woke

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:55 am I guess if I want to avoid collectivist ways I'll need to not vote anymore. I'm sure only collectivists participate in the voting process.
Not at all. You can be an individual and vote.

But vote as an individual, for the candidates and parties that actually have the policies you regard as best. Vote for those that maximize opportunity and don't overreach. Vote for those with sane economic policies, good character, and a track record of success. Don't vote for a candidate just because he's red or blue.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: woke

Post by iambiguous »

ME:
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 6:48 am Right. The MAGA crowd could not possibly be more diverse in their opinions. I mean look at the Trump rallies. Bitter factional fights are breaking out in the audience all the time.

But even if there were, they're not "woke" because only the liberals can be that. Only liberals compel others to agree with them or else. The conservatives never do that in regard to their own convictions.
Nobody says that. (Not that MAGA is a group, but never mind: we can let the Leftist trope go unchallenged here.)

But there's all the difference in the world between beliefs freely chosen and those compelled.
Right, of course. The Republican conservatives, rugged individualists all, just happen to nod vigorously, in unison, to practically everything that Trump says. While the Democratic liberals, mindless sheep all, are programmed to nod vigorously, in unison, to everything that Biden says because it's all plotted out beforehand in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor in Washington D.C.
But even if there were, they're not "woke" because only the liberals can be that. Only liberals compel others to agree with them or else. The conservatives never do that in regard to their own convictions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amThat seems to be how it works.
Uh, in your head, for example?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amIf you disagree with a Leftist, you have your business burned, your children harassed, your reputation destroyed, your social media feeds cut, your character assassinated, your head punched...

If you disagree with a conservative, you get disagreed with.
Okay, note for us just the top five instances of this that pop into your pinhead. And the right-wing extremists never, ever resort to that sort of thing. Like, for example, when Antifa tried to take over the Capitol Building and went gunning for, among others, Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. And then had the gall to blame on the MAGA fanatics!!
The things you won't do to keep from admitting even to yourself what you profess to believe!!

Or are you now telling us that if the henry quirks of the world are told by you, quoting directly from the Christian Bible...

"John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

...that they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior to be judged worthy of immortality and salvation in Heaven, they can simply refuse to and face no consequences?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amThere is no such thing as a decision with no consequences. Only Leftists seem to think there ought to be.
So, when others here make the decision not to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior, the consequences are eternal damnation. In Hell. And what exactly does that have to do with Leftists?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amBut you are still not a Christian. So clearly, nobody's forcing you or compelling you. And mention of eternal damnation itself fails to move you. So for now, you're just fine...as free as a bird...nothing is compelling you to anything.
Well, if the Christian God does exist, He gave me a brain and the capacity to use it. I have introspected deeply for years and years about God and religion. And in all honesty and in all sincerity, I cannot believe that He does exist. Here and now. Not without evidence that He and not one of the zillions of other Gods does.

But there you and your declamatory ilk are boasting of how the Christian God gives us a choice to somehow just "believe" in Him with no evidence other then your videos and quotes from the Bible...or face utter agony in Hell for all the rest of eternity.

The same thing so many others on their own declamatory One True Paths are telling us.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amBut every decision comes with consequences. And I guess we'll both see if that's true or not.
In other words, if I don't "wake up" and "see the light".

Yours though, not henry's. At least in regard to the other side of the grave.
HIM:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:28 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amBut you are still not a Christian. So clearly, nobody's forcing you or compelling you. And mention of eternal damnation itself fails to move you. So for now, you're just fine...as free as a bird...nothing is compelling you to anything.
Well, if the Christian God does exist, He gave me a brain and the capacity to use it.
Quite so.
I have introspected deeply for years and years about God and religion.
Maybe "intro-spection" is looking in the wrong direction. Have you ever considered that?

If it were the right direction you were looking, don't you think you'd have found something? You'd either find evidence God exists, or evidence He doesn't. But you say you have no evidence.

