Jesus' Return

once again double speak , and you cannot convey an idea without proper communication sorry , no matter how many times you insist this is it simply isnt. Once again you avoid confronting your own mistakes and try to blame someone else as not being able to understand....a sad cop out. Using a standard grade 11 english lesson (the scrambled sentence still easily read...yes everyone knows that Cambridge study.......) is still using recognized words just as you usually do in everyday life such as "pass me the salt"....it doesnt bolster your view at all. In fact it lessens your point.

the irony of saying "physical superstitions" alone is enough to dismiss the entire idea.....like those pesky things like Electricity , Gravity, any theory of physics....Sorry man your starting to sound more and more like someone desparetly trying to sound existentialist but somehow you just come off nonsensical. (there's a fine line between the two) . Omnipotence is disproved by its meaning....(try wikipedia.....). It's like saying "a red blue"......it just can't be by its very definition. I didnt miss any point there was none just you backpedalling faster than a fundie confronted with the atrocities of his beliefs. And , trying to shift the blame....

Just remember one thing , Philosphy means nothing , its pondering not assuredness....it's "why is this and why not that" not "this is how it is!"

All said and done I still enjoy your posts ;). No matter how much you defeat your own arguements in your own posts :).

p.s. I notice the suffixes and prefixes make a big difference (in your eyes) when your trying to prove a point then suddenly they mean nothing.....Wow! Says volumes my friend volumes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

I've heard different theories.

The poll is coming.

Whoops, wrong button.


Okay, forget it. Do you think he'll return as a person, other lifeform, spirit, inanimate object, or whatever else?

---

check out a group in yahoo called newageofaquarius, he is soon to be on the public scene, a physical man on earth my friend. a pot smoker!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

a parable about a man who spread parables in attempt to save humanity; the moral of the parable?
pleave everyone the fuck alone, and do whatever the fuck it is you want to do, and just embrace the cause-and-effect of your actions.

---

jesus didnt write the bible, thats the parable, so his second coming is part two, from where he left off. a pot smoker too!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

I suppose he could have already come back a few times, as muhammad, or ba'ha'ula, or..... *holds in laughter* joseph smith...

---

which buddha, the old one or the new age one!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

Why even waste your time debating silly superstitions? Life will always be meaningless unless you live the present moment to its fullest extent. There is no God, no Jesus, no nothing, only humanity. Once we all accept this we will be able to move beyond our petty squables and realize that we have the potential to be great, to usher in a new age of peace and prosperity for the entire world.

I am firm in my belief that religion (especially the big three monotheistic ones) has hindered and prevented us from achieving our potential.

---

if their is only humanity what is the rest fo the universe.
Govts twist reliigon to control and so did churches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

i agree that religion has destroyed humanity more than it has bennifited us, but i just cant accept that the whole of reality is mindless.

or that the mind is a physical entity, or collective of physical entities...


however, for you, as an athiest, i can accept the mind being a collective of all entities in existance. in this manner, the universe would be created from the inside out, rather than the spiritualistic outside in fassion i see.

---

the stealing of the amercias was not down to reliigon.
the stealing of lands was not down to religions.
the first and second world wars were not down to religion.
the 2 atomic bombs in japan were not due to religions.
vietnam war was not due to religion.
genghis khan was not religious, hitler, or stalin, or po pot, or mugabe, bonaparte, the roman empire, saddam hussein, mussolini, all the european monarchs who stole lands were not religious.
Violent offenders are not religious, rapists, murderers, but monarchs and govts, and deluded people twist reliigon to suit their own invading or terrorist wishes.
religions did not shape humanity, humanity shapad humanity. weve never known a time without wars, even when in the hunter gatherer stages we were murdering our ancestors.
religious people who stick to the basics and guidelines of their religion are pillars of society, it is non religious people who use and abuse people, religions or peoples vulnerability.
society is weak and without decent religious people it would be more weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Green Love

I believe jesus will return someday.
That day will be a glorious day for all.

