Do you talk to GOD?

[James R]

arfa brane:

I almost hesitate to post a response to you, because no doubt Tiassa is hovering about waiting to pounce on me for having the temerity to post on this topic at all. Then again, nothing I write will actually make any difference to his opinions about me, so I don't think it's worth worrying about him. Besides, it only encourages him.

I think the logic is infallible: assume your being alive has something to do with God, about which you don't know very much.

That's not logical.

Why not assume, instead, that your being alive has something to do with a Giant Dishwasher on Titan, about which you don't know very much? That makes just as much sense.

On the other hand, it sounds to me like your assumption, boiled down to its essentials, is little more than the assumption that you don't know everything, which is unremarkable. What puzzles me is why you want to label all the stuff you don't know under the generic umbrella label "God". Perhaps you can explain.

Believe if you like, that being alive also has something to do with breathing, something important. Actually that one shouldn't be too hard.

From medicine - you know, science - we already know why it is important to breathe to keep ourselves alive. And even before formalised medicine, we knew that breathing was vital for life. So, you're right. Not too hard.

So there might be something about breathing that has something to do with God ...

It seems to me that all you're really saying here is "there's some stuff about breathing that I don't know or I'm not sure about". And your insert a God of the Gaps into that empty space.

Assume that you can keep breathing despite not knowing or caring what a word means; repeat at leisure.

Science knows why we can do that, too. Autonomous nervous system.

This belief in a practice is of the same nature as belief in having to breathe. Ok?

It sounds like your practice is like meditation. Perhaps it is meditation?

It is common in meditation to concentrate on one's breath, trying to shut out other thoughts. The aim is to calm the mind, firstly.

There are many non-religious practices of meditation. I think there is no need to inject God into it.

Except with a little added instruction from someone I trusted (believed?) at the time was going to reveal something to me about it. Or about "It", whatever it is.

Somebody told you that if you meditate you'll find God? Well, who knows? Maybe you will. Let us know if that happens.

I don't call it God, or I try not to associate an idea with "It"; I don't need the ideas and they just get in the way when I want to, you know, relax and let it all go.

If you're extolling the benefits of a meditative practice in helping you relax etc., that's all well and good. I'm still puzzled as to where God fits into it, and why.

So here you go: thought for the day: God is never what you think God is.

That makes it impossible to talk about it coherently. Might as well forget it, if you're completely incapable of defining it. A useless concept.

(Also, I might comment that this is a classic "deepity".)

If you like you can believe that the world is full of wonderful, open and honest people who encourage your search for the truth, about yourself, even if you know it isn't really true.

How do you know it isn't really true?

 

[arfa brane]

Why not assume, instead, that your being alive has something to do with a Giant Dishwasher on Titan, about which you don't know very much? That makes just as much sense.

Absolutely. Why not assume God is actually a Giant Dishwasher, if it works for you.

It sounds like your practice is like meditation. Perhaps it is meditation?

It is common in meditation to concentrate on one's breath, trying to shut out other thoughts. The aim is to calm the mind, firstly.

There are many non-religious practices of meditation. I think there is no need to inject God into it.

Again, you're absolutely right. Whether or not it has anything to do with God, or some idea of what God is, as I may have said already more than a few times, doesn't make the slightest difference.

Somebody told you that if you meditate you'll find God? Well, who knows? Maybe you will. Let us know if that happens.

Maybe I already did, and I'm considering not letting you know about it instead . . . ?

How do you know it isn't really true?

Because the world is full of people who are impatient, inconsiderate, selfish and uncaring. Didn't you know that? The wonderful people are pretty hard to find, in my experience.
Are you about to try to convince me you're one of the wonderful ones?

 

[Tiassa]

He literally had already stated his opinion about talking to God a few posts before you decided to insert yourself into the discussion with what you thought was a 'gotcha' moment.

Straw fallacy.

The question to him was what he expected when he talked to God; that is nowhere to be found in the post you quoted↑.

Cut it out. This is beneath you. It's like you sit there, waiting for any little opportunity that you could go on the attack and drag up issues from years ago, yet again. Move on already.

I suppose you could always just wave your hand and tell us to settle it between ourselves.