So maybe you should look a different direction. Maybe you should have a look at those videos, as a starting point.

Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: woke

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:20 am
commonsense wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:56 pm
There's no such organization. I named a bunch of organizations specifically. Can't you?
Oh, there’s a difference between a group with like ideas and a group with like ideas and an organizational constitution?
There's no such thing as "the religious right." That's a collectivist bogeyman made up of cobbling together every "religious" person they don't like.

But if you think otherwise, please give me it's head office, its membership card, its union, its media outlet, its last public demonstration or riot, its political arm, the name of the organization one has to join, or what institutions this bogeyman controls...

Hey, I've done that for you...why can't you do it for me, if the Right is such a clear and present danger as the Left wants us to think?
As is often the case, I don’t want to agree with you. But at this time I must say you’ve made cogent points, as is often the case, and I must agree with you.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: woke

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:55 am I guess if I want to avoid collectivist ways I'll need to not vote anymore. I'm sure only collectivists participate in the voting process.
Not at all. You can be an individual and vote.

But vote as an individual, for the candidates and parties that actually have the policies you regard as best. Vote for those that maximize opportunity and don't overreach. Vote for those with sane economic policies, good character, and a track record of success. Don't vote for a candidate just because he's red or blue.
Yes. We all vote for what we regard as best. But voting supposes a collective response to issues in society. Is that a bad thing? You seem to repeatedly drift from "I'm ok with some degree of social programs" back over to the idea that social programs are "socialist" and that "socialism/collectivism" is the epitome of evil in our time.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:17 am As is often the case, I don’t want to agree with you. But at this time I must say you’ve made cogent points, as is often the case, and I must agree with you.
Well, I must say that's darn decent of you. I'm impressed.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:25 am Yes. We all vote for what we regard as best.
I'm not at all sure that's evident from the current political landscape. We have had men in power who (without mentioning parties or countries) are naive, foolish, demented, ideologically-possessed, selfish and even sexually predacious. And somebody voted for them.
But voting supposes a collective response to issues in society.

Not really. It presupposes that the majority should make the decision about who is in power for a given time. That's all. Nobody needs to join a "collective" or conceive themselves as belonging to one, in order simply to vote.
You seem to repeatedly drift from "I'm ok with some degree of social programs" back over to the idea that social programs are "socialist" and that "socialism/collectivism" is the epitome of evil in our time.
There's a difference between Socialism, the ideology, and a "social program," Gary. One can be fine with, say, a employment insurance, or a charitable fund for the mentally ill, without thereby becoming a Socialist. That can be just charity, community effort, or good use of resources, and can be launched at the local, city or regional level, when necessary. If people want it, it can happen. Heck, even traditional societies like the Mennonites or the Amish practice that sort of community support.

But that's unrelated to the ideology of Socialism (notice the "ism" which marks a totalizing belief system). Socialism is a much more aggressive and ambitious ideology. And it's that that I oppose, for many reasons.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: woke

Post by Gary Childress »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
From the sounds of it he's read the Bible. And apparently, we've been reading books that won't get us anywhere wonderful in life.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:15 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:10 pm I'm left wing. Do you consider me a wokie?
Not necessarily. You could be something like an old-style Marxist, or you could just be unaware of the connection between Leftism and wokism. I can't say what you are. You'd have to tell us.

But if you were a wokie, you would, for sure, be on the Left.
Does everyone have to fit into one of your stupid boxes?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: woke

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
Thought-provoking is fairly rare, I think. It does happen. Sometimes someone will come at an issue from an angle I haven't encountered - thought-provoking meaning here something that provokes new thoughts in me directly due to its for-me-novel-nature. Usually what you get in most online forums is the rehashing of memes and viewpoints/attitudes that are 'out there' (in some way making things the way they are) and also find inside ourselves. I mean, most of us, regardless of our beliefs, if we've grown up in much of the West cannot have avoided taking in something like the Christian idea of sin. Even if we don't believe in God or are Buddhists, etc. So, we can in encountering an IC deal with those kinds of memes, that kind of attitude, in a kind of slow motion. What happens if I say _____________? Can such an attitude actually respond to point _______________?

