Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:35 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:19 pm Rather, just more fictional story for the archives. And the tower of babble just got more and more absurdly tall.
Okay. You've made your mind up. That means there's no more to say. You have free will, and you are exercising it in a way you wish to.

I wish better for you than you apparently wish for yourself. I hope you change your mind.

Bye.
Cop out. I wish better for you too, I wish you an escape route from the poison that you think is your own mind.

Truth is, God messed up his story, leaving that mess for his loyal christian servants to clean up, because they were seen as beneath him..
But 'it' may not be so much as a 'mess', but rather just a puzzle, to be solved, at the right or opportune time?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pmNotice there are only two jobs for humans to do here on earth. Make a mess, and clean up the mess. For how much longer do you think this filthy game is worth playing for...another forever?
But human beings four or so million years of existence is only a blink of the eye, relative to some.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pmIntelligent people can just stop procreating and bring the human being to extinction any time they like, when they have had enough of all the suffering and pain, but they won't because they still believe there is a reward coming to them, even though they die before any reward is seen.
Well those ones are obviously NOT really Truly intelligent people, correct?

Also, if the Truly intelligent people stopped procreating, the that obviously would NoT bring extinction to the human being. As, obviously, there would be plenty of "other" people making more human beings.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pm And we all know what happens when we die don't we, that's the time when the story runs out of ink...
But only to that one who "died". There is NO more new stories for that one, but their story helps in making up the FULL and True WHOLE Story.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:01 pmwhen there are no new chapters in the book, because there's no one to turn the page, and nothing to report, when all goes silent, still, and peaceful, and no more grappling and clinging on to the fall for dear life. Just a gentle letting go.

Home at last.

.
But if 'you' think or believe that thee Universe, Itself, stops, dies, or goes silent, then you are, sadly, mistaken.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:40 pm Okay, but you were wishing I would change my mind,
Of course. But I'm not going to force you to do it.
Then you said goodbye, as if you're own prefered choice was the right one.
If I didn't believe it was, why would I be wise to make it?
But here's my beef, if there is only one right choice here that is genuine and true, then what's the point in offering a wrong choice where there isn't one.
I'm not "offering" you the wrong choice; I'm offering the one I believe is "genuine and true."
But if your choice was actually genuine and true, then why can you not back up and support your choice with substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:45 pmYou're declining it. I'm respecting your decision.

So, to coin an old phrase, "Where's the beef?" :shock:
In your refusal to support your claims with proof.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 pm ... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
Define it.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:45 pm I'm not "offering" you the wrong choice; I'm offering the one I believe is "genuine and true." You're declining it. I'm respecting your decision.

So, to coin an old phrase, "Where's the beef?" :shock:
I'm declining the belief in God yes that is correct. I do not believe in the Man/God relationship. But I do not disrespect your decision to believe. And if your decision is the only genuine and true decision. And that the genuine and true decision is to live a life where sentient creatures suffer pain and torture, then so be it, but I just happen to think there is a way out when we use our intelligent free will and that way out is to extinct our way out.

I'm compassionate about things like that. I do not believe it is necessary, nor a great idea to create sentient suffering creatures to live lives over and over again.
How many lives do you think an individual sentient creature lives?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:02 pmIf this was my design, I would seriously start thinking about another plan, a better one.
Like 'what', EXACTLY?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:02 pm I would definitely think about going back to the drawing board, preferably with some sharper pencils.
And create 'what', a non feeling sentient being?

A reason 'you' KNOW what 'you' KNOW NOW is because 'you' are, literally, a feeling, sentient being.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:02 pmI would doubt my intelligence that's for sure, oh wait, the universe doesn't have a brain. The only thinking brain that we know of is inside the hominoids skull, now imagine leaving them at the controls. Was that a good move? is that the work of an intelligent designer?

.
But 'you', human beings, are NOT "at the controls". Although some of 'you' wish and believe you are.

'you', individually and collectively, are only a tiny part of ALL-THERE-IS.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:27 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:40 pm

“Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.”
- Blaise Pascal
No, it's a sign of a two way conversation with yourself. Don't you know.

The Tension Between Inner and Outer Self is what holds you ALL Together...
Some say it is the knowing and understanding, itself, between the delusioned 'selfs', and the REAL and True 'Self', which is what will pull 'us' ALL together, as One.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:27 pmelse you'd collapse into a loose pile of goo, puss, and blood, oh and in your case ..shit. I hope you are going to clean up after yourself, and not expect someone else to do your dirty work.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:23 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:45 pm I'm not "offering" you the wrong choice; I'm offering the one I believe is "genuine and true." You're declining it. I'm respecting your decision.