Bells, if we consider the range of "his opinion about talking to God", it can certainly include the point of what he expected when he tried talking to God. And while it can easily go without saying that the point of what he expected when he tried talking to God does not constitute the whole range of his opinion about talking to God, it becomes relevant when considering the example you provided, which reflects on his opinions "as an atheist", and recalls a period "since [he] became an atheist". This does not necessarily or inherently overlap with the question of what he expected when he tried to talk to God. It's not that I ignored the post, but, rather, that I read it and considered it according to the question of what he expected when he talked to God, not some more general class of opinions about talking to God—that is, according to the question at hand in the moment, not some post hoc sosobra.

That particular straw is a form of illicit transference, either compositional or divisional depending on how it is deployed, but the underlying problem is that "his opinion about talking to God" is an extension of the range of inquiry with the effect of including what previously failed to meet the basic criterion. And the thing about noting fallacies is that one encounters a surprising number of them around James; and say what you will about how he and I disagree and dispute over time, but it's also observable this strange, distortive region is not exclusive to my experience, and that part depends on his behavior. Watching Arfa Brane↑ try to find new ways to explain the obvious when it seems like something James already knows but won't apply or account for in his argument, it's easy to sympathize; I've been through it plenty of times before. And while bullshit↑ isn't the proper BS call, it does at least communicate Arfa's growing frustration. And, again, I know the feeling. So if I offer Arfa Brane some advice↑ about how I understand James' behavior, it's true I have no reason to expect James would agree. Still, though: James' discursive method is what it is; my opinion of that method is what it is; the part where he makes false statements to set up his pretense of indignance—i.e., actually lies in order to facilitate his routine—is actually a kind of trolling behavior.

So it's true, I can find his fallacies—e.g., "have never prevented", or whether or not "we've had a discussion"—as annoying and even dishonest as I might, and there is nothing new about that, but the actual lying is, well, actual lying. So, sure, I'll make a particular kind of record for the sake of the record.

And your fallacy? Well, that's the thing, Bells: Of anything we might have to say about the history of these disputes, one of the enduring puzzles is your seemingly doctrinal acceptance of his sleights, fallacies, manipulations, and dishonesty. If rubber-glue is what you come up with to cover for him, it doesn't seem like it should be too much to ask that you at least deal with facts. Or maybe that's the point; maybe the fallacy suggests the facts just aren't working out for him.

As to the rest, sure, James can speak for his own self, even if he would prefer other people keep certain opinions to themselves↑. You don't have to stay in the middle of this one; the point was to make a record.

 

[James R]

Absolutely. Why not assume God is actually a Giant Dishwasher, if it works for you.

It doesn't work for me, but it sounds like it might work for you. You don't seem to be very fussy about your God's attributes.

Again, you're absolutely right. Whether or not it has anything to do with God, or some idea of what God is, as I may have said already more than a few times, doesn't make the slightest difference.

Okay. Strange that you brought this up in a thread about talking to God, though.

Maybe I already did, and I'm considering not letting you know about it instead . . . ?

Again, strange that you chose to post to this thread, if that's the case. Each to his own, I guess.

Because the world is full of people who are impatient, inconsiderate, selfish and uncaring. Didn't you know that? The wonderful people are pretty hard to find, in my experience.

I didn't know that. My own experience is that, for the most part, people are pretty decent. The loud impatient, selfish ones tend to stick out from the crowd, unfortunately, but I'd be wary of assuming that all the quiet ones are the same.

Are you about to try to convince me you're one of the wonderful ones?

I get the impression you've already made up your mind about me. If I haven't already convinced you that I'm wonderful, I don't think that anything I could say at this point would change your mind. You've known me for a while on this forum.

 

[James R]

The question to him was what he expected when he talked to God

Tell us what you expect when you talk to God. Stop the meta. Join the discussion of the topic. I dare you.

And the thing about noting fallacies is that one encounters a surprising number of them around James

I addressed that insulting lie above, for those who are interested.

Watching Arfa Brane↑ try to find new ways to explain the obvious when it seems like something James already knows but won't apply or account for in his argument, it's easy to sympathize; I've been through it plenty of times before.

What is obvious to arfa brane about his God is not at all obvious to me. Or, rather, I have no idea why he wants to call it God. Is your God as vague as his?

Still, though: James' discursive method is what it is; my opinion of that method is what it is; the part where he makes false statements to set up his pretense of indignance—i.e., actually lies in order to facilitate his routine—is actually a kind of trolling behavior.

I do not and have not made false statements. You should stop telling lies.

Clearly something bothers you about my asking arfa brane to explain his understanding of his God to me, so that I can try to understand it too. But you're not brave enough to tell me what your actual issue is.