Can I reduce the influence in myself of meme 234 by a slow motion encounter with an advocate?
What is the psychology of an advocate of viewpoint 35B?

I envy you in a way if you actually simply find it entertaining. I mean, wow. Not being annoyed or triggered at least part of the time by people whose idea - I am assuming in this case - bother you and have a great deal of power 'out there' and possibly 'in there' also (for you).
On the other hand I think it's missing out on the possibilities of what one can gain from dealing with someone (who, yes, is not fully capable of responding to what people actually say and who, likely without realizing it, makes assumptions and leaps and leaves glaring lacunae in 'responses') here in old PN.

For entertainment alone, well, perhaps playing an online chess computer or even earning some money while being entertained in an online poker site. But, to each his own.

Just adding a third option for consideration.

Can one reduce, if only locally, the effects of viewpoint 35B or meme 234, and also what is really going on in the carriers of these things? The latter not scientific, but still I think we can learn a lot about at least how and why individuals align with, take on, get used by, seek to be contagious with their now favorite ideas. And what allows them to hold them in place when faced with opposition of various kinds.

But if you really want thought provoking, you're probably not in the right place. At least percentage wise.

There are a couple of ways of taking someone seriously. I don't take IC seriously in at least one of the main ways one does this. But attitude/memes riding him, well...that's having real affects out there though their nearly all gone, in here.

I use ridden (riding) in the anthropological sense....
The term ‘possession’ has been applied to Africa, the African diaspora (especially Brazil and the Caribbean), the Middle East, the Pacific, and sometimes South and Southeast Asia in contexts in which humans are said to be temporarily displaced, inhabited or ridden by particular spirits.
Criticizing the functionalistic approach that focuses on the functions of the practice for the medium or the society, she pushes for an understanding of spirit possession as a collaboration of the possessing agents and the possessed. Other scholars argue that the metaphor of
‘being ridden as a horse’ does not acknowledge sufficiently the agency of the medium by putting too much emphasis on the possessing entity. Roberto Motta, for instance, argues that mediums are not transformed to helpless victims but remain vital for the body trance, as he describes mediumship (Motta 2005). Supporting Motta’s argument Mark Münzel compares mediumship with the performance of a dressage horse which the rider guides through the elegant and difficult routine: without the rider the horse would not accomplish its complex task as well as vice versa, without the horse the rider could not carry on
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:07 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:04 pm I see people on the left who are vitally concerned about serious problems our whole world faces and doing some crazy stuff in the face of some crazy policies. I can't say I blame some of them too much.
There are problems with that.

One is that, given a complex system, your chances of creating a worse situation rather than a better one, if you meddle with it, is astronomically high. So you have to have the best possible information, the purest data, the clearest motives, and all the right help if you want to safely "improve" society on the large scale, or an economy, or a complex set of institutions. Good wishes are not only not enough, they are incentives to meddle where one has limited or no competence...and thus to harm, not help people.

The second problem is that being "vitally concerned" about "serious problems" is not a qualification of efficiency or competence. One can have both, and be the absolute worst at making things better. And being driven by something like Socialist ideology is the absolute worst -- it's proved to be utterly incompetent in relation to every society where it has been allowed to run free. It does nothing but tyrannize and kill people, while collapsing economies and making every possible institution inefficient. So that direction is the fast road to Hell.
If the right started going around terrorizing people for what are largely personal goals,
What, in their beliefs, would ever induce them to do that? I can't see why a classical liberal or centrist conservative would ever have any reason at all to attempt that. They just want everybody to have the freedom to succeed or fail on their own two feet, and they don't look to any collectivist plans.
Here we have YET AGAIN another one who BELIEVES its OWN definition for a 'label', which it has "SEPARATED" a group of human beings and placed them into, or under that label, and BELIEVES that absolutely EVERY one within THAT group thinks and/or behaves the EXACT SAME WAY.