---

jesus is alive as a physical man on earth, he is beginning his writing for you. check out his group at yahoo under group name of newageofaquarius

his name is magnus, fits in with agnus doesnt it.

AGNUS DEI= magnus deity MTY arise from mighty in same order and fashion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnusalex

the stealing of the amercias was not down to reliigon.
the stealing of lands was not down to religions.
the first and second world wars were not down to religion.
the 2 atomic bombs in japan were not due to religions.
vietnam war was not due to religion.
genghis khan was not religious, hitler, or stalin, or po pot, or mugabe, bonaparte, the roman empire, saddam hussein, mussolini, all the european monarchs who stole lands were not religious.
Violent offenders are not religious, rapists, murderers, but monarchs and govts, and deluded people twist reliigon to suit their own invading or terrorist wishes.
religions did not shape humanity, humanity shapad humanity. weve never known a time without wars, even when in the hunter gatherer stages we were murdering our ancestors.
religious people who stick to the basics and guidelines of their religion are pillars of society, it is non religious people who use and abuse people, religions or peoples vulnerability.
society is weak and without decent religious people it would be more weak.

---

Amen ! :thumbsup:
I'm glad some people on this forum have a level head! :rasta:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnusalex

jesus is alive as a physical man on earth, he is beginning his writing for you. check out his group at yahoo under group name of newageofaquarius

his name is magnus, fits in with agnus doesnt it.

AGNUS DEI= magnus deity MTY arise from mighty in same order and fashion

---

They better make it into a TV movie, if they don't, I'm blaming Yahoo, because they own the rights to Magnus' words.

20 minutes of thought into this thread, magnusalex, I'm impressed! :stoned:

I think people misunderstand atheism. Here's an explanation for what I believe, how I believe it, and why (obviously, not my own words):

"Really religious difficulties, for example, I don't know from experience. It has escaped me altogether in what way I was supposed to be "sinful". Likewise, I lack any reliable criterion for recognizing the bit of conscience: according to what one hears about it, the bite of conscience does not seem respectable to me.

[...]

"God," "immortality of the soul," "redemption," "beyond" -- without exception, concepts to which I never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps I have never been childlike enough for them?

"I do not mean I know atheim as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questiopnable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers -- at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!"

-Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I am so clever" (yup, that's the title of the chapter :D )

nobody is going to listen to u with that avatar FLESH :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magnusalex

the stealing of the amercias was not down to reliigon.
the stealing of lands was not down to religions.
the first and second world wars were not down to religion.
the 2 atomic bombs in japan were not due to religions.
vietnam war was not due to religion.
genghis khan was not religious, hitler, or stalin, or po pot, or mugabe, bonaparte, the roman empire, saddam hussein, mussolini, all the european monarchs who stole lands were not religious.
Violent offenders are not religious, rapists, murderers, but monarchs and govts, and deluded people twist reliigon to suit their own invading or terrorist wishes.
religions did not shape humanity, humanity shapad humanity. weve never known a time without wars, even when in the hunter gatherer stages we were murdering our ancestors.
religious people who stick to the basics and guidelines of their religion are pillars of society, it is non religious people who use and abuse people, religions or peoples vulnerability.
society is weak and without decent religious people it would be more weak.

---

You don't understand my point: religion itself, independent of the people who practice it, is subversive.

The crusades were religious, the witch hunt was religious, Islamic terrorrism is religious, Jewish-Palestinian conflict is religious..

Wait a minute, did you say Hitler was not religiously motivated???? Are you from another planet? The core of Christian anti-semitism is that Christians believe Jews killed Jesus... If that's not religious, I don't know what is.

All the European monarchs? Ok, now I'm convinced you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The very concept of monarchy is intimately tied with religion. The Queen of England is still the head of the Church of England, in case you didn't know. All monarchs in Europe, some still to this day, represent God's will on Earth. That is at the core of European monarchy. Look it up.

