How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304575)
Well Frank I like you to but you are too damn stubborn you sometimes drive me nuts...

And in a similar vein...sometimes I think that is not a "drive", but rather a short pitch or chip. Wink

Quote:

You watched Da Vince's code ? I didn't !

Nah, it was not the Da Vinci Code. It was a new television series on the History Channel...and although the production seems expensive, it simply misses the mark. I was disappointed. (I think you mentioned that you were not from the US, so you may not ever see it.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Swap supernatural for metaphysical and swap God for Reality Frank then keep on it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304600)
Swap supernatural for metaphysical and swap God for Reality Frank then keep on it...

You think that will work, huh?

Ehhh...who knows? But I prefer to conceive of the issue the way I am doing...and I do not like the term "supernatural" in any way.

Anything that exists...is natural. Or so it seems to me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Nah, it was not the Da Vinci Code. It was a new television series on the History Channel...and although the production seems expensive, it simply misses the mark. I was disappointed. (I think you mentioned that you were not from the US, so you may not ever see it.)

I am Portuguese from Coimbra...Coimbra has one of the oldest University's in the world...
(not that such helps the city...plenty of Sarah Palins here)
But hell all the bad pop stuff is coming through my cable TV repeatedly...I am seriously considering to cancel it ! As for national channels we have a plague with "novellas" (soap opera) 4-5 per channel on a daily basis..my wife makes me see some and I love her...so don't bitch about TV I am far worse then you are... Laughing

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah the term supernatural is just to super to me also... Laughing

0 Replies

Sorry to interject Fil. I am interested in this OP, enough to attempt dissection, at least.
Please continue liking Frank nevertheless:)
OK 'How can "We" ... Poster, be sure "Certify" that "All" "Religions" (ways of life) are WRONG?

Simple answer: Your question is utter bollux! Subjectvely misleading and attempting to infuse your own prejudice within others.
FCkoff poster, you are stupid as Frank...but differently.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The point isn't that you have lots of other things about which you have a lack of knowledge; it's that you're selective about which ones you dismiss offhandedly as concerns your declarations of a lack of knowledge.

I dismiss frivolous things. If you don't...good for you.

Quote:
It's not that people are suggesting that you do have a knowledge of the things that you say you don't, but that you're arbitrairily selective about what you dismiss and what you're serious about.

Well...this comment means you have not actually read the comments that have been sent my way...because you are dead wrong about what some people are suggesting.

Quote:
But then we aren't discussing WWII or the Boer War; we're discussing supernatural things.

Perhaps you are...I am not. If there is a GOD...or if there are gods...they are not "supernatural." They are a part of what IS...and they are as natural as dandelions.

Quote:

One of the problems is that you're categorical about supernatural things. You dismiss some supernatural things from your consideration about declarations of what you know and don't know, and treat other supernatural things with the uttmost earnestness.

I do not deal with supernatural things at all, but I get the sense of what you are almost saying.

I am, as I said, dismissive of frivolous nonsense...and I am not dismissive of other stuff.

I am interested in the nature of REALITY. Discussing whether gods exist or do not exist is germane to that discussion. Discussing some of the nonsense that comes into action when that is being discussed is, IN MY OPINION, frivolous.

If you want to discuss elves and pixies and unicorns...do so. I will never fault you for that. If you don't want to discuss them...I will never fault you for that either.

So what is your problem?

Ultimately, the problem is the incongruent definitions that you, people and I use when discussing these issues rendering these discussions futile.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Please, Fil...don't tell ME what I mean.

When I say I do not know something...I mean that I do not know it.

Frank I think I understand what Fil Albuquerque is meaning and I understand you as well.
Fil Albuquerque seems to be speaking about something Fresco taught me about reality.

If I am not mistaken reality only exist because there is an observer to it and reality is a subjective state that subjects experience, so what Fil Albuquerque is saying is that you and only you indeed know your own reality. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

By the way: Do you know the true nature of REALITY?

Who's reality "yours? I would say that you are its nature.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

But wtf right has the O Poster to state that 'WE' determine all religions to be wrong??? Means 'He/She does...surely?
Or speaks for us all?

That was not stated mark but rather a question was being asked of How can we all be sure.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Frank I think I understand what Fil Albuquerque is meaning and I understand you as well.
Fil Albuquerque seems to be speaking about something Fresco taught me about reality.

RL...my guess is that Fresco NEVER taught you anything about REALITY. He taught you his guesses about REALITY.

Quote:

If I am not mistaken reality only exist because there is an observer to it and reality is a subjective state that subjects experience, so what Fil Albuquerque is saying is that you and only you indeed know your own reality.

Why are you saying that REALITY only exists because there is an observer to it? Are you saying that the Big Bang never happened...and you know that? There were no observers to the Big Bang...right...or wrong?

We do not know.

We most assuredly do not know that REALITY is dependent upon an observer. REALITY may just as likely be completely independent of any observer or observations.

Or do you have some information not available to me that conclusively indicates that REALITY IS dependent upon an observer?

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER: Fresco MAY BE WRONG!!!!!

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5304405)
Quote:
By the way: Do you know the true nature of REALITY?

Who's reality "yours? I would say that you are its nature.

The REALITY MAY BE that we each have our own REALITY...but of course, if that is the case, then that is the REALITY.

I am not interested in guesses that have REALITY being a function of an observer...or that guess that we each have our own REALITY. Unless, of course, you provide the evidence that we each have our own REALITY.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Quote:

Simple answer: Your question is utter bollux! Subjectvely misleading and attempting to infuse your own prejudice within others.
FCkoff poster, you are stupid as Frank...but differently.

This does not seem like the noble mark I remember.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Yes it was RL - "WE" includes "ME", therefore includes me in the suggestion.
Like 'Why do "WE" all hate Venusians?
My point being - What right do I have to assume that "WE" (The entire human race) all share the same outlook?

Just like the O poster suggests??
I am not a part of your "WE" **** fella, so dont redirect what I state.
RL, you are now on my 'prick' list.
sad twat!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Then maybe your memory is faulty?
Or, unlike you, I ceased giving a ****............?

Evolution, eh?

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Quote:

Yes it was RL - "WE" includes "ME", therefore includes me in the suggestion.
Like 'Why do "WE" all hate Venusians?
My point being - What right do I have to assume that "WE" (The entire human race) all share the same outlook?

Just like the O poster suggests??
I am not a part of your "WE" **** fella, so dont redirect what I state.
RL, you are now on my 'prick' list.
sad twat!

OK maybe I did ask the wrong question and it should have read "how can we be sure that all religions are either correct or incorrect?" Would that have been better?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Of course! Attempting to redirect the question and delicately patronise me in the process is clearly going to create conflict, which is easily acquired on this site RL, without the likes of those, whose opinions I do value (such as you), adding fuel to the flames.

1 Reply

And I don't believe that ppl's "ways of life" Can be right or wrong.
What sustains one man, poisons another..
There are pros n cons to all ideals.
But, those very same pros and cons are the stabilising factors (yin n yan) that maintain each religion's structure.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

the process is clearly going to create conflict, which is easily acquired on this site RL, without the likes of those, whose opinions I do value (such as you), adding fuel to the flames.

I am out Of gasoline but I do have a few gallons of diesel if you think it might help. Cool

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Quote:

pros and cons are the stabilising factors (yin n yan) that maintain each religion's structure.

I thought that it was delusions. Wink

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know