Are We the Gods?

Bloody Boring
You guys are bloody boring. I took up a stance. But you guys are like yeah maybe. Maybe not.

Come on. You guys can't formulate enough of a thought to defend it at least as a possibility. This is the Philosophy AND debate board.

Welcome to A2K MrIVI.......sorry this isn't working out for you. We're just all a little punch drunk.......come on, it's Saturday night.......live a little. Tickle tickle



Yeh, I know Plato said he did..........but Freud did not.

Re: Bloody Boring



Sounds like you don't like the positions we've offered.

You're new...and we would like to make you feel welcome. Why don't you tell us what you want us to say...and we can simply copy and paste.

Either that...or accept that some of us don't see things the way you do!

MrIVI -
don't feel like the Lone Ranger with your feelings about some of the "stances" taken here.

...and just because anyone here uses the pronoun "we", doesn't necessarily mean they speak for anyone but themselves.

Welcome.

There you are Snood, talking about my royal "we" again. I do have a tendency to generalize..... sorry.

Have I told you yet how glad I am to see you again?

I have a feeling he was not referring to you, Lola.

Snood was likely referring to us both. But I'll let him speak for himself. Snood has mentioned to me more than once before how I have a tendency to seem to speak for everyone. So I was referring to that.

Ahhh...I see.

Snood has mentioned lots of things to me also.

But what the heck!

I don't think either of us truly is attempting to speak for a broad "we." But he has to say something...and why not that.

You just assumed to speak for Lola - did you notice?

...and glad to be back with you, Lola.

No I didn't!

Try reading what I actually wrote...rather than what you hoped I wrote.

Good to have you back.

Religion Board
I'm going over to the religion board. Maybe they can carry on an intelligent debate!

I'm not "close-minded." I accept the possibility of us being gods, but if I had to take a stance on it and I did, I know nothing more than that we are not gods. That is my logical reasoning based on what I know. I'm not leaving out the possibility that we're not gods, but I figure that it is more probable that we are not gods and that's what I said.

If the laws of physics can be broken, then the world could turn chaotic in an instant. As far as I know, we can't break the laws of physics. The speed of light is an asymptote that so far no object with great mass can reach ( I think ).

Then again, our whole perspective on physics could very well be a primitive view on a rather more complex one.

and FrankApisa, I was stating what I think is right so perhaps I should have said "I believe", but I felt that I didn't need to.



Good luck! There seems to be a lot of atheist versus theists stuff going on there :wink: .

Finally!
Hi, there!! You were the most promising of this group. So I was trying to insult a debate out of you with the bowling ball comment. (Hope you didn't mind too much.) Anyway, you're standing on the "Laws of Physics" can't be broken.

Here I'll throw up some rational. If the laws of physics can't be broken.

Why would the Christian Church (both Catholic and Protestant) burn witches for about one thousand years. That's a pretty heavy punishment for never having ever seen anything out of the ordinary happen once!

Again, you think the military would be hiring people with "remote viewing" capabilities if there was never any proof that they had such a capability.

Again, you think that the followers of Jesus had never performed any paranormal activity he would have inspired a myth big enough to get more people killed for him than any other man or cause on earth?

Again, do you think that 9/10 people from the beginning of known history can believe in God, Gods, or some form of paranormal without the existence of it?

Finally, haven't you ever felt some one stare at you? How does that correspond in your world in which the laws of physics are un broken?

"Hi, there!! You were the most promising of this group. So I was trying to insult a debate out of you with the bowling ball comment. (Hope you didn't mind too much.) Anyway, you're standing on the "Laws of Physics" can't be broken.
"

It was a bit... well anyway it's okay. Yeah that's my view.

Just because people think that they have seen something paranormal doesn't mean that they have. It might have been out of the ordinary, for example, back then for people to have seen some chemical reactions occuring in nature.

It's not hard to convince people to believe in something that really isn't there. Especially if they've been hardened to a certain religious view. They're the one who are what you would call "close minded" you know?

The psychic stuff I don't know. Give me your sources and I'll look into it.

Cheers.

Here :-)
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

This is actually an article attempting to debunk the few military psychic in question. I picked this one simply because it was an article against my point of view that still ceded that the Military did indeed spend millions of dollars on psychics.

If you want to really get into looking at this check Edgar Cayce.

...thin line here - you did assume to know what Lola meant.

...but I guess you have to say something, right?

Not a very thin line at all.

You wrote:

I told you I did not ASSUME TO SPEAK FOR LOLA.

Yes I did assume to know what Lola meant...and I am assuming she did not mean to speak for the rest of the world with her use of the word "we"...which is what you were intimating.

Then you wrote that I was assuming to speak for Lola.

And I wasn't


You were wrong. I was correct.

Try to live with that.

Yeah...I say what I mean.

And when I am wrong...I simply acknowledge that I was wrong.

You seem to have some trouble doing that, Snood.