You end by talking about hunters and gatherers fighting.... Sure they fought, and it probably wasn't in the name of religion. Now we have religion, and we're still fighting, just as hard, and probably even more cruelly. Is that progress to you? Even more senseless fighting on a huge scale, and that's how you defend religion?

YOU REPRESENT WHAT'S WRONG WITH RELIGION. You don't even think, you make no sense whatsoever, you don't use your supposedly God-given gift of REASON.

"Not their love of men but the impotence of their love of men keeps the Christians of today from--burning us."

"It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an author--and not learn it better."

"The devil has the broadest perspectives for God; therefore he keeps so far away from God--the devil being the most ancient friend of wisdom."

"Jesus said to his Jews: 'The law was for servants--love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!'"

"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degenrated--into a vice."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euphoric

nobody is going to listen to u with that avatar FLESH :(

---

LOL, it was supposed to be a temporary fix, but who cares, MacG rocks!

That's a very German view. A neo-nazi view of God. I'd tell Fritz Nietzsche (or whatever his first name was) that his Mother was a gross question for his answer and the only way he can refute me is the same way that someone of Faith can refute him.

I don't know the guy. He'd have to prove to me that there is no God. Until then, I'll bury my head in memories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

That's a very German view. A neo-nazi view of God. I'd tell Fritz Nietzsche (or whatever his first name was) that his Mother was a gross question for his answer and the only way he can refute me is the same way that someone of Faith can refute him.

I don't know the guy. He'd have to prove to me that there is no God. Until then, I'll bury my head in memories.

---

Ummm... it can't be neo-nazi since he was around way before the nazis, and everything you heard about Nietzsche being loved by Nazis is false, he nothing but disdain for anti-semites.

And here we go again with the 'proof.' There is nothing to prove, because there is nothing there. How can you prove the existence of nothing when we already have such a hard time proving the existence of something?

Nothing out there = nothing to prove.

And his first name is Friederich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euphoric

nobody is going to listen to u with that avatar FLESH :(

---

I can't listen with all these "laugh-waves" flying through my brain-circuitry. :stoned:

I never used to watch MacGyver. After a few weeks of knowing who Flesh's avatar is, but not being able to put a finger on the name, I was flipping through the channels and saw him with that exact same shirt on sitting at a desk talking to a girl standing at the door while shuffling through paperwork with his hair set the exact same way as Flesh's avatar. I'm out of breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

And his first name is Fritz.

---

I knew I had a good memory, thanks.

I've never heard of Franz Joseph Neiderschmonger Schmidt until I read his name off of these "stoner" boards. These forums can prompt investigations into anything, but I haven't bothered researching Friederich.

Don't you think God reads these forums? I'm sure He loves reading your posts.
:stoned:

That proof thing is supposedly our job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

I knew I had a good memory, thanks.

I've never heard of Franz Joseph Neiderschmonger Schmidt until I read his name off of these "stoner" boards. These forums can prompt investigations into anything, but I haven't bothered researching Friederich.

Don't you think God reads these forums? I'm sure He loves reading your posts.
:stoned:

That proof thing is supposedly our job.

---

See, I would think God had more important things to do... Like, whateverrrr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

once again double speak , and you cannot convey an idea without proper communication sorry , no matter how many times you insist this is it simply isnt. Once again you avoid confronting your own mistakes and try to blame someone else as not being able to understand....a sad cop out. Using a standard grade 11 english lesson (the scrambled sentence still easily read...yes everyone knows that Cambridge study.......) is still using recognized words just as you usually do in everyday life such as "pass me the salt"....it doesnt bolster your view at all. In fact it lessens your point.

the irony of saying "physical superstitions" alone is enough to dismiss the entire idea.....like those pesky things like Electricity , Gravity, any theory of physics....Sorry man your starting to sound more and more like someone desparetly trying to sound existentialist but somehow you just come off nonsensical. (there's a fine line between the two) . Omnipotence is disproved by its meaning....(try wikipedia.....). It's like saying "a red blue"......it just can't be by its very definition. I didnt miss any point there was none just you backpedalling faster than a fundie confronted with the atrocities of his beliefs. And , trying to shift the blame....