To give him credit, at least he has replied in a honest way, and has not spent all his time throwing insults and making meta-criticisms about methods and styles. Remember, Tiassa, you used to be the guy who complained constantly about "aesthetics", yet that's about all you do around here these days - make complaints about other people failing to align with your own aesthetic preferences about the manner in which you think they should post, etc.

What's more, Tiassa, you could learn a thing or two from arfa brane. Because, you know what? I think he and I have reached a point where I think I have a better understanding of where he's coming from. (I'm not 100% sure I have understood his position in full, or correctly, though.) That is, we have discussed the topic of the thread and exchanged views. We haven't spent all our time complaining that the other person's posting style doesn't suit our own aesthetic preferences, like you have.

So it's true, I can find his fallacies—e.g., "have never prevented", or whether or not "we've had a discussion"—as annoying and even dishonest as I might, and there is nothing new about that, but the actual lying is, well, actual lying.

I addressed those lies of yours above. Twice, in fact, for the first one. You ignored my response, of course.

And your fallacy? Well, that's the thing, Bells...

Have you noticed how everybody who disagrees with you is full of fallacy and lies, Tiassa? I'm sure you have. It surely must be their problem. It couldn't possibly be yours.

Of anything we might have to say about the history of these disputes, one of the enduring puzzles is your seemingly doctrinal acceptance of his sleights, fallacies, manipulations, and dishonesty.

What nonsense. Bells and I have had disagreements. It is an insult to her for you to accuse her of being a toady or acolyte of mine. You know her better than that, so why even try to tell that lie, and to her face, no less?

Do you push everyone away, eventually, Tiassa? You're quite toxic.

As to the rest, sure, James can speak for his own self, even if he would prefer other people keep certain opinions to themselves↑.

Obviously, you're very aware that the attentions you continually lavish on me are unwelcome and that I'd like to minimise the amount of time I spend dealing with your personal bullshit. I take it you don't have the decency to stop.

 

[Michael 345]

Seems like Pope wants to talk to other religions

Scared his chosen fantasy is loosing customers?

I find this strange

Pope Francis asked forgiveness for the historical "mistakes committed by many Catholics"

Followed by

"Shamefully, I acknowledge this for the Catholic Church, actions and decisions that had little or nothing to do with Jesus and the Gospel, but were instead marked by a thirst for advantage and power, gravely weakened our communion," the pope said

Note I read this "I'm sorry the CHURCH was affected in a bad way". Nothing about the millions of followers affected

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...wrongs-against-orthodox-believers-urges-unity

 

[Bells]

The question to him was what he expected when he talked to God; that is nowhere to be found in the post you quoted↑.

He says he's an atheist and does not talk to God. You ask him what he expected when he talked to God..

The answer is that he is an atheist and he clearly stated he did not talk to God as he didn't see the point. Because you know, he's an atheist. Which begs the question, why you decided to ask him what he expected when he talked to God? The answer to that comes down to a couple of things. You were trolling and flaming hoping for a response so you could go on the attack? Or you didn't bother scrolling up to read what he actually said, which would have made your question completely pointless anyway, because you know, "reasons".

I'll give you an example of what you tried to pull:

P1: "I don't like pasta"

P2: "So what kind do you like?"

P1: "What kind of what do I like?"

P2: "Pasta, what kind do you like?"

P1: "I believe I already answered that above!"

P2: "Liar! You did not! Why won't you answer the question...!?!"​

Dude says 'I am an atheist, I don't talk to God' and you respond with a question about what he expects when he talks to God.. And then you accuse him of lying because he said he'd already answered that - you know, the part where he had said he didn't talk to God should have been enough of an indication that your question made no sense.

I suppose you could always just wave your hand and tell us to settle it between ourselves.

Oh, we're past that.

We went past that ages ago. Now I'm at the part of telling you to simply shut up.

Bells, if we consider the range of "his opinion about talking to God", it can certainly include the point of what he expected when he tried talking to God. And while it can easily go without saying that the point of what he expected when he tried talking to God does not constitute the whole range of his opinion about talking to God, it becomes relevant when considering the example you provided, which reflects on his opinions "as an atheist", and recalls a period "since [he] became an atheist". This does not necessarily or inherently overlap with the question of what he expected when he tried to talk to God. It's not that I ignored the post, but, rather, that I read it and considered it according to the question of what he expected when he talked to God, not some more general class of opinions about talking to God—that is, according to the question at hand in the moment, not some post hoc sosobra.