Which, absolutely laughably, is EXACTLY what it ACCUSES "others", on the OTHER "side", of doing.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:15 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:10 pm I'm left wing. Do you consider me a wokie?
Not necessarily. You could be something like an old-style Marxist, or you could just be unaware of the connection between Leftism and wokism. I can't say what you are. You'd have to tell us.

But if you were a wokie, you would, for sure, be on the Left.
LOL
LOL
LOL

And ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of PURE CLOSEDNESS and BLINDNESS.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:14 am So everyone on the left is a "neo-marxist"?
Not necessarily. Some people are just knee-jerk collectivists, who have no particular grasp of Socialism or its history. Some are just folks who want freebies, and think a benevolent big government would be likely to give them to them. It depends. Not everybody is a philosopher: some never stop to think why they believe what they believe, or whose ideology they might be channelling. They don't know.
LOL

'you' do KNOW that 'you' are talking about 'you' here "immanuel can", right?

'you' have NEVER STOPPED to consider WHY 'you' BELIEVE the ABSOLUTE NONSENSE and UTTER LIES that 'you' do BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:18 am But all Neo-Marxists are Lefties, and Socialists.
Here is ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how CLOSED some people REALLY WERE, back in the days when this WAS being written.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:52 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:38 am Should I stop advocating for the governments of the world to address environmental issues?
The environment is a great example of a complex system that one should be careful not to monkey with. The stakes are too high.

But let's start with this: which government can you identify as having taken rational steps, and thus changed the global climate situation?
Should I shun peace demonstrators and wave picket signs that say "support our troops?"
It would depend on the war, wouldn't it?
LOL So here we have a so-called "christian" who BELIEVES that it could "justify" some wars, and thus the KILLING of some human beings.

And who here would be wrong in thinking that this so-called "christian" BELIEVES that it is Right and GOOD to KILL DEAD some human beings who are labeled "muslims"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:52 am I'm sure you wouldn't want to be opposed to people resisting a Hitler or a Stalin, would you?
LOL But WARS NEVER have to be created NOR caused to just be resisting the thinking or ideas of some human beings.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:52 am
What can I do to avoid this connection with evil neo-Marxism?
Avoid Socialism.
So, here we have this one suggesting that human beings AVOID the VERY STRUCTURE of their VERY SURVIVAL. That is, human beings are a SOCIAL animal AND creature.

'you', "immanuel can", would NOT last a week if 'trying to' AVOID being a Social animal. 'you' would have DIED a long time ago' if it was NOT for living in a Social society, nor Social system.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:52 am That's a good start. Don't ever trust big government, anymore than you would trust big business. Support freedom, opportunity, personal rights, and personal responsibilities. Don't think in collectivist ways, or vote by collectivist values.
LOL Sounds like a GROUP THINK, and thus just ANOTHER COLLECTIVIST VIEWPOINT. That is; "Don't do this". "Support this". "Avoid this". Don't think this way. Think this way".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:52 am How's that for a start?
Just about as HYPOCRITICAL and as SELF-CONTRADICTORY as it could get.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:55 am I guess if I want to avoid collectivist ways I'll need to not vote anymore. I'm sure only collectivists participate in the voting process.
Not at all. You can be an individual and vote.

But vote as an individual, for the candidates and parties that actually have the policies you regard as best.
AND, the ONLY 'best' one EVERY one SHOULD VOTE FOR is the 'one' that "immanuel can" AGREES WITH and ALIGNS WITH, correct "immanuel can"?