Just remember one thing , Philosphy means nothing , its pondering not assuredness....it's "why is this and why not that" not "this is how it is!"

All said and done I still enjoy your posts ;). No matter how much you defeat your own arguements in your own posts :).

p.s. I notice the suffixes and prefixes make a big difference (in your eyes) when your trying to prove a point then suddenly they mean nothing.....Wow! Says volumes my friend volumes....

---

oy... what double speak?!?!? i fail to see what you fail to understand!

sad cop out? where? please, if you wish to point out my errs, you cannot simply say, you must show me what i said wrong, so that i may re word it in a fassion that you can understand and accept, untill then, stop picking apart everything i say with useless english rules.

just because you insert mental barriors that make it impossible for YOU to understand outside of the box thinking doesnt mean everyone else has to condition themsleves to YOUR level of misunderstanding.

i meant to say physical superstitions FOR the irony, it was a joke maybe i should start a color-key for my posting... put serious tidbits in black, jokes in blue, anger in red, etc... :rolleyes:

i dont recall shifting any blame :( it feels to me like you're just inserting random attacks on my thoughts! im SURE it isnt so, but please, prove to me that my assumptions are unfounded.

i still fail to see why omnipotency is impossible unto itself; my main arguement here is a closed mind does not disprove the existance of an open mind.

Sorry man if your offended its not meant that way , but seriously IF you cannot communicate clearly, your idea will never be represented truthfully. Is that simple enough for you. And , the very fact you see no doublespeak speaks true volumes as well. Failing to see exactly where your errors lie even though its clearly pointed out is just you refusing to see the forest of the trees.

You claiming that its all "OUR" fault when we dont understand you is the cop out my friend. It's that simple. If you cant see the glaring mistakes you constantly make I cannot make it any simpler for you to understand. Perhaps if you showed your posts to your english teacher he could point out where you slipped up more clearly than I could....

For instance WE dont understand you because of "OUR" mental barriers....come on....those "mental barriers" are there so we dont believe people who say things like "theres an invisible bridge over this gorge you just have to trust its there".....

Also there not "random attacks" its pointing out the fallacy of your reasoning (calling any of it logic is misrepresentative of logic as well , check out the definition of logic). Please no arguements about "what is a dictionary but a book of words" claptrap. ;).

Sorry I didnt detect your "irony" as physical superstitions are often blamed by you for people not "understanding" your "truth", so in essence that would not be irony (you saying that at all) just as Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" (the only thing ironic about that song is its about "irony" but has no irony in it.....)

Omnipotence is easily defined you either can't or you can, if you can't do both your not omnipotent since their both mutually exclusive omnipotence is impossible (like a red blue....) don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

Your main arguement has never been stated until now, see how easy it is to state your point in plain english instead of claiming "your truth is absolute".....and using attempted existentalist arguements to support such. If you cannot understand all this than simply there is no hope for you. I approach anything logical with an open mind , but believing in things with zero evidence is the realm of fantasy. Not an "open mind".


P.s (flesh love your avatar dont ever change it!!! ahhh now all we need is some a-team avatars!)

"pointing out" my fallacies would be something like...


quoting the fallacious text, bolding the errors, and then submitting a formal complaint and report on what i said wrong, how else am i supposed to see something i never payed attention to in school? (lol yeah, social studies was a good chance to catch up on my much needed rest)


omnipotency is not impossible, it only takes an open mind to accept that it CAN BE BOTH, that is WHAT omnipotency is, a paradox (of paradoxes). omnipotency is like thought, are you ABLE to THINK of yourself making a boulder impossible for you to lift?

are you then immediately able to think you CAN lift it?

omnipotency works on the same manner as thought, your thoughts are mentally omnipotent. whereas omnipotency is a physical form of thinking, where your thoughts are or become physical entities.

