Understanding the religious mindset

[gaffo]

your claimed IC was a liar and dishonest - so i called you out on it.

i find him as neither

That's not calling me out... that's disagreeing based on your opinion. Who cares? As I said, other people have acknowledged the same as I've said, so that's our experience whether you agree with it or not. Are you his keeper? Are you aware of everything he says and does?

dont play dumb - to do so is beneath you.

I'm not doing so. I was responding to the post you replied to. Don't BE so dumb as to imagine your limited view as more than it is.

you diissparaged IC - and now make your hole deeper intead of making a mea cupla and rising ubove it - but i 'm still calling you out i've been her efor 4 yrs and in no posts by IC have him sen as a liar - you claim he is


so either stand down and admit you are wrong - or clutch your pride/feeligns and claim the unteniable and dissparage him and me on the mattter - i'm calling you out and you have the choice - keep deeging to affirm you were wrong - here we see position of pride vs self actualization take on the matter (BTW - per pride you can double down and insult my spelling - might boost your pride a couple of notche while dimishing your character at the same time - its an options you can take though).



BTW i'm no "keeper" outside of me - but thanks for your concern.

[Age]

Im going to call you out here.

What are you calling me out on? What I said IC has claimed, he has. Other people have seen it, as well. Just because it's not your experience, or you don't notice it, does not invalidate that.

IC is the most honouralbe man on tis forum - so not sure where to come off insulting him - make you look bad.

That is your opinion - and makes you look gullible. It's absurd to elevate anyone to such heights. Such loyalty and praise reveals limited thinking.

your prior post.

Your fondness for him is screwing up your objectivity. I would love to have a perfectly reasonable conversation about Mannie's views, as I have attempted many times. But he runs away from questions that challenge the claims he makes, and he uses deception to twist and avoid accountability and honesty. Anyone who makes claims as he does... can be questioned! Anyone who claims to know atheists better than they know themselves... can be challenged. There are valid reasons that several people are noticing what he is doing. Stop treating him like a victim. He is responsible for what he says... and he could answer all of these people for himself if he had the integrity and courage to do so.

So, back to the question put to you: Why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

So you say IC is liar. your words.

he not - he is bigoted toward atheists - i'v seen from the first shwoing up her - but no liar.

Are you here suggesting that "immanuel can" has never told, or does not tell, lies?

BTW i'm not naive - in fact being an atheist - a persicuted class i've been since the age of 12 to kep my mouth shut and observe.

i see IC's characetrer is better than yours - since you know ic was not a liar but yer feeling hurt so make the false claim. ya he is a bigot per atheists - llike racits before, but that is there limitation - you limit yourself by making false claims against him - so just shut up or do a mea culpa and move on per the matter.

[Age]

your claimed IC was a liar and dishonest - so i called you out on it.

i find him as neither

That's not calling me out... that's disagreeing based on your opinion. Who cares? As I said, other people have acknowledged the same as I've said, so that's our experience whether you agree with it or not. Are you his keeper? Are you aware of everything he says and does?

dont play dumb - to do so is beneath you.

I'm not doing so. I was responding to the post you replied to. Don't BE so dumb as to imagine your limited view as more than it is.

you diissparaged IC - and now make your hole deeper intead of making a mea cupla and rising ubove it - but i 'm still calling you out i've been her efor 4 yrs and in no posts by IC have him sen as a liar - you claim he i

So, if "gaffo" has NOT YET observed some 'thing', then that 'thing' must not exist, correct?

so either stand down and admit you are wrong - or clutch your pride/feeligns and claim the unteniable and dissparage him and me on the mattter - i'm calling you out and you have the choice - keep deeging to affirm you were wrong - here we see position of pride vs self actualization take on the matter (BTW - per pride you can double down and insult my spelling - might boost your pride a couple of notche while dimishing your character at the same time - its an options you can take though).

[gaffo]

What are you calling me out on? What I said IC has claimed, he has. Other people have seen it, as well. Just because it's not your experience, or you don't notice it, does not invalidate that.


That is your opinion - and makes you look gullible. It's absurd to elevate anyone to such heights. Such loyalty and praise reveals limited thinking.

your prior post.

Your fondness for him is screwing up your objectivity. I would love to have a perfectly reasonable conversation about Mannie's views, as I have attempted many times. But he runs away from questions that challenge the claims he makes, and he uses deception to twist and avoid accountability and honesty. Anyone who makes claims as he does... can be questioned! Anyone who claims to know atheists better than they know themselves... can be challenged. There are valid reasons that several people are noticing what he is doing. Stop treating him like a victim. He is responsible for what he says... and he could answer all of these people for himself if he had the integrity and courage to do so.

So, back to the question put to you: Why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

So you say IC is liar. your words.

he not - he is bigoted toward atheists - i'v seen from the first shwoing up her - but no liar.

Are you here suggesting that "immanuel can" has never told, or does not tell, lies?

BTW i'm not naive - in fact being an atheist - a persicuted class i've been since the age of 12 to kep my mouth shut and observe.

i see IC's characetrer is better than yours - since you know ic was not a liar but yer feeling hurt so make the false claim. ya he is a bigot per atheists - llike racits before, but that is there limitation - you limit yourself by making false claims against him - so just shut up or do a mea culpa and move on per the matter.

yep - AFIAK he has not lie lied to me - nor have have i seen lie in posts i've read.

IF you can show post where he has lied i'm objective adn willing to se them.

thanks to post to me BTW.

[gaffo]

So, if "gaffo" has NOT YET observed some 'thing', then that 'thing' must not exist, correct?

um, no that is a distiction without a difference - observing or not is irrelivent per reality.

as Solipist all i know is "i am" noting more.

observing something via my "eyes" - whatever they are - textbooks say that they are spherical organs with lenses - but the books and spheres and the lens are all mental constructs of my "mind" - so probably no more "real" than the unobservabible.

so ya? i guess? or not? whatever.

carry on.