So, to coin an old phrase, "Where's the beef?" :shock:
I'm declining the belief in God yes that is correct. I do not believe in the Man/God relationship. But I do not disrespect your decision to believe. And if your decision is the only genuine and true decision.
Well, same, of course.
And that the genuine and true decision is to live a life where sentient creatures suffer pain...
That part is not a matter of choice, but of observation. The important question is not whether it happens that way, but what it means when it does.
What it means is that there is creatures with feelings existing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:23 pm
If this was my design, I would seriously start thinking about another plan,

I don't doubt that's true, that you would. But since nobody's asking us to do that, it's a moot point. What's important is "What does THIS plan mean?"
What this plan means is that there are feeling creatures, continually evolving intelligently, in order to learn how to live a Truly peaceful and harmonious life with each "other", here, in heaven.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:23 pmImagining away the evil and suffering we realize is around us doesn't actually speak to the problem at all: it just denies the problem even exists. :shock:
But what do ANY of 'you', human beings, perceive is 'the problem' here, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:23 pmAfter all, if all of what we think we are seeing is merely imaginary, then, as the movie caveat always says, "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." It's not real. It didn't happen as you think it did. So there is no "problem of evil," then.

Obviously, I disagree with that perspective. I think pain and suffering and evil are real, and are a justifiable concern. The darkness in this world demands an answer, and I think people are perfectly justified in wanting one.

No such answer is possible or available in an imaginary world. Unicorns don't suffer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:02 pm Some say...
Non-responsive. See below.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:35 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 pm ... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
Define it.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Dontaskme »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:43 pm
Walker to DAM wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:58 pm You're quite fortunate that he is a Christian, or he probably wouldn't give you time of day, and would give back as he gets ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Because THAT'S what CHRISTIAN'S do! Nobody else does that! He's SOOO righteous, he requires deception and deflection to maintain it in an online Philosophy forum. He is a self-serving game-player. I'm sure he appreciates you stroking and glorifying him on this stage as he likes to do for himself.
I'm sure IC can speak for himself too. He doesn't need the snake to do that for him. Thanks, and well said Lacy. :D

All religion is just a story, written and read and believed by no one. It's a conditioned indoctrination inoculated into ripe minds, especially children who's minds are like sponges soaking up everything and anything they are told, because they have no other reference point in which to compare it to or make distictions, they do not know any different, and so the believing brain develops a story according to it's memory which then sticks like rubber to the road.

As the child matures, it's believing brain cannot know what is real or unreal, even though it appears to make a distinction, in doing so it can only reflect back the data it is being fed from the external world. It sees the external world as it's own mirror. The mirror acts as a self referential feedback loop upon itself. But this natural process of self-reflection is a reflexive RE-action, within which is always a unity ACTuality.

In reality, no human being is born with a story. A story is just an artificial belief structure imposed within the brain and is used to make sense of it's environment.
Language became a tool, to help human activity advance forward in evolution, language is simply another processs evolution uses to propel itself forward. The story has about as much substance as water colour paint written upon flowing water. While the story is always in the immediate process of being written, the story is also dying in the exact same moment. So any identification with the story is always of past tense, which is a false identification with dead stuff. Only the immediate not-knowing present is alive , and the immediate presence is without story.

The human story is nothing more than a huge archive of conceptual baggage, made of dead stuff, namely memory, that is stored away for future reference, and this natural process is what seemingly gives continuity to a believed self in the ever non-knowing pure immediate present.



.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:33 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:02 pm Some say...
Non-responsive. See below.
It had nothing to do with you anyway. So, what do you mean by 'non-responsive' here?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:35 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 pm ... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
Define it.
Your words are out of order, and unclear, here.

What are you referring to, exactly?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:33 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:02 pm Some say...
Non-responsive. See below.
It had nothing to do with you anyway. So, what do you mean by 'non-responsive' here?
You didn't answer the question that really needs to be answered. You were non-responsive.

In reference to evidence for God, you complained about a lack of
Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:32 pm
... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
I said:
"Define it."
You won't, or can't. And you can't expect anything when you don't even know what you're asking for.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:33 pm
Non-responsive. See below.
It had nothing to do with you anyway. So, what do you mean by 'non-responsive' here?
You didn't answer the question that really needs to be answered. You were non-responsive.

In reference to evidence for God, you complained about a lack of
What are you talking about here?

When I wrote; 'Some say ...", then that was in response to what "dontaskme" said and wrote, TO "walker", and NOT to what you had said and written.

Also, I do NOT recall "complaining" about YOUR lack of evidence for God. Maybe you would like to link 'us', readers, to where I have, supposedly, "complained"?