Or maybe, just maybe, when someone says they are an atheist and don't talk to God, asking them what they expected when they talked to God makes no sense and just comes across as fishing for a fight.

You didn't ask what he expected before he became an atheist. Because you didn't care about that. You were fishing for a fight. I mean, it's been what? A few weeks? You're bored? You're still shitty about the last one and the incredulity that one wrought? Whatever your reasons, he'd already made his opinion clear. So what were you doing?

That particular straw is a form of illicit transference, either compositional or divisional depending on how it is deployed, but the underlying problem is that "his opinion about talking to God" is an extension of the range of inquiry with the effect of including what previously failed to meet the basic criterion. And the thing about noting fallacies is that one encounters a surprising number of them around James; and say what you will about how he and I disagree and dispute over time, but it's also observable this strange, distortive region is not exclusive to my experience, and that part depends on his behavior. Watching Arfa Brane↑ try to find new ways to explain the obvious when it seems like something James already knows but won't apply or account for in his argument, it's easy to sympathize; I've been through it plenty of times before. And while bullshit↑ isn't the proper BS call, it does at least communicate Arfa's growing frustration. And, again, I know the feeling. So if I offer Arfa Brane some advice↑ about how I understand James' behavior, it's true I have no reason to expect James would agree. Still, though: James' discursive method is what it is; my opinion of that method is what it is; the part where he makes false statements to set up his pretense of indignance—i.e., actually lies in order to facilitate his routine—is actually a kind of trolling behavior.

He didn't lie. He said, he's an atheist and doesn't talk to God as he sees no point or reason to. That was already on record.

So it's true, I can find his fallacies—e.g., "have never prevented", or whether or not "we've had a discussion"—as annoying and even dishonest as I might, and there is nothing new about that, but the actual lying is, well, actual lying. So, sure, I'll make a particular kind of record for the sake of the record.

You are doing it because you are spoiling for a fight.

And your fallacy? Well, that's the thing, Bells: Of anything we might have to say about the history of these disputes, one of the enduring puzzles is your seemingly doctrinal acceptance of his sleights, fallacies, manipulations, and dishonesty.

Yes Tiassa. It's everyone else. Not you.

Have you ever considered that perhaps.. Just perhaps.. You are wrong?

I mean, could that be a possibility? That the reason I'm not seeing it as you are seeing it is because it's simply not there? That you are wrong?

If rubber-glue is what you come up with to cover for him, it doesn't seem like it should be too much to ask that you at least deal with facts. Or maybe that's the point; maybe the fallacy suggests the facts just aren't working out for him.

I am dealing with the facts. You invented something to be offended about because it's been a few weeks since the last punch up and you're probably bored.

As to the rest, sure, James can speak for his own self, even if he would prefer other people keep certain opinions to themselves↑. You don't have to stay in the middle of this one; the point was to make a record.

Record for whom?

All the other moderators?

You filed a report and accused him of lying. Why? Your excuse of "make a record" is a tad ridiculous, given we all know and have experienced your record keeping when you drag out posts that are like 8 years old because you're still festering about something said back then about something something.

And I'm not in the middle of this one. I'm squarely on his side on this one. If I thought he was wrong, I'd tell him. I always do. That's the difference. If I disagree with him. I tell him, we discuss it. Sometimes we argue vehemently. And we move on. If he disagrees with me, we discuss it, and we move on. That's how adults behave. At least they do in Australia and other parts of the world. Perhaps your issue is an American thing? I mean, your former president is still going on about crowd sizes. Perhaps that festering is just a cultural thing. And if it is, you do you. But stop expecting that others do the same.

You were wrong. Accept it and move on.

 

[Write4U]

Do I talk to God?
I talk to myself, does that count?

 

[Bells]

It is an insult to her for you to accuse her of being a toady or acolyte of mine.

Just putting it out there that the acolyte robe is NOT catering to the Australian summer!

 

[arfa brane]

There is definitely a problem with wanting to know about God's attributes; it's normal I guess, to consider there's a subject, there's something that can be defined, written down, everyone will understand it.

Or, the attributes aren't something you can really define, write down; maybe definitions and lists of attributes don't really help. Maybe what you need to do to really understand, is stop thinking about it and just get the fuck on with it.

 

[foghorn]

There is definitely a problem with wanting to know about God's attributes.....

..........Maybe what you need to do to really understand, is stop thinking about it and just get the fuck on with it.

'' is stop thinking about it and just get the fuck on with it.''

