The tower of Babel

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're just in different position DB.  You profess X while still not understanding spirit, love, etc..  How does that not make you equally delusional.

What makes you think I don't understand spirit and love? 

[Edgarcito]

32 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

What makes you think I don't understand spirit and love? 

Stop the presses!  Go ahead sir, please define those two.

[Edgarcito]

54 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

My Parthian shot for today.

 

 

Edgarcito, you recently agreed that the appropriate response to subjectivity was scepticism, not faith.

 

To be consistent with that you should be sceptical of the subjective beliefs of these millions of Christians.

 

And you should also be sceptical of aik's subjective beliefs too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Sdelsolray gets to throw around words like delusional as he is a purveyor of jurisprudence....

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Stop the presses!  Go ahead sir, please define those two.

A definition isn't an understanding. I asked what makes you think I don't understand spirit and love? You made the assertion. Lets here why. 

[Shinzon]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:38 PM, Edgarcito said:

Let me ask you this please ma'am.  What do you make of those the have in the past come here and profess disbelief in a very similar manner as you, but then end up returning to Christianity.  What's the appropriate response for that.  I just asking as I've seen maybe a few since my stint began here years ago.  Thanks.

Cause belief has never been entirely 110 percent rational.   At some level religious belief is a rebellion against the coldness of the world.   Some people can take it.   Some people can't. Some people modify belief to suit their purposes to handle those extremes where human experience reaches its limit.

 

Treat them with respect...is my suggestion.  In the end we are all just mini computers trying to make sense of the data that comes our way....with hearts that throw mess to just make things harder.   The human experience I say!

[Edgarcito]

26 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

A definition isn't an understanding. I asked what makes you think I don't understand spirit and love? You made the assertion. Lets here why. 

You gave the man a definition so he might understand… 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

You gave the man a definition so he might understand… 

That doesn't answer my question. You said i don't understand spirit and love. Why did you say that? 

 

I didn't sleep well last night and had a busy day. Ill check later to see if you actually give a reason for your assertion. For now. Its time to rest. 

 

DB

[Shinzon]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Stop the presses!  Go ahead sir, please define those two.

“Good and bad, I define these terms, quite clear, no doubt, somehow.”

— Bob Dylan

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Also, Sdelsolray gets to throw around words like delusional as he is a purveyor of jurisprudence....

Not quite.  I believe aik is delusional, with some narcissism.  It is based, in part, on these two sentences he wrote:

"...

But God has told me that He has souls here in the Satan's house. And I am here to crush the power of lies before the sight of some people who will be freed.

..."
 

I wrote what I came to believe based on observation.  That is all.

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Stop right there.  

 

I seem to have hit a nerve.  But I'm not playing your game any further.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

I seem to have hit a nerve.  But I'm not playing your game any further.

 

But I am curious as to why I should stop right there.

[aik]

2 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Not quite.  I believe aik is delusional, with some narcissism.  It is based, in part, on these two sentences he wrote:

"...

But God has told me that He has souls here in the Satan's house. And I am here to crush the power of lies before the sight of some people who will be freed.

..."
 

I wrote what I came to believe based on observation.  That is all.

 

Why do you say that I am delusional? Explain me please. I mean How these two sentences brought you to such a conclusion? 

 

Also can you explain with your own words what you mean saying delusiona? in other words

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Also, Sdelsolray gets to throw around words like delusional as he is a purveyor of jurisprudence....

 

So, if you are being properly sceptical of aik's subjective beliefs Ed, what is it that he should present to persuade you?

 

I'll make this a multiple choice question for you.

 

Please select one option.

 

1.  His feelings.

 

2.  His faith.

 

3.  His reports of what Jesus has done in his life.

 

4.  Objective evidence that you can test and check.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Not quite.  I believe aik is delusional, with some narcissism.  It is based, in part, on these two sentences he wrote:

"...

But God has told me that He has souls here in the Satan's house. And I am here to crush the power of lies before the sight of some people who will be freed.