[Lacewing]

here we see position of pride vs self actualization take on the matter

No, here we see different experiences. Why would I deny what I have experienced?

[Age]

your prior post.

Your fondness for him is screwing up your objectivity. I would love to have a perfectly reasonable conversation about Mannie's views, as I have attempted many times. But he runs away from questions that challenge the claims he makes, and he uses deception to twist and avoid accountability and honesty. Anyone who makes claims as he does... can be questioned! Anyone who claims to know atheists better than they know themselves... can be challenged. There are valid reasons that several people are noticing what he is doing. Stop treating him like a victim. He is responsible for what he says... and he could answer all of these people for himself if he had the integrity and courage to do so.

So, back to the question put to you: Why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

So you say IC is liar. your words.

he not - he is bigoted toward atheists - i'v seen from the first shwoing up her - but no liar.

Are you here suggesting that "immanuel can" has never told, or does not tell, lies?

BTW i'm not naive - in fact being an atheist - a persicuted class i've been since the age of 12 to kep my mouth shut and observe.

i see IC's characetrer is better than yours - since you know ic was not a liar but yer feeling hurt so make the false claim. ya he is a bigot per atheists - llike racits before, but that is there limitation - you limit yourself by making false claims against him - so just shut up or do a mea culpa and move on per the matter.

yep - AFIAK he has not lie lied to me - nor have have i seen lie in posts i've read.

IF you can show post where he has lied i'm objective adn willing to se them.

thanks to post to me BTW.

I think you have misread or misunderstood my question.

[Walker]

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

I don't know about you, Lacewing, but this thread is getting exhausting.
_______

It’s an interesting and repeatable phenomenon how fine examples of extraordinary lucidity can either energize or drain energy according to conditions of ohm impedance. A clean conduit for knowledge is like gold for it only minutely impedes transmission of energy. A less pure conduit has a greater ohm impedance, but even a tree will conduct lightning, although out of self-preservation ego devises clever lightning rods to divert understanding that could blow the bark off, which leads to the obvious question:

Is the religious mindset an inherent patch self-generated to replace the blown-off bark of ego control? Or, must it be injected by faith.

[Sculptor]

[
The so-called "civilised" expansion into pre-agricultural societies has been a disaster for morality. From what little was left when the "civilised" people decided to record the diminishing cultures, we learn of peoples who were generally well behaved beyond the dreams of organised religion's so-called "Ethics".

I suspect you are talking abotu the Americas - but FYI - the American Indians had agriculture since about 10,000 yrs ago

Wrong. Not until 4000 years ago

- when the Europenas arrived the indians ad Corn, Squash and Tobacco - in fac tthe latter was cultivized so long ago that its wild form is no longer existant!

The Americas. Australia, many parts of Africa. But you only have to go back to 12kbp anywhere in the world to find no agriculture.

-all the world agricuturalized around the same time.

False.

It did not reach Britain until 6kbp. But strated in the Levant 11kbp that is 5000 years difference. And there are still remote places where Hunting anf Gathering is still the main subsistence.
I did this at degree level, your facts are wrong and easily verified by the Internet

[Sculptor]

[
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Ethics is a univeral nature of man - it dates to 2-million BC - and so long before Christianity or any of the other known religons of the world..

Formal ethics would imply a branch of study and reflection. I do not think 2 million years can be offered as a date for that since no evidence could exist for ethics at that time.
A moral sense is present on all mammals to different degrees.
We definitely witness moral behaviours in our house pets, and simians, whales, elephants - and whole host of other animals, even some birds and reptiles.
One thing is for sure, Christianity is not necessary.

[attofishpi]

[
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Ethics is a univeral nature of man - it dates to 2-million BC - and so long before Christianity or any of the other known religons of the world..

Formal ethics would imply a branch of study and reflection. I do not think 2 million years can be offered as a date for that since no evidence could exist for ethics at that time.
A moral sense is present on all mammals to different degrees.
We definitely witness moral behaviours in our house pets, and simians, whales, elephants - and whole host of other animals, even some birds and reptiles.
One thing is for sure, Christianity is not necessary.

He's got a good point. Mammals show immense capacity to kill with minimal suffering.

Quest_ion is, is that due to an intelligence of higher empathy or just natural behavior....ps..uva causality?

[Immanuel Can]

no next topic - only wished to discuss Ben.

Okay. Sorry you're unhappy. I don't know anything about "Ben", and since you offer no reason to incline me to think I would wish to invest the considerable time required to bring myself up anywhere close to up to speed on that, I think I'm the wrong conversation partner for you on that one. Perhaps somebody else knows something about "Ben," and can offer you what you want. I trust so.

No next topic: okay, that's your call. Conversation is always optional. Thanks for your time.

[henry quirk]

blah, blah, blah

Okay, I can't even read any more of your one-sided limited-ass crap right now. You're like a backed-up toilet that just keeps gurgling.

192F7C61-7C1F-4B4A-B3A8-AB499E8ED9C2.png (27.98 KiB) Viewed 1573 times

[henry quirk]

Henry - i do like you BTW, i think you know that - hurt that you say i'm crasy last yr beign a liberal libeertarian (I guess that concept is impssible to you - if you'd like to talk about libertarianism I'm all gam ) - anyway i'm over my mad - been a year or so.

[seeds]

[......]

interesting...

...you might be right - not sure - don;t know Emanual enough to be far to him - but you may be.

good post BTW.

Thank you, though I'm sure that Immanuel Can would strongly disagree with you.
_______