Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

What people claim they stand for, compared to what they're prepared to stand for.

Courage.jpg (39.5 KiB) Viewed 354 times

[Gary Childress]

What people claim they stand for, compared to what they're prepared to stand for.



Courage.jpg

Can you do "Christianity" / "Christianity - Immanuel Can"?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

You read nothing and you’ve read nothing.

You seem to have read plenty, and just look at how that turned out.

I can't recollect very well but I vaguely recall there being a well-known philosopher who once said that he was better for not having read what anyone else wrote.

[attofishpi]

----copious amounts of waffle for atto to bother with----

Here are the critiques I answered in full, all you now need to do Jacobi is address them...ALL

I see you are one of the cowards on the forum that refused to commit to discuss the errors that I pointed out in your statements, preferring instead to snip the bits you feel comfortable with, and then spew copious amounts of waffle at me.

No matter. I've got better things to do for now than even speed read it.


Oh, and who is this genius of communication, a private message PM? I did a search, no post in the public arena.
Whoever the PM coward is, someone should point out how to spell “communicating”..

"It is unlikely that you will make much progress in comminicating with Attofishpi. Are you nuts?!? Why are you even trying, sucker?"

[He always speaks this directly. I've got used to it].

OK EDIT:- RE Above...I just gave one of your posts to me a bit more than a speed read - ok LOL.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No matter. I've got better things to do for now than even speed read it.

Note that I did make it pretty plain that offering my comments would not turn out well. But in defense of my own effort I think I did a nice job.

Now, I am also curious in what I perceive as *close-mindedness*. The refusal to even hear critique. I do not so much mean about your response, but more about the way that people often 'refuse to hear' what rubs them the wrong way. I am interested impersonally in these issues. Not personally.

Hold on ... Incoming ...

I have just been told how exceedingly wonderful I am! OK, I knew that but heck the affirmation is also nice.

Whoever the PM coward is, someone should point out how to spell “communicating”...

I don't think E.T. could spell well, either. I will relay your message through the ethers ....

[attofishpi]

No matter. I've got better things to do for now than even speed read it.

Note that I did make it pretty plain that offering my comments would not turn out well. But in defense of my own effort I think I did a nice job.

Now, I am also curious in what I perceive as *close-mindedness*. The refusal to even hear critique. I do not so much mean about your response, but more about the way that people often 'refuse to hear' what rubs them the wrong way. I am interested impersonally in these issues. Not personally.

Hold on ... Incoming ...

I have just been told how exceedingly wonderful I am! OK, I knew that but heck the affirmation is also nice.

Whoever the PM coward is, someone should point out how to spell “communicating”...

I don't think E.T. could spell well, either. I will relay your message through the ethers ....

I'm sorry Jacobi - just having a coffee and a read on my TV about what you posted. I do get my back up rather easily, in recent years since the forum has brought in many atheists that lack the intelligence of the academic atheists (many of whom have left the forum) - those guys I could get along with...these days I'm jaded and vexed!

[Alexis Jacobi]

No worries at all, Atto.

[Dubious]

I'm sorry Jacobi - just having a coffee and a read on my TV about what you posted. I do get my back up rather easily, in recent years since the forum has brought in many atheists that lack the intelligence of the academic atheists (many of whom have left the forum) - those guys I could get along with...these days I'm jaded and vexed!

Forgive my ignorance but what makes an academic atheist different from one who sees no reason, logically or historically, to believe in a higher being? What I don't get is how the word or meaning of "academic" conjoins to atheist or atheism which is simply a response to a lack of evidence which in itself is not absolute proof that such an entity doesn't exist.

[attofishpi]

I'm sorry Jacobi - just having a coffee and a read on my TV about what you posted. I do get my back up rather easily, in recent years since the forum has brought in many atheists that lack the intelligence of the academic atheists (many of whom have left the forum) - those guys I could get along with...these days I'm jaded and vexed!

Forgive my ignorance but what makes an academic atheist different from one who sees no reason, logically or historically, to believe in a higher being? What I don't get is how the word or meaning of "academic" conjoins to atheist or atheism which is simply a response to a lack of evidence which in itself is not absolute proof that such an entity doesn't exist.

Simply put. The dumb atheists are a pain in the arse to deal with, for one thing they immediately consider themselves more intelligent than theists, and even more importantly from my position (one claiming to have knowledge that God does exist), they think I am fucking stupid and fail to have an open mind to other considerations of WHAT\HOW scientifically a God could plausibly exist...ya know beyond thinking of a man floating in space with a big white beard that spoke everything into existence.

Not that you would be concerned, but I have you in the intelligent atheist camp.

[Dubious]

Simply put. The dumb atheists are a pain in the arse to deal with, for one thing they immediately consider themselves more intelligent than theists, and even more importantly from my position (one claiming to have knowledge that God does exist), they think I am fucking stupid and fail to have an open mind to other considerations of WHAT\HOW scientifically a God could plausibly exist...ya know beyond thinking of a man floating in space with a big white beard that spoke everything into existence.

I can understand that. What I find ignorant to the point of stupid, be it atheist or theist, are the "proof" demanders where any such requirement becomes an impossibility. Atheists and theists measure the probability of god's existence, or some kind of creating force, in different ways as fits their perspectives on the world. We are all DNA derivatives but the memes by which people think can be very different leading to completely opposing views of which this site is merely a microcosm.

Not that you would be concerned, but I have you in the intelligent atheist camp.

Well, so far so good, at least for now!

What I'm thoroughly atheistic about is the usual rendering of god in purely biblical terms as if we can't think of god in any other way or give it an endorsement completely separate from its Hebraic representations...but that's a separate subject where god becomes a metaphysical abstraction though never wholly removed from physics.

