Can pseudo-intellectual philosophy sway the masses?

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

You have just found the explanation for God existing,

Thanks for the credit. I didn't even know it was missing. Now could you help me find my sunglasses?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Dear Brian, you tell me,

Quote:

From Briajakup:

Quote:
From Susmariosep:
You have just found the explanation for God existing,
Thanks for the credit. I didn't even know it was missing.

Are you if I may an atheist or what?

And also, you say: "I didn't even know it was missing."

The "it" means the explanation for God existing as concept of first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

It was missing in your brain or mind, now it is no longer missing, and you can deliver it to others who also have it missing in their brain or mind.

But there are humans who insist on keeping it missing in their brain or mind.

That is my experience with them, when in the course of working together to concur on thoughts leading to the step in which they and I have to concur on the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, that is the point at which they start behaving like chickens with their heads chopped off, i.e., they become brainless or mindless or in concrete language, crazy.

And that is what we see with these humans, they stifle their brain or mind: these are atheists.

You see, from these statements:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in the mind and/or also outside and independent of the mind.

A human with a non-self-stifled brain or mind, he can infer ultimately to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear atheists here, see if you can contrive rational objections against my exposition in this message.

Now, I will sit back and await with bated breath to witness whether atheists here will report me as proselytizing; wherefore in order to not proselytize I must act like them, go into conducting myself like a chicken with its head chopped off.

That is why I really love talking with atheists on God exists or not!

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

I was born into a family of believers and immersed in a culture of believers. I believed in God until I was about 40. However, I believed in God sort of like I believe in Alexander the Great. I went to church regularly but was in the process of overhauling my own ethics. To my surprise, I discovered that belief in God stunted my ethical development. After a bit of thought, I decided that there was no good reason to believe in God, other than conformity, so I gave up the belief and my ethical development immediately became easier and more fulfilling.

Before you ask, I am familiar with all of the arguments for the existence of God. Your argument of a first cause simply begs the question; ie. it assumes what you want to prove. It fails to account for the cause of God.

It seems as if God has been cut up by Occam's razor and is slowly bleeding out. And a damned good thing too.

2 Replies

@hibbitus,

[ Postscript: Dear Hibbitus, this is a long message, so just go to the end and read the last line there in bold; it's a question, so please answer my question to you in that line at the end of this message. ]
_________________________

Dear Hibbitus, thanks for your reply to my post, though I am not the author of this thread.

Now, you tell me:

Quote:

To my surprise, I discovered that belief in God stunted my ethical development.

That is an interesting self-observation.

This is the way I go about with explaining to atheists and if you be one, then you will hate me because I will tell you how you get into nonsense thinking because you don't genuinely use your brain, but you swallow a lot of nonsense from empty heads who talk a lot but when challenged to think, they run about like chickens with their heads chopped off.

Okay, are you now hating me?

Should you continue reading even though you are now raving mad and running about like a chicken with its head chopped off?

Okay, you are still around? and not like a lot or almost all atheists here, they hate me instead of getting busy with their brain as to think, instead i.e. of using their brain as a stopper in order to stifle their reasoning faculty from its nature-endowed function, namely, to think?

Okay, one of the wired-in functions of the brain is to ask for explanation of things which we see but do not understand, like for example, why is there a nose in our face.

The question of why always is about the purpose something serves and how it serves and who brought it about.

So, I ask you, why do you have a nose in your face?

You will tell me that it is found in every human's face.

That answer only moves you to the next query why it is in every human's face.

So, when you use your brain you have to come to the question, who ultimately put it there and for what purpose.

Okay, do you now concur with me that the question why you have a nose or why every human has a nose ultimately leads you to the question what entity put it there and for what purpose?

Okay, tell me, have you ever done any thinking in that direction?

It's like when you get home in the evening from work, you notice a letter on the floor as you open the door to your home, so you ask yourself who ultimately sent me the letter and why.

So, similarly imagine that it is the first time you notice there is a nose on your face, and you ask yourself who put it there and why.

So, please sit back and do some thinking with your brain, instead of like the atheists here, they run about like chickens with their heads chopped off when I ask them questions like the one I am now addressing to you.

Okay, tell me, have you ever asked yourself who or what put the nose on your face and why.

