MD, contrary to what some may think. I'm simply the type of person who is going to stand up for what I believe and defend my viewpoint. When someone attacks me, I tend to attack them back. If someone lies about things I've said, I am going to set the record straight. If someone is being a moron, I am going to call them a moron. I know I can come across as being angry or mad because I have a compelling command of the written word and can sound that way, but I assure you, I am not upset and it's not personal. I enjoy the heck out of sharing my views here and enlightening the unenlightened. We can't all be trolls like you Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching M. Pompous Rawling and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.

I can't actually hurl my God since it's spiritual energy. If I could, I'd hurl it at you and not MD. I also haven't been fighting MD, contrary to what some may think. I'm simply the type of person who is going to stand up for what I believe and defend my viewpoint. When someone attacks me, I tend to attack them back. If someone lies about things I've said, I am going to set the record straight. If someone is being a moron, I am going to call them a moron. I know I can come across as being angry or mad because I have a compelling command of the written word and can sound that way, but I assure you, I am not upset and it's not personal. I enjoy the heck out of sharing my views here and enlightening the unenlightened. We can't all be trolls like you Hollie.

I see you're angry. That's ok. Your self-assessed "compelling command of the written word" is best left to being self-professed because you won't get any argument about that from yourself.