..."
 

I wrote what I came to believe based on observation.  That is all.

 

I was poking fun S....carry on.

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

But I am curious as to why I should stop right there.

You said, "the way I see it".  Equally, that's the way Aik "sees it".  How do you discern that your view has any more value than his?  Both are as they are seen. 

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So, if you are being properly sceptical of aik's subjective beliefs Ed, what is it that he should present to persuade you?

 

I'll make this a multiple choice question for you.

 

Please select one option.

 

1.  His feelings.

 

2.  His faith.

 

3.  His reports of what Jesus has done in his life.

 

4.  Objective evidence that you can test and check.

 

 

 

I can't answer the question selecting just one.

[Rev R]

20 hours ago, aik said:

What is your story?

Irrelevant to your efforts. You could always try to ask the Holy Spirit since you claim to have a direct line.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You said, "the way I see it".  Equally, that's the way Aik "sees it".  How do you discern that your view has any more value than his?  Both are as they are seen. 

 Value, validity, whatever you want to call it, if we didn't think our view had a different value/validity than others, there would be very little discussion on the forum.  I was admitting that it was my educated opinion.  aik seems to regard most of his statements about religion as absolute truth.  But you are right, they are all "views".  And I don't need your permission to state my views.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I can't answer the question selecting just one.

 

That's ok, Edgarcito.

 

Please select as many as you'd like or even add something if you think I've missed it.

 

 

But also, please bear in mind that you are now a sceptic.  So, if you are being consistent with your new scepticism you should be sceptical of options # 1 and # 2.  That's because you cannot test or check them in any way.

 

aik's feelings and faith are subjective matters, which by default, you are sceptical of.  And there's also the insurmountable problem of you not being able to directly experience what he feels or what his faith tells him.  He can only report these things to you. However, as a sceptic, you are obliged to doubt what he tells you.  Not to give him the benefit of the doubt nor to believe him.  

 

Option # 3 is slightly different.  You could travel from Texas to Russia to investigate for yourself what Jesus has done for aik. But even if he truthfully reports to you what he genuinely believes Jesus has done for him, as a sceptic you should not believe him.  Instead you must weigh the evidence that is independent of aik's testimony.  That is because all humans are liable to the problems of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, mistaken reasoning and the incorrect recall of past events.  When you have factored all of those possibilities into account, then you can make a much better informed judgment about Option # 3.

 

But if you do not meet aik in person and investigate his claim by looking closely at how he lives his life, then, as a sceptic you are obliged to doubt his testimony in this forum.  Not to give him the benefit of the doubt nor to believe him.

 

Option # 4 is usually preferred by sceptics like yourself because objective evidence cannot be coloured or biased by aik's feelings, faith or any of the fallible human problems associated with option # 3.  Provided that this objective evidence is reasonable and likely to be true on the basis of probability, it should be acceptable to all rational people everywhere.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's ok, Edgarcito.

 

Please select as many as you'd like or even add something if you think I've missed it.

 

 

But also, please bear in mind that you are now a sceptic.  So, if you are being consistent with your new scepticism you should be sceptical of options # 1 and # 2.  That's because you cannot test or check them in any way.

 

aik's feelings and faith are subjective matters, which by default, you are sceptical of.  And there's also the insurmountable problem of you not being able to directly experience what he feels or what his faith tells him.  He can only report these things to you. However, as a sceptic, you are obliged to doubt what he tells you.  Not to give him the benefit of the doubt nor to believe him.  

 

Option # 3 is slightly different.  You could travel from Texas to Russia to investigate for yourself what Jesus has done for aik. But even if he truthfully reports to you what he genuinely believes Jesus has done for him, as a sceptic you should not believe him.  Instead you must weigh the evidence that is independent of aik's testimony.  That is because all humans are liable to the problems of confirmation bias, wishful thinking, mistaken reasoning and the incorrect recall of past events.  When you have factored all of those possibilities into account, then you can make a much better informed judgment about Option # 3.