0 Replies

@hibbitus,

You are wasting your time talking to a troll who has been banned elsewhere His 'answer' to you is just repetitive supercilious claptrap (involving his fixation with, esistence, atheists and the nose on his face, such issues constituting the full extent his ludicrous claim to be 'a thinker'). If you make the mistake of replying to his post, you will just get more of the same.

I concur with your concept of 'self - development' in a general sense rather than just an ethical sense, since 'self' tends to need go be 'sacrificed' as part of the price of theism.

1 Reply

@fresco,

[ Postscript: Dear Hibbitus, this is a lengthy message, so just proceed to the last text from me in bold, at the bottom of the post. ]
____________________________

Dear Fresco, it is with great pleasure for me that you are giving your attention to my thinking, though sad not to the substance of my thought.

You say:

Quote:

@hibbitus,
You are wasting your time talking to a troll who has been banned elsewhere His 'answer' to you is just repetitive supercilious claptrap (involving his fixation with, esistence [ sic ], atheists and the nose on his face, such issues constituting the full extent his ludicrous claim to be 'a thinker'). If you make the mistake of replying to his post, you will just get more of the same.

You see, dear Fresco, you are again - if I may dare tell you - running about like a chicken with its head chopped off.

The first and ultimate foundation of all thoughts of mankind on any issue at all, it is the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Dear Fresco, you are again and again and again... always and evermore into running in random unpredictable directions away from existence, like a chicken with its head chopped off.

Okay, dear Fresco, I will now again sit back, and await with bated breath, to witness whether you will no longer run about randomly without any fixed directions, like a chicken with its head chopped off, and/but react to my invitation to you to do thinking on what is the first and last foundation of all exchange on any issue at all among mankind who do think, is it not that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

Dear readers here, he will perhaps tell you again that I have been banned in a lot of forums, etc., and omit to mention that I am still here in a2k forum, which is evidence that the founders and owners and operators of this a2k forum THINK.

Everytime I make my presence known to him, he will be running about randomly in terrible fright from the invitation I address to him evermore, to tell me what is his first and ultimate foundation in the exchange of thoughts on any issue at all, that mankind spend a lot of time and labor on with their intelligence to talk about.

Okay, dear readers here, please also do some thinking on my statement, namely, the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

Do I hear anyone at all like Fresco saying that the statement is a tautology?

Oh well, then dear Fresco, give me just two examples outside and independent of your mind, of tautology, i.e. in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

Tip: Look at your nose in the mirror, and tell yourself, "That is my nose," that is one tautology but it is not a useless tautology.

Next, No. 2 example from me for you as an example of tautology in the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence, namely: tell people to inform them that Fresco is your name in a2k.

Dear Fresco and Oh ye atheists, I really love to talk with you guys!

Dear Hibbitus, you master the skill to bring people who care to take up any issue with you, that you like very much so that the conversation will not be like among chickens running about with their heads chopped off, namely, that you and they must first work as to concur that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

That will get them all lost like chickens with their heads chopped off.

1 Reply

Dear readers here, always keep in mind these three statements from me:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is either from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in the mind and/or outside and independent of the mind.

You will notice that there are talkers who will dismiss these three statements, so that they can talk on and on and on but all into emptiness of vacuous inane verbiage.

Or at most into but without any of their very own personal thinking with their very own personal brain, into namely:

Names dropping
Technical terms dropping
Empty non-decryptable verbiage

All in aid of their having stifled their brain, like using it as a stopper cork to their reasoning faculty - what a calamity for these wannabe intellectuals - all in aid of projecting a counterfeit shop window display of what, of nonsense irrational evasiveness passing for learning.

And don't be led astray by their insistence that the three statements are already factored in with their words.

That is not true and not the fact, evidence of that is that when you challenge them to produce their definition of a term they use in their talk, like virtual particles, you ask them are virtual particles real or not: if real why then are they called virtual?

Tip: Refer to my statement No. 3.

There, that will get them all lost as to now take to a grotesque macabre frenetic dance like chickens with their heads chopped off.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

Dear Fresco, you are again and again and again... always and evermore into running in random unpredictable directions away from existence, like a chicken with its head chopped off.

Okay, dear Fresco, I will now again sit back, and await with bated breath, to witness whether you will no longer run about randomly without any fixed directions, like a chicken with its head chopped off, and/but react to my invitation to you to do thinking on

Quote:

Dear readers here, he will perhaps tell you again that I have been banned in a lot of forums, etc., and omit to mention that I am still here in a2k forum, which is evidence that the founders and owners and operators of this a2k forum THINK.