BECAUSE if ANY one voted for the OTHER "side", then they WOULD BE a "leftist", "wokie", and/or a "neo marxist".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am Vote for those that maximize opportunity and don't overreach. Vote for those with sane economic policies, good character, and a track record of success.
Well LOL that is NONE of the pre-existing ones for the last 2022 years, at least, and that is FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am Don't vote for a candidate just because he's red or blue.
I would suggest NOT even being BLIND and thinking or BELIEVING that there is an ACTUAL 'red' OR a 'blue'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am ME:
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 am
Nobody says that. (Not that MAGA is a group, but never mind: we can let the Leftist trope go unchallenged here.)

But there's all the difference in the world between beliefs freely chosen and those compelled.
Right, of course. The Republican conservatives, rugged individualists all, just happen to nod vigorously, in unison, to practically everything that Trump says. While the Democratic liberals, mindless sheep all, are programmed to nod vigorously, in unison, to everything that Biden says because it's all plotted out beforehand in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor in Washington D.C.
But even if there were, they're not "woke" because only the liberals can be that. Only liberals compel others to agree with them or else. The conservatives never do that in regard to their own convictions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amThat seems to be how it works.
Uh, in your head, for example?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amIf you disagree with a Leftist, you have your business burned, your children harassed, your reputation destroyed, your social media feeds cut, your character assassinated, your head punched...

If you disagree with a conservative, you get disagreed with.
Okay, note for us just the top five instances of this that pop into your pinhead. And the ring-wing extremists never, ever resort to that sort of thing. Like, for example, when Antifa tried to take over the Capital Building and went gunning for, among others, Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. And then had the gall to blame on the MAGA fanatics!!
The things you won't do to keep from admitting even to yourself what you profess to believe!!

Or are you now telling us that if the henry quirks of the world are told by you, quoting directly from the Christian Bible...

"John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

...that they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior to be judged worthy of immortality and salvation in Heaven, they can simply refuse to and face no consequences?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amThere is no such thing as a decision with no consequences. Only Leftists seem to think there ought to be.
So, when others here make the decision not to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior, the consequences are eternal damnation. In Hell. And what exactly does that have to do with Leftists?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amBut you are still not a Christian. So clearly, nobody's forcing you or compelling you. And mention of eternal damnation itself fails to move you. So for now, you're just fine...as free as a bird...nothing is compelling you to anything.
Well, if the Christian God does exist, He gave me a brain and the capacity to use it. I have introspected deeply for years and years about God and religion. And in all honesty and in all sincerity, I cannot believe that He does exist. Here and now. Not without evidence that He and not one of the zillions of other Gods does.

But there you and your declamatory ilk are boasting of how the Christian God gives us a choice to somehow just "believe" in Him with no evidence other then your videos and quotes from the Bible...or face utter agony in Hell for all the rest of eternity.

The same thing so many others on their own declamatory One True Paths are telling us.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:16 amBut every decision comes with consequences. And I guess we'll both see if that's true or not.
In other words, if I don't "wake up" and "see the light".

Yours though, not henry's. At least in regard to the other side of the grave.
HIM:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:28 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm
Well, if the Christian God does exist, He gave me a brain and the capacity to use it.
Quite so.
I have introspected deeply for years and years about God and religion.
Maybe "intro-spection" is looking in the wrong direction. Have you ever considered that?

If it were the right direction you were looking, don't you think you'd have found something? You'd either find evidence God exists, or evidence He doesn't. But you say you have no evidence.

So maybe you should look a different direction. Maybe you should have a look at those videos, as a starting point.

Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?


ABSOLUTELY NO one could, ACTUALLY and LOGICALLY.

"immanuel can" is SO BLIND and SO CLOSED 'it' STILL ACTUALLY BELIEVES that some 'thing' Created the WHOLE Universe, and that this 'thing' is, LAUGHABLY, 'male gendered', which, VERY CONVENIENTLY is what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. Which is; literally, anthropomorphism in the HIGHEST DEGREE.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
God exits.

But although that is a challenging and thought-provoking point of view, "immanuel can" is FURTHER AWAY than most people here of KNOWING, EXACTLY, HOW God exists.
Post Reply