Also, I ALREADY KNOW WHY you have absolutely NO evidence for God. So, there is NO need for me to "complain".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:32 pm
... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
I said:
"Define it."
You won't, or can't. And you can't expect anything when you don't even know what you're asking for.
As I said, you are NOT clear on what 'it' is that you are demanding/asking be defined.

You wrote, " Define 'it' ".

The word 'it' can be used to refer to a thing, which is PREFERABLY previously mentioned or easily identified.

You have provided an EXAMPLE of using the word 'it' INCORRECTLY.

If you put ANY word AFTER the 'define' word, then I can ' define 'it' ', just like I have PROVEN here.

You say that I "won't or can't", which is just ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of when one makes an ASSUMPTION, which is completely and utterly wrong.

You also say that I can not expect anything when I do not even know what I am asking for, which is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what 'you' just actually did here.

Maybe if you stop conflating what I said in reply to "dontaskme", then this will bring you back on track. And, if you actually pronounced the word that you ask/tell me to 'define', then I COULD and WOULD define 'it'. Is this understood, by 'you'?

I even asked you, What you were referring to EXACTLY? And you still could not tell me. So, if you do not even know what you are asking for, or can not even put 'it' into words, literally, then how do 'you' expect 'me' to "define it"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:32 pm
... substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof...
IC said:
"Define it."
You won't, or can't. And you can't expect anything when you don't even know what you're asking for.
As I said, you are NOT clear on what 'it' is that you are demanding/asking be defined.
I am asking you to define the thing you claimed is missing. What would "substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof" for the existence of God be, in your mind?

Define it: what will you accept?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:49 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:18 pm

IC said:


You won't, or can't. And you can't expect anything when you don't even know what you're asking for.
As I said, you are NOT clear on what 'it' is that you are demanding/asking be defined.
I am asking you to define the thing you claimed is missing.
But I NEVER claimed ANY thing is missing. You OBVIOUSLY just do NOT have the actual evidence nor proof for what you BELIEVE is "genuine and true".

You wrote;
I'm offering the one [the choice] I believe is "genuine and true."

I just asked you;
But if your choice was actually genuine and true, then why can you not back up and support your choice with substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof?

I am just asking you WHY you can NOT back up and support your choice, which you BELIEVE is "genuine and true"?

Obviously, if some 'thing' was ACTUALLY, and REALLY, 'genuine and true', then, as those two words imply, if 'it' was Truly 'genuine AND true', then 'it' would be a VERY simple and easy matter to just provide the ACTUAL substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof, for what is CLAIMED to be "genuine and true".

Or, do you see things differently here?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:49 pm What would "substantial and irrefutable evidence and proof" for the existence of God be, in your mind?
1. There is NO "your mind".

2. The ACTUAL evidence and proof would suffice for being 'substantial and irrefutable'.

Also, I ALREADY have the substantial AND irrefutable evidence AND proof for the existence of God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:49 pm Define it: what will you accept?
For 'WHAT"?

WHY does it appear SO HARD for you to just use the word that you are referring to here?

If you are referring to God, Itself, here, then just say God. But, anyway the ACTUAL evidence AND proof has ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED. See, I do NOT 'accept' ANY thing other than ACTUAL evidence and/or proof. 'I', unlike 'you', did NOT 'believe' some 'thing', and then go LOOKING FOR evidence and/or proof to back up and support an ALREADY HELD BELIEF. 'I' just REMAIN OPEN to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' how they ACTUALLY ARE.

I am just asking you if you KNOW WHY you are having so much trouble just providing the ACTUAL evidence and proof for what you CLAIM and BELIEVE is "genuine and true"?

By the way, I ALREADY KNOW WHY you are having so much trouble. I am just asking you questions to SEE if you KNOW WHY, also.

For your information, I ALREADY KNOW the answer to this question AS WELL. But considering the title of this thread, then I might as well just stay completely on track.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:49 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:40 pm

As I said, you are NOT clear on what 'it' is that you are demanding/asking be defined.
I am asking you to define the thing you claimed is missing.
But I NEVER claimed ANY thing is missing.
Well, we're done, then.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:23 pm
Age wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 3:49 pm
I am asking you to define the thing you claimed is missing.
But I NEVER claimed ANY thing is missing.
Well, we're done, then.
This is ANOTHER typical response of yours.

Anytime you are challenged on YOUR CLAIMS, instead of just replying to them, you just "run away", as some say.

I NEVER "claimed" ANY thing is missing. I was just SHOWING and HIGHLIGHTING the missing evidence and proof, which you can NOT provide.

Your continual resistance to just answer clarifying questions SHOWS and REVEALS what is ACTUALLY 'missing'.
Post Reply