Everytime I make my presence known to him, he will be running about randomly in terrible fright from the invitation I address to him evermore, to tell me what is his first and ultimate foundation in the exchange of thoughts on any issue at all, that mankind spend a lot of time and labor on with their intelligence to talk about.

Quote:

Have you ever considered leaving insults like these out of your posts? I don't see any value in it. Maybe you should concentrate on more your English grammar and less on your insults.

Quote:

Dear Hibbitus, you master the skill to bring people who care to take up any issue with you, that you like very much so that the conversation will not be like among chickens running about with their heads chopped off, namely, that you and they must first work as to concur that the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

That will get them all lost like chickens with their heads chopped off.

I don't think all people agree with you definition of reality or existence. I do think that your view of reality and existence is necessary for scientific discussion.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Dear Brian, you ask me:

Quote:

"Have you ever considered leaving insults like these out of your posts?"

Shall we you and I not pay attention to your perceived insults from me.

If it really matters with you, then just throw some insults on me, okay?

Now, tell me, do you have something to tell me that will enlighten me more on my contact with reality.

I am now sitting back and awaiting with bated breath to read what Brian and others here have to share with me what they know, as for me to get better acquainted with reality, the kind that is outside and independent of my mind - though of course I need my mind to know about it.

0 Replies

Dear readers, that is the most frustrating experience in my contacts with posters here, who do write but are always into the direction of evasiveness, like for example, complaining that I am insulting them.

Okay, just throw all kinds of insults on me, and then do produce something from your very own thinking and writing, without just regurgitating names to drop, and technical terms to drop, and empty non-decryptable verbiage to fill up your also empty messages, something at all that will enhance my contact with reality.

There, now I will sit back and await to read whatever of substance my colleagues here will with generosity share with me, instead of complaining that I am insulting them.

What to them are insults, are just in language, tools of emphasis to make them get serious with thinking, instead of running about like chickens with their heads chopped off.

Now, I will just sit back and await with bated breath, to read what the posters here will share with me, on anything at all that is to the enhancement of my contact with reality.

What about you tell me what you think about things which are just in your minds, but you can't find any objects outside and independent of your mind, but correspond to the thoughts in your mind.

For example, and this is in line with guys like Glennn, what is the usefulness among the ancient Greeks and Romans with their pantheon of gods and goddesses, which to me are all just inside their minds – still that they entertained them, they must find them useful to themselves.

Okay, guys like Glennn and his kinds of posters, get busy and work on my request in the immediately text above.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

For example, and this is in line with guys like Glennn, what is the usefulness among the ancient Greeks and Romans with their pantheon of gods and goddesses, which to me are all just inside their minds – still that they entertained them, they must find them useful to themselves.

What if they were real godlike beings that were destroyed by some catostrophic event, and they were really worshipping historical figures that had passed away in the recent past.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

For example, and this is in line with guys like Glennn, what is the usefulness among the ancient Greeks and Romans with their pantheon of gods and goddesses, which to me are all just inside their minds – still that they entertained them, they must find them useful to themselves.

When did I mention, or entertain the idea of, the Greeks and Romans with their pantheon of gods? Perhaps another case of you believing in things that are not really there? But now that you bring up the subject, I would ask you what is the usefulness of your god, which to me, is just made up in your mind. In what way do you find it useful to yourself?

0 Replies

Dear Glennn, were you not the poster who put in your messages a graphic of the ancient Greek and Roman gods?

Anyway you ask what is the use of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning?

It is the explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Tell me, and please do not again go into evasiveness, do you have at all your very own self-thought up with your very own mind, your very own explanation for the existence of man and the universe?

Okay, I will now sit back and await to read the answer from Glennn, to my question to him, and hope he does not go off into evasiveness again.

0 Replies

Dear everyone here, long time no read, I was away visiting other forums in the web.

Here is one exposition by a poster elsewhere, or did I post it myself here in a2k?

It is an exposition on his explanation for the existence of man and the universe, if you want me to look up the link, please let me know, otherwise I keep a record of it in my harddisk, for a rainy day.