 

But if you do not meet aik in person and investigate his claim by looking closely at how he lives his life, then, as a sceptic you are obliged to doubt his testimony in this forum.  Not to give him the benefit of the doubt nor to believe him.

 

Option # 4 is usually preferred by sceptics like yourself because objective evidence cannot be coloured or biased by aik's feelings, faith or any of the fallible human problems associated with option # 3.  Provided that this objective evidence is reasonable and likely to be true on the basis of probability, it should be acceptable to all rational people everywhere.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

My only skepticism was your post asking me to select just one of the above Walter.  This is partly why I distrust.  Our last conversation was rather pleasant.  This one, seemingly, you are trying to manipulate.  And again, you are attempting to discuss rational without appropriate data....but please continue.

[Edgarcito]

48 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 Value, validity, whatever you want to call it, if we didn't think our view had a different value/validity than others, there would be very little discussion on the forum.  I was admitting that it was my educated opinion.  aik seems to regard most of his statements about religion as absolute truth.  But you are right, they are all "views".  And I don't need your permission to state my views.

I associate the bolded to the application of Grace.  Given you have been there, done that, why would you just not choose to keep your less appropriate comments to yourself?  And, speaking subjectively, they ARE essentially absolute truth to him...by default.  <prays to God to give me strength to not cuss at Wheezy>.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I associate the bolded to the application of Grace.  Given you have been there, done that, why would you just not choose to keep your less appropriate comments to yourself?  And, speaking subjectively, they ARE essentially absolute truth to him...by default.  <prays to God to give me strength to not cuss at Wheezy>.  

 

It is probably best if we don't even try to communicate with each other.  BEST WISHES!

[Edgarcito]

44 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

It is probably best if we don't even try to communicate with each other.  BEST WISHES!

Good call.  I guess my thoughts are, if it's nothing but myths and chemistry, our souls and beliefs, then why the years of anger and distrust, etc.  One would think that a good diet change should resolve the issue.  You know, so much so that many feel disrespected here.  I do as well mind you.  But again, there would seem to be more to it.  Christianity is big on Trust....

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:34 AM, Weezer said:

 

Aik, The way I see it, you are the one who is without knowledge.  You don't know how much you don't know.  I was born into christianity and invited the holy spirit into my life and it never came.  I have studied the bible since 10 years of age, and discovered how inconsistant it is.  When that no longer made sense I looked into other religions and saw they are all the same.  They are myths. I am also a retired mental health professional and believe you are delusional.  If you don't know what that means, look it up.  In your delusion you think you have the truth because you have a deep down feeling.  It is a very complicated process, and unless you have studied the dynamics, you do not understand it.  I am agnostic because I have studied religions, including Jesus (yes, belief in Jesus is religion) extensively, and decided the circumstantial evidence does not add up.  There may be a "god" somewhere, but if there is, I don't believe it is the one you read about in the bible.  So I believe my years of prayer and study is more valid than your feeling, and choose not to continue this discussion.    Best wishes!

 

I am sorry if anyone was offended, and apologize for being so blunt in the statement about delusion.  Perhaps I should have said, "I don't believe you are thinking rationally."  Or something like, "I believe your feelings are over-riding your rational thinking."   

 

Also, perhaps I should have said, "I choose the results of my years of study over your feelings," rather than using the word "valid."

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Good call.  I guess my thoughts are, if it's nothing but myths and chemistry, our souls and beliefs, then why the years of anger and distrust, etc.  One would think that a good diet change should resolve the issue.  You know, so much so that many feel disrespected here.  I do as well mind you.  But again, there would seem to be more to it.  Christianity is big on Trust....

 

5 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

I am sorry if anyone was offended, and apologize for being so blunt in the statement about delusion.  Perhaps I should have said, "I don't believe you are thinking rationally."  Or something like, "I believe your feelings are over-riding your rational thinking."   

 

Also, perhaps I should have said, "I choose the results of my years of study over your feelings," rather than using the word "valid."

 

We both posted at the same time.