[Dontaskme]

Simply put. The dumb atheists are a pain in the arse to deal with, for one thing they immediately consider themselves more intelligent than theists, and even more importantly from my position (one claiming to have knowledge that God does exist), they think I am fucking stupid and fail to have an open mind to other considerations of WHAT\HOW scientifically a God could plausibly exist...ya know beyond thinking of a man floating in space with a big white beard that spoke everything into existence.

Not that you would be concerned, but I have you in the intelligent atheist camp.

''God'' is just another word for ''Knowledge'', it's really that simple. And without knowledge, there's just simple existence without a description, in other words, there's just a blank mysterious nothingness existing, which is impossible as something absolutely does exist, even though it cannot be known what exists, except as imagined, in this CONCEPTION... (the forming or devising of a plan or idea)
What is an idea Atto?> I've no idea..do you get this?

That's all you have to know, this is not complicated or difficult, and it doesn't even need the application of theoretical story to prove it's existence, it simply is something without doubt or error.

This is all you need to know, and can be known, tbh.
''The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.''

Any description about existence and reality, is also it, as a dream only, including the claim that life is intelligent. All beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, existence and life, are equally valid, because all conceptual knowledge about life, beingness, existence and reality etc, etc, has come from the exact same place, aka the ( thought mechanism ) appearing as many different narratives, but ultimately sourced from the same one place, the source of all knowledge, is the thought realm, we all share and dip our knowledge from this endless ink well.

The exact same place for all of us thinking beings, is source, namely, here now, nowhere. Rendering all knowledge originated from simple sound, heard as words and ideas, that have as much realness to them as watercolour paint is inscribed upon a flowing river.

[attofishpi]

''God'' is just another word for ''Knowledge'', it's really that simple.

Well. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Dontaskme]

''God'' is just another word for ''Knowledge'', it's really that simple.

Well. Thanks for clearing that up.

That's my job.

Make a mess, clean the mess.

[attofishpi]

Simply put. The dumb atheists are a pain in the arse to deal with, for one thing they immediately consider themselves more intelligent than theists, and even more importantly from my position (one claiming to have knowledge that God does exist), they think I am fucking stupid and fail to have an open mind to other considerations of WHAT\HOW scientifically a God could plausibly exist...ya know beyond thinking of a man floating in space with a big white beard that spoke everything into existence.

I can understand that. What I find ignorant to the point of stupid, be it atheist or theist, are the "proof" demanders where any such requirement becomes an impossibility. Atheists and theists measure the probability of god's existence, or some kind of creating force, in different ways as fits their perspectives on the world. We are all DNA derivatives but the memes by which people think can be very different leading to completely opposing views of which this site is merely a microcosm.

Not that you would be concerned, but I have you in the intelligent atheist camp.

Well, so far so good, at least for now!

What I'm thoroughly atheistic about is the usual rendering of god in purely biblical terms as if we can't think of god in any other way or give it an endorsement completely separate from its Hebraic representations...but that's a separate subject where god becomes a metaphysical abstraction though never wholly removed from physics.

Well, as per the 3 most likely conceptions I've come to consider pertaining to this "God" (Simulation or Divine Reality thread) - the point 2. Is that God could be a form of Artificial Intelligence.

So I'm certainly keeping my mind open, until something makes me certain of Point 1, or Point 3. (I'm personally sitting more away from 2. and leaning towards point 3. <-- though needs more work - as i don't consider this a simulation of an original reality, but ""AI"" is 'tech' created by Divine God )

viewtopic.php?t=33214
1. God is divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.

3. but, then it could also be this:- God is a combination of the above.

* Maybe we don't bother discussing the above

[attofishpi]

You begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.

A ridiculous statement Jacobi, note the word exclusively as your failing here. Do I need to explain Y? (** You actually sound like IC from the word 'exclusively' onwards, pure idiocy from an 'intellectual')

Also, you have read plenty of esoteric works it seems and yet contemporary considerations of a persons experiences of divinity – you repel (mine for one). Why read the prophets of the past, if you are not willing to consider the one here that understands profit, and has fathomed deeper into the realms you have been interested in?

Your first mistake is that you believe that because I notice that you do not have *intellectual background* (and that Harbal certainly does not) that you take this to mean that I believe you unintelligent. But intelligence is a separate category from that of being intellectually informed and conversant.

You assume myself and Harbal don’t have what U consider an intellectual background, probably because we take the piss out of the likes of you that come across arrogant, continually making extreme statements, as if Harbal has read nothing and I have ZERO comprehension of Christianity and Philosophy. (such sweeping statements = flawed logic).

Alexis Jacobi, the one that looks down at us as if we are “non-intellectuals”. You sit upon a throne within an aura of intellectual superiority from the aethereal heights of your self-constructed intellectual domain, from where unfortunately – YOU – Jacobi are so often logically flawed, as per your statement I addressed above.

So.

For me to actually consider whether U are indeed an intellectual, one with intellect, one with intelligence to apply to the profound volumes of literary consumption you seem to have acquired, I am not so sure that you actually cut the mustard. You continually make sweeping statements that are clearly poorly considered. (* take that as some atto positive criticism, perhaps you can self-analyse and improve)

You could simply be involved in hallucinations. So, no one cares what an internal voice has said to you, and no one should care.

Anyone that has read the Bible, the Gita etc etc.. SHOULD care, if they are of an intelligence worth_Y of considering themselves an INTELLECTUAL.

The atto rabbit hole goes far beyond 'internal voices' - we ALL have those.