Get on with what, one of your ''it'' experiences which you don't call ''God''?
How do you know your ''it'' thing is not something from inside your own brain?

I don't call it God, or I try not to associate an idea with "It"; I don't need the ideas and they just get in the way when I want to, you know, relax and let it all go.

My bold^
'' I don't call it God''

 

[arfa brane]

How do you know your ''it'' thing is not something from inside your own brain?

I don't. How does a brain know anything?

How would anyone know that what they experience is not inside their brain, given their experience is a function of their brain?

 

[James R]

How do you know your ''it'' thing is not something from inside your own brain?

I don't. How does a brain know anything?

How would anyone know that what they experience is not inside their brain, given their experience is a function of their brain?

The question still remains: why call "it" God?

 

[arfa brane]

The question still remains: why call "it" God?

Why is there a word, "God" in the English language? Why do so many people think it means something, and why do they seem to disagree, mostly, about the meaning?

Why not say God is as meaningful as, I don't know, say a Giant Dishwasher? But wouldn't that also be an admission that you just don't know?

 

[Tiassa]

He says he's an atheist and does not talk to God. You ask him what he expected when he talked to God..

Maybe you could follow the actual discussion:

I'll give you an example of what you tried to pull:

P1: "I don't like pasta"

P2: "So what kind do you like?"

P1: "What kind of what do I like?"

P2: "Pasta, what kind do you like?"

P1: "I believe I already answered that above!"

P2: "Liar! You did not! Why won't you answer the question...!?!"

Dude says 'I am an atheist, I don't talk to God' and you respond with a question about what he expects when he talks to God.. And then you accuse him of lying because he said he'd already answered that - you know, the part where he had said he didn't talk to God should have been enough of an indication that your question made no sense.

Well, let's take a look at this. "Dude says, 'I am an atheist, I don't talk to God' ...."

Well, the question arises: "Do you talk to God?" That's the thread title.

J: Talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation, unless one is hallucinating, schizophrenic or similar.

T: Are you speaking from personal experience?

J: Among other lines of evidence, yes.

T: What were you actually expecting?

J: Regarding what?​

Do you see that part where I asked↑ if he was speaking from personal experience, and James answered↑ affirmatively: "Among other lines of evidence, yes."

Did you miss that one, Bells. What a coincidence. Y'know, whoopsie.

Anyway, yes, James acknowledged personal experience in his assessment of talking to God, and—

Or maybe, just maybe, when someone says they are an atheist and don't talk to God, asking them what they expected when they talked to God makes no sense and just comes across as fishing for a fight.

—maybe, just maybe, that fact might have something to do with anything. It's one thing if "someone says they are an atheist and don't talk to God", but quite another if their assessment of talking to God includes their personal experience. You know, like he said? Those circumstances are not as exclusive as you pretend. So here's a coin toss for you: Did he lie when he said "yes", or was he offering an inapplicable yet otherwise accurate answer? (Hint: Despite my general lack of confidence in his honesty, the prospect that the "yes" was some kind of lie is just absurd.)

The first question I asked is if his assessment was based on personal experience. "Talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation," he said, and when asked if this was based on personal experience, he answered, affirmatively, saying, "Among other lines of evidence, yes." And perhaps it seems weirdly particular to wonder what that "yes" means, but here we are, Bells: A straightforward reading would suggest that yes, his assessment that talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation is based in part on personal experience; the question of what he expected when he tried talking to God just does not seem so extraordinary. Also, well, while it's true I can't speak for Arfa Brane's particular reading of the issue, it would seem our neighbor does not find the question so outrageous↑ as your disbelief pretends. Still, if in #46↑, which you point to, James speaks "as an atheist", and even makes the point that, "Since I became an atheist, I have never talked to God", this does not preclude the most straightforward reading of his affirmation of personal experience trying to talk to God. If that "yes" was supposed to affirm something else, what that is remains a mystery.

And, Bells, if you really want to talk about what comes across as fishing for a fight, we can only wonder about a straw army deployed in defense of a fundamentally disputing and confrontational discursive method. Neither his inquisitory method nor its strange dependency on fallacy are new. And loading up as much indignance as you did into an argument with that kind of blatantly obvious gap in it was, well, y'know, really? There is no question you are squarely on his side, but it remains unclear why you are so affable to his fallacies and misrepresentations. After a while, there's no point in trying to pretend those occurrences are just whoopsies.