Quote:

Dear atheist colleagues, I have explained time and again why I have come to the explanation of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, explanation thereby for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Now, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Here is again my explanation for God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

1. We exist.
2. We have a beginning.
3. The universe exists and it has a beginning.
4. We did not bring ourselves into existence, neither the universe.
5. I come up with the thought in my mind that there is an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
6. With this thought in my mind, I proceed to seek for everything with a beginning, for everything that I come upon which has a beginning, that is one evidence for the existence of the entity that is the cause of everything with a beginning.
7. I come across everything with a beginning, including the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
8. So, there is evidence everywhere in the universe of things with a beginning, even the universe itself is one big thing with a beginning.
9. In fact there is nothing in the universe that exists but without a beginning to its existence.
10. My conclusion is then that the entity that caused all things with a beginning, that corresponds to my thought in my mind of an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
11. But what about this entity the cause of everything else with a beginning, does it also have a beginning?
12. That cannot be the case because among everything with a beginning, logic tells us that there has got to be one thing with existence from itself, not from another thing which other thing has a beginning.
13. My ending conclusion is that there exists an entity which gives existence to everything with a beginning, but it itself has existence without beginning, because it exists from itself.
14. Where and when does this entity exist? Everywhere and all the time, in fact logic tells us it is above and beyond time and space, and still it is within time and space itself and it is the creator itself of time and space.
15. That entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning, I identify it as the God in the monotheistic religions of mankind, and it satisfies my concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, dear atheist colleagues here, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

[ Off topic comment: In previous years much years ago in internet time frame, every self-respecting web forum was using vBulletin for their forum software, now everyone is employing all kinds of software - I imagine they got wise, why pay for vBulletin when you can get a free software for a what? a registration of your web forum.

I could be wrong though, but that is my impression from having been in some long-lasting web forums, which some of them or a lot of them to my impression had gone into very bad meltdowns, from internal feuding: what with moderators quarrelling among themselves, and also most favored posters getting away with murder but still active just the same, because they are the darlings of some moderators against others.

And of course there is always some forum personnel who got too secure that they had to be put down, even at the cost of the walk-out from a good number of their supporters. ]

0 Replies

Quote:

https://able2know.org/topic/406552-6#post-6501109
From Susmariosep:

[…]

For example, and this is in line with guys like Glennn, what is the usefulness among the ancient Greeks and Romans with their pantheon of gods and goddesses, which to me are all just inside their minds – still that they entertained them, they must find them useful to themselves.

[…]

Dear readers here, from stock knowledge on comparative religion, it was okay in primitive communities that they came upon the thought that as there are all kinds of mankind, so also there are all kinds of deities.

That was good enough for them, but in due time with the better and better insights into the default status of things in the totality reality, man came ultimately to the existence of one God, existing from and in and on and of and through and for Himself.

Now, why did God create man and the universe?

I admit I don’t know the mind of God, but speaking from my experience of human behavior, it would seem intelligent that God thought that it would be enjoyable to create man and the universe.

Such also was the experience and also the conduct with mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, namely, Oh! It’s so nice to produce babies, they are so lovely!

Now, dear atheists, you will say that I am speaking from my experience and also of mankind’s experience, and therefore I have a human approach to the question why did God create man and the universe.

I concur with you, yes it is speaking from a human approach, founded upon man’s common experience.

Tell me, do you have any kind at all of thinking and doing that is not the human kind, and best it is founded upon experience of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence?

So, I am sitting back and awaiting with bated breath to read what Glennn and all others like unto Glennn the evasive poster, who reminds me of the lesson in how to acquire skill in using the typewrite keyboard, namely, by typing with all ten figures of our hands, the sentence:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Glennn is such a cunning fox, but too cunning that he ends up with an empty mind [ unlike the quick brown fox ], owing to his excessive and extreme running away from thinking to the best practice and tradition of mankind, which is ultimately founded upon experience, and not ever contrary to the experience of mankind.

Okay, everyone here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what our atheist colleagues here have to say, for their very own explanation on the existence of man and the universe.