Self defining omnipotence doesnt change the word definition sorry man.

And , im sorry I'm not going to take the time to bold and quote everything just for you, you dont do it for others why would I do it for you or anyone else. If you can't see the glaring mistakes your making your not hurting me(as im pretty sure anyone else who's not dogmatic about their "truth" can see) , only your message(as I've clearly pointed out the fallacies). Formal complaint and report LOL , no one has ever done that on this site ever man.....get a grip. Your trying to defeat the arguement with specious reasoning sorry man keep trying.

In the earlier post I meant "forest FOR the trees" (stoned typing fast not a good combo)

im sorry, what? you seem to be trying to say something along the lines of "im right, you're wrong".

then you're giving me some pretty lame and illogical reasons as to why i am speaking falsely.

is omnipotency not a philosophical idea? if it is not, then i apolagize, you're right, it is, indeed, just a silly play on words without any purpose, just to show that the idea of omnipotency can be impossible.


if it is a philosophical idea, then you cannot disprove it with a play on words, it is a philosophical idea, of being all powerful without limits beyond your own controll.

besides, it is not a physical being who uses omnipotency; they cannot create a themselves so heavy that themself cannot lift, you might say the being to become omnipotent IS the omnipotency itself; god.

so therefore, YES, GOD could create a boulder that is so heavy that a BODY THAT GOD CREATED could not lift it, but god could create another body which COULD lift it, or in fact recreate a body, without visible signs of tampering, to then lift the boulder.

at which point, god could decide to tamper with the boulder and add mass to it, without visible signs of tampering.


why is omnipotency impossible because another, unrelated, play on words is impossible?

omnipotency could make a red blue, and humans could be so unevolved that we see purple instead.

thinking inside the box does not disprove the existance of anything that is outside the box.

Philosphy is not reality my friend, even a philospher will admit that. Claiming for sure anything in a philosophical sense (ie: claiming it CAN be) is just as wrong as claiming it isnt. But im talking about the definition of the actual word, It's either can or cannot as I've stated earlier.

Your totally missing the point as well,its a simple question (no specious reasoning please) Either god CAN or CANNOT make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it. Either way he either CAN or CANNOT lift it, either way once again theres only two choices not a myriad of classifications of different actions which would allow it. Omnipotence is impossible as its a human conception of something that is mutually exclusive how about this one then since you can't understand the red blue analogy(or are trying your damndest to get around it) 1 is not 2 no matter how many times you examine 1 it will never be 2 (unless you ADD another 1 and then its not 1 anymore......)

P.s. (im not claiming your close minded, your the one claiming any of us that dont ascribe to your learning are close minded and that your truth is the absolute, sorry man trying to turn it round and pin "your right im wrong" on me as well , is specious).

when a philosopher understands the core of truth, they become mroe than just a philosopher, and see how philosophy IS truth, that it is the basis of creation itself.

You did it again....changing the rules to suit your arguement man....sorry it was entertaining for a while but your constant double standard is weak and not one of your points has had any support. Then you accuse anyone of not knowing what you do as being ignorant of the truth....come on get over your own ego.....I think im starting to agree with the individual who described you as a pseudo intellectual your redefining anything that doesnt fit your point (but only at that time) then turning it around the minute it doesnt suit your point. May I suggest joining the debate team.....You might learn something. It's called consistency

you present me with nothing to defend myself against :S what double standard?


in order for me to be consistant, you'll have to cram the universe into a box.


then we may debate freely.



you will see how no two things are not consistant as well. i cannot prove it in debate, only you can prove it in silence and lonliness-emptyness.

Dude now your trying nonsensical diatribe to support a philosophical position.....the universe doesnt need to be crammed anywhere all the terms your changing are already well defined.....you can only prove it in silence and loneliness and emptiness that doesnt even make sense.....Pick up just one book on Philosphy or debate please....Just one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

You don't understand my point: religion itself, independent of the people who practice it, is subversive.

