Would Moderators Please Move "Reality Nestles Itself" into Philosophy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After all, over 95% of my threads are Philosophy. Pseudoscience was an error.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree that pseudoscience was an error. The cesspool would have been more correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dare you to support why. (This should be fun).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you post a consistent stream of crap, and the cesspool is where crap is disposed of.

 

If that's the best you can do then may you please put me on ignore and avoid every single thread I post? I'm begging you.

 

Nope.
100% of your threads are unmitigated crap.
Philosophy consists of reasoned argument and support. You fail - utterly - to do either, preferring instead to stick with assertions which are not only unsupported but also have no rationality to them.

But not as much of an error as letting you come back after your numerous permabans.

 

You are clearly wrong. (What's new?). If you believe that my posts are crap (whereas the vast majority are not) then you are the one who clearly should be mitigated from insults and thoughtless posts. I've practically proven the reality of God.

I was allowed back because I deserve to be back. But since the vast majority of my threads are far better than anything you've contributed, shouldn't you be the one who is banned?

 

Nope.

Again, nope.
I know they're crap. It's a demonstrable fact.

I don't think you mean "mitigated".

Not on any forum I've ever seen you post on.

A) Obviously you haven't bothered reading some of my posts.
B) I haven't ever been permabanned while posting under other names, have I?

 

Good answer.

I've proven you wrong in numerous accounts. You continue posting out of false belief.

I meant you should be stopped from insults and thoughtless posts.

That is because you are clearly blind to it. And I haven't posted very much on those others.

No, but you should consider not posting anything as all you appear to be doing is insulting and thoughtless responses to my threads. You haven't even disproven the very threads that you claim are wrong.

 

Really?
Please provide a link to an occasion where you have done so.
Your error here - as with the majority of your posts - is that you persist in believing that just because you post a statement/ claim then it's automatically true. This is not in fact the case.

Rather than seeing them as "insults" you should accept them for what they: accurate statements.
Oh, and I always think about what I'm posting.

Or the fact that your "proof" isn't proof at all.

Agreed. Because you also got banned from there.

Only because you refuse to face facts.

 

I think you should've posted this somewhere else.
Open Government?
Site Feedback?
Your own designated thread?

Cesspool.

 

As already pointed out these threads are turds. This one is circling the rim and headed towards the cesspool (or should be). This should also result in a ban of some length for you since you are, yet again, defying the mods.

 

Ya know, I have already verified that reality is God due to two things, 1. experience and 2. logic.

 

Again, no.
1) "experience" is subjective and is therefore not reliable as evidence. And certainly not for verification.
2) "logic" in your posts is noticeable only by its absence. Thus, again, it's not verification.

I note that asked-for link to where you have previously shown me to be wrong (come on, just ONE occasion out of the claimed numerous times) is not forthcoming.

 

They should not see it like that as I already plainly stated that the "Reality thread" should be moved from Pseudoscience to Philosophy.

And mods, please do not see it as defiance on my part otherwise I would have simply called the thread "Reality Nestles Itself."

 

Well you can't argue with that. Literally, there's nothing there to argue about.

 

First, I have indeed described the experience to be a kind of oneness with God or unification, spiritually.

And suppose for a second that you are correct by 2, I have at the very least quoted Langan's logic to prove my claims. And even if I had not, the descriptions in thread after thread back up that my claims are certainly real or genuine and not delusion.

 

Langan's logic is illogical.

Your delusions are unquestionable.

 

Okey dokey.

 

So what?
It still remains subjective and therefore not proof, or even viable evidence.

One more time: Langans' "logic" is based on an a priori assumption and thus circular: it proves nothing.

Descriptions are NOT proof or evidence. There is nothing whatsoever to support your claim that it's not delusion.