Annex

Quote:

Dear atheist colleagues, I have explained time and again why I have come to the explanation of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, explanation thereby for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Now, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Here is again my explanation for God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

1. We exist.
2. We have a beginning.
3. The universe exists and it has a beginning.
4. We did not bring ourselves into existence, neither the universe.
5. I come up with the thought in my mind that there is an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
6. With this thought in my mind, I proceed to seek for everything with a beginning, for everything that I come upon which has a beginning, that is one evidence for the existence of the entity that is the cause of everything with a beginning.
7. I come across everything with a beginning, including the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
8. So, there is evidence everywhere in the universe of things with a beginning, even the universe itself is one big thing with a beginning.
9. In fact there is nothing in the universe that exists but without a beginning to its existence.
10. My conclusion is then that the entity that caused all things with a beginning, that corresponds to my thought in my mind of an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
11. But what about this entity the cause of everything else with a beginning, does it also have a beginning?
12. That cannot be the case because among everything with a beginning, logic tells us that there has got to be one thing with existence from itself, not from another thing which other thing has a beginning.
13. My ending conclusion is that there exists an entity which gives existence to everything with a beginning, but it itself has existence without beginning, because it exists from itself.
14. Where and when does this entity exist? Everywhere and all the time, in fact logic tells us it is above and beyond time and space, and still it is within time and space itself and it is the creator itself of time and space.
15. That entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning, I identify it as the God in the monotheistic religions of mankind, and it satisfies my concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, dear atheist colleagues here, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

it was okay in primitive communities that they came upon the thought that as there are all kinds of mankind, so also there are all kinds of deities.

Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead
Give them a twist a flick of the wrist
That's what the showman said.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Dear readers here and all good faith atheists, there are even today many human communities who still think on many gods for explanation of everything.

Recently I read about a people in the rural parts of a big country which is today ultra advanced in technology that it can annihilate the US as the US can annihilate it, this very rural people have many gods for all occasions and all explanations.

When they started using the mobile phone, they postulated right away a god of mobile phones.

But with their compatriots in big cities, God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, He is getting a very good press, that a lot of these compatriots are signing up everyday to be adherents of this God in the Christian churches.

Anyway, I will volunteer now to you all my favorite poster in another forum, and this post from him is very instructive for all good men and women who want to know truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

If you are curious to know of the source, just let me know.

Quote:

WARNING! The following words are exaggeration but the substance is true and therefore be on guard against pure evil atheists: they lie all the time and everywhere, instead of joining in the search for truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Pure evil atheists engage in lies of commission, omission, and mis-copy/paste, instead of sincere honest faithful attachment to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

So, dear readers and all good faith atheists, you will know them, the pure evil atheists, by comparing their words with my below reproduced explanation for the existence of man and the universe.
________________________

Yrger's Explanation for the Existence of Man and the Universe

From Yrger, 09-13-17, 04:40 PM Post #10

[ Example of explanation writing, in 483 words (word count by MS Word) ]

Dear atheist colleagues, I have explained time and again why I have come to the explanation of God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, explanation thereby for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Now, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

Here is again my explanation for God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Phase One, in man's mind
1. We exist.
2. We have a beginning.
3. The universe exists and it has a beginning.
4. We did not bring ourselves into existence, neither the universe.
5. I come up with the thought in my mind that there is an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Phase Two, in the world outside and independent of man's mind
6. With this thought in my mind, I proceed to seek for everything with a beginning, for everything that I come upon which has a beginning, that is one evidence for the existence of the entity that is the cause of everything with a beginning.
7. I come across everything with a beginning, including the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
8. So, there is evidence everywhere in the universe of things with a beginning, even the universe itself is one big thing with a beginning.
9. In fact there is nothing in the universe that exists but without a beginning to its existence.

Phase Three, the conclusion: God as explanation for existence of man and universe
10. My conclusion is then that the entity that caused all things with a beginning, that corresponds to my thought in my mind of an entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.
11. But what about this entity the cause of everything else with a beginning, does it also have a beginning?
12. That cannot be the case because among everything with a beginning, logic tells us that there has got to be one thing with existence from itself, not from another thing which other thing has a beginning.
13. My ending conclusion is that there exists an entity which gives existence to everything with a beginning, but it itself has existence without beginning, because it exists from itself.
14. Where and when does this entity exist? Everywhere and all the time, in fact logic tells us it is above and beyond time and space, and still it is within time and space itself and it is the creator itself of time and space.
15. That entity that is the creator cause of everything with a beginning, I identify it as the God in the monotheistic religions of mankind, and it satisfies my concept of God, namely, God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, dear atheist colleagues here, I like very much to read your explanation for our existence and the existence of the universe.

[ End of Explanation ]

0 Replies

Can pseudo-intellectual philosophy sway the masses?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know