The crusades were religious, the witch hunt was religious, Islamic terrorrism is religious, Jewish-Palestinian conflict is religious..

Wait a minute, did you say Hitler was not religiously motivated???? Are you from another planet? The core of Christian anti-semitism is that Christians believe Jews killed Jesus... If that's not religious, I don't know what is.

All the European monarchs? Ok, now I'm convinced you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The very concept of monarchy is intimately tied with religion. The Queen of England is still the head of the Church of England, in case you didn't know. All monarchs in Europe, some still to this day, represent God's will on Earth. That is at the core of European monarchy. Look it up.

You end by talking about hunters and gatherers fighting.... Sure they fought, and it probably wasn't in the name of religion. Now we have religion, and we're still fighting, just as hard, and probably even more cruelly. Is that progress to you? Even more senseless fighting on a huge scale, and that's how you defend religion?

YOU REPRESENT WHAT'S WRONG WITH RELIGION. You don't even think, you make no sense whatsoever, you don't use your supposedly God-given gift of REASON.

"Not their love of men but the impotence of their love of men keeps the Christians of today from--burning us."

"It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an author--and not learn it better."

"The devil has the broadest perspectives for God; therefore he keeps so far away from God--the devil being the most ancient friend of wisdom."

"Jesus said to his Jews: 'The law was for servants--love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!'"

"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degenrated--into a vice."

---

Sons of God know better!
God gave humans a set of codes to follow!
10 commandments, and instructions from Genesis to "tend and keep the garden!"

"Thow shall Not Murder/kill"
So any religion based on the old/new testements, has to reflect this law!
And they don't...so the religion is in error, or falsely referenced, and implimented!
The wars you lable as "religious" are infact errors!
Bad judgments, misconscrewed directions against the principle rules of the religion they claim they have adopted!

God is a game. If you believe in Him, you can play. If you don't, then stop playing.

There is nothing to debate.

The Bible is a set of instructions to the game. They will vary.

Id love to stop playing , but people keep trying to change laws that affect everyone based on "the game"(and the so called instructions) despite their contradictory nature....(and the fact that not everyone believes the same thing ;) ).

There's always something to debate when someone makes a positive assertion with nary a shred of evidence.....

(current drug laws are a prime example that even the simplest person on this site should be able to understand in an analogy for the above)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Les

Sons of God know better!
God gave humans a set of codes to follow!
10 commandments, and instructions from Genesis to "tend and keep the garden!"

"Thow shall Not Murder/kill"
So any religion based on the old/new testements, has to reflect this law!
And they don't...so the religion is in error, or falsely referenced, and implimented!
The wars you lable as "religious" are infact errors!
Bad judgments, misconscrewed directions against the principle rules of the religion they claim they have adopted!

---

:clap: :clap: :clap:

:stoned: :stoned: :stoned: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :stoned: :stoned: :stoned: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta:

i'd just like to know what weirdo's problem is :(

closed mindedness backed by inside-the-box logic in a fairly insulting manner :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Id love to stop playing , but people keep trying to change laws that affect everyone based on "the game"(and the so called instructions) despite their contradictory nature....(and the fact that not everyone believes the same thing ;) ).

There's always something to debate when someone makes a positive assertion with nary a shred of evidence.....

(current drug laws are a prime example that even the simplest person on this site should be able to understand in an analogy for the above)

---

Who's made a positive assertion? If you think someone is coming to save Mankind, raise your hand. If not, debate other's beliefs, because I have none.

I was speaking in general sorry Thong, wasnt directed directly at you I should have specified, my apologies.