It's like saying, "You were wrong," and, "Accept it and move on", and maybe right after you miss for the second time in a row isn't the best time for a line like that.

 

[Write4U]

J: "Among other lines of evidence, yes."

I wonder what the "other lines of evidence" are.
I can understand the internal conversation, but what is the other persuasive evidence?

 

[Bells]

Do you see that part where I asked↑ if he was speaking from personal experience, and James answered↑ affirmatively: "Among other lines of evidence, yes."

Did you miss that one, Bells. What a coincidence. Y'know, whoopsie.

I pretty much addressed that bit here:

Which begs the question, why you decided to ask him what he expected when he talked to God? The answer to that comes down to a couple of things. You were trolling and flaming hoping for a response so you could go on the attack? Or you didn't bother scrolling up to read what he actually said, which would have made your question completely pointless anyway, because you know, "reasons".

As I said, you were spoiling for a fight.

You didn't ask what he expected before he became an atheist. Because you didn't care about that. You were fishing for a fight.

Your point was clear.

Anyway, yes, James acknowledged personal experience in his assessment of talking to God, and—

—maybe, just maybe, that fact might have something to do with anything.

Or maybe he'd already addressed that point where he said he was an atheist and did not speak to God.

It's one thing if "someone says they are an atheist and don't talk to God", but quite another if their assessment of talking to God includes their personal experience. You know, like he said? Those circumstances are not as exclusive as you pretend. So here's a coin toss for you: Did he lie when he said "yes", or was he offering an inapplicable yet otherwise accurate answer? (Hint: Despite my general lack of confidence in his honesty, the prospect that the "yes" was some kind of lie is just absurd.)

"Among other lines of evidence, yes".. After he'd said he was an atheist and did not speak to God as he saw no point in it.

Then you accuse him of lying because he said he'd already addressed this and basically reported him for it.

And perhaps it seems weirdly particular to wonder what that "yes" means, but here we are, Bells: A straightforward reading would suggest that yes, his assessment that talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation is based in part on personal experience; the question of what he expected when he tried talking to God just does not seem so extraordinary. Also, well, while it's true I can't speak for Arfa Brane's particular reading of the issue, it would seem our neighbor does not find the question so outrageous↑ as your disbelief pretends. Still, if in #46↑, which you point to, James speaks "as an atheist", and even makes the point that, "Since I became an atheist, I have never talked to God", this does not preclude the most straightforward reading of his affirmation of personal experience trying to talk to God. If that "yes" was supposed to affirm something else, what that is remains a mystery.

You were asking him if he suffered from a mental illness.

That was the flame. That was the dig. And you're pissed it fell flat.

And, Bells, if you really want to talk about what comes across as fishing for a fight, we can only wonder about a straw army deployed in defense of a fundamentally disputing and confrontational discursive method. Neither his inquisitory method nor its strange dependency on fallacy are new. And loading up as much indignance as you did into an argument with that kind of blatantly obvious gap in it was, well, y'know, really? There is no question you are squarely on his side, but it remains unclear why you are so affable to his fallacies and misrepresentations. After a while, there's no point in trying to pretend those occurrences are just whoopsies.

What fallacy?

There was none. As I said, you were looking for a fight. You reported it, because that is what you wanted. You wanted more attention drawn to it. Probably so you could make other ridiculous comments about me as well. Been there before.

It's like saying, "You were wrong," and, "Accept it and move on", and maybe right after you miss for the second time in a row isn't the best time for a line like that.

Oh, I didn't miss it. My point still stands.

Meanwhile, you're so busy being offended on the behalf of someone else, that you've missed they've completely erased you from the equation.

 

[Michael 345]

* Turns on SARCASTIC FONT - click*

Oh how us plebs love watching moderators discuss the most important issues of the threads. I love wasting the screen ink in my mobile phone reading their weighty deliberations

Warms the cockles of my heart

Thought bubble - should I leave SARCASTIC FONT on permanently for this thread?

 

[foghorn]

I don't. How does a brain know anything?
How would anyone know that what they experience is not inside their brain, given their experience is a function of their brain?

Okay, you're saying your ''it'' experience may be of your own mind's making, but you seem to be hoping it's something else, that's why you make the statement:

God is never what you think God is.

So, are you hoping there's a god connection to your ''it'' experience?

 

[foghorn]

* Turns on SARCASTIC FONT - click*
Oh how us plebs love watching moderators discuss the most important issues of the threads.

Moderators! moderators, I thought they were gods.