And SSW I do like you , but unfortunately you just keep using buzzwords and your own definitions of clearly already defined words (or just making up your own) then claim we dont understand because were close minded? I'm sorry thats literally insane man.....It's not hostile its disgust that you keep saying "your truth" and that were basically too stupid to accept your view (which once again doesnt have a shred of evidence....). What did you expect people to agree with you automatically or not to poke holes in your illogical fallacies? I do it to my best friends with any situation (science does that to a person , you know critical thinking and such). The fact that you can't defend your particular beliefs and then change them and can't keep consistent only says to me you've got a lot to learn about the very subjects your claiming to know. (or that we dont know...). I'm sure your an incredibly interesting person , but you have to realize that quite literally to any other human being most of your points have no basis other than "you say so , so its so!" then you claim were making it out as an attack when we call you on it....come on.....with sicence is an illusion and garbage like that....no philospher does that. Read Plato and Socrates. Or even if you just want to learn how to communicate properly look at this forum http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php?
, you've gotta understand that WE can't understand what your saying unless you say it in a way ANY other human can understand. You can keep playing the victim all you wish though , im just calling you on your B.S. man thats all. Doesnt mean I wouldnt smoke a J with ya and discuss in person etc. I just seriously think your probably (stress probably) very young and havent learned the basics of philosphy (intro philosphy in university would be a must) or at least a rudimentary knowledge. It's not simply "I think therefore I am"......You can't apply rules to others and not follow them yourself and think people wont call you on it. They will. (others have at this site as well.....quite a few eloquent ones as well, although I will admit more insulting then my own).

There is some condescension I'll fully admit it, If you can't grasp the inherent fallacies in your own writing how could I expect myself to be all "nice and polite" the whole time when you basically retort that im the stupid one.....(because I just dont understand! cuz im thinking "inside the box".....drop the buzzwords and be plain....)

P.s. Logic is, there's no "inside the box" "outside the box" logic this is a classic example of you inventing a term which is meaningless...like polypotent.....Look up Empiricism. As to my problem? I enjoy a lively debate and don't like nonsensical ravings ;) claimed as truth. Dont think I think less of you as a human being though. I just feel sad you can't get your point across without making up things.....I'de love a proper debate with you.

Honestly if it makes you feel better you brought me out of my lurking (plus I missed sparring with Psycho) You were calling too many people stupid who were making excellent points.....

OF COURSE i cant defend my thoughts, views, and ideas from people like you! i cant cram the universe into your box!


like i said before, this is completely outside of the box thinking, and automatically defys all written laws and observations of thereof, it cancels out what you think you know about gravity, it destroys the laws behind english, and you can forget about political correctnes. all of these are inside the box thinking and are not permitted in the spiritual realm! you can debate and debase the spiritual all you want, backing it up with physical illusions, but no matter how hard you try to disprove the possibility of omnipotency by using a physical analogy, you just simply cant.


and i'd debate more inside the box with you, if i could be contained within the box...

given that i wasnt taught all your fancy terms and regulations for english, i dont see how it wil lever happen, and untill your linguistic laws make sence to me, i just cant help but see you as a raving retarded scient.


it's like you're trying to comprehend the incomprehensable by reducing or limiting the allowable words and sentences usable to discribe and explain it.

Lol ssw you didnt go to that site did you , Seriously if you could make yourself clear on that board I would buy it (what your selling "this is a metaphor I know your not selling anything") as they dont tolerate those that arent clear and seem to have the time to do so :). I"ve tried to tell you what I need and you just keep blaming my own logic (ie: critical thinking) for my inability to understand. Anything that needs to drop critical thinking to understand is inherently flawed.

And you still refuse to even read what im writing or try to understand it yourself what a beautiful twist. You have to make yourself understandable by others of your race to get a concept across (is this simple enough , it really doesnt get any simpler.....its why we can't more than rudimentarily communicate with animals....many have languages my friend)......

ok, no i didnt go to that site, in fact, i some how missed that :S im joining now.

im trying to understand what you're writing, if it appears i am not reading it, that is because i fail to comprehend your limitations, or "critical thinking".

Ok give yourself two days of trying to explain your "movement" over there and maybe you'll finally understand......dont post 10 mins later claiming "ive read it I still dont understand"......theres ALOT there.....