The God Helmet

[nonlnear]

Fallacy of reification.

My apologies. It is more a mnemonic device for contemplation than a deductive argument. (Actually the fact that it isn't a decductive argument should have been obvious from the fact that we were discussing axioms, but I digress...) I was simply quoting Rand. It's one of many commonly used forms of "the axiom of existence" and I was taking a stab at a likely form that may have been intended.

I think you're reading WAY more into this than is necessary. It is tautological that reality is the set of all and everything that is real. Tautologies aren't really the same thing as statements of faith.

No, I am most certainly not reading more into anything than is necessary. There is nothing tautological about the claim I referenced because the claim I referenced is nothing like the claim you just paraphrased it as. I am reserving terms liek "real", existence", etc. for the universe of existence. "Truth" is always a tricky thing when philosophizing outside of a preset deductive system because it's impossible to define in general terms outside of a deductive system. There is a reason why logicians never bother to define it but simply use it as a label for a class of statements within whatever system they are using.

There might be if you could demonstrate first that there is such an animal as an "axiomatic system of existence, identity and consciousness."

Ask toalnoob. I was playing with what I was given.

And please tell me you did NOT seriously just ask somebody to prove the existence of an axiomatic system?!?!?

I prefer to think about things in terms of real and unreal. You're still reifying abstractions, though, talking about transcendence and existence.

I'm quite sure you understand the irony of this sentence!

 

[TheVrolok]

I saw this segment on the last ep of Through the Wormhole. The entire episode was very interesting. I've got to go with what Fern has said, though. I'm an agnostic, and generally not a fan of organized religion. With that, I still don't see this helmet disproving the existence of a god or God in any way.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And please tell me you did NOT seriously just ask somebody to prove the existence of an axiomatic system?!?!?

Not precisely, but rather I was disputing the implicit suggestion that reality is itself an axiomatic system.

I'm quite sure you understand the irony of this sentence!

I understand why you think it is ironic, but it isn't, because I'm not talking about the quality of being real in the same way you were talking about existence as if it were a thing. I won't take you to task over it, however, since you explained your usage above.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes..but certainly not the most prevalent religions today..and that is what most people are concerned with when discussing religious claims. The popular "western" religions all posit a god that is not only omnipresent within our universe, but one that also intervenes by answering prayers, performing miracles, and changing the physical world on a daily basis.

There are strains even within Christianity that never embraced Aristotelian categories. Granted they are a minority but they do exist. It's a shame that Thomistic theology had a knack for gaining academic momentum. It's such a silly enterprise.

Victor Stenger argues well in "God the Failed Hypothesis" argues that these sorts of claims should in principle be open to investigation and either verification or disproof.

It is not hard to argue against the kind of God that Stenger argues against. I'm not calling him a fool or even simplistic for doing so. He does the world a great service. However it is not a comprehensive argument, but an argument which only works against a God which is postulated using self-contradictory axioms. (Granted that includes most common flavors of Christianity, as well as many other theistic traditions - but not all.)

It's true there will always be room for the "unknowable" and we can probably never disprove the existence of a non-intervening deistic god..or some crazy claim like reincarnation..but that isn't what most theists believe in. There may be some transcendent "thing" or realm that we are unaware of..but asserting knowledge of that realm and forming convoluted theologies around it without a shred of evidence is certainly worthy of criticism in my opinion.

I fully agree.

You don't see atheists attacking deistic or pantheistic beliefs very often.. Their major beef is with those who claim knowledge of the unknowable.

I share this beef. It's important to be precise with categories of knowledge though. And no, I'm not claiming that there is some special category of divine knowledge which one can play with in the theological sense and keep it separate from logic - while invoking logic at one's convenience in order to grow the theological system. That's quite ridiculous.) What I mean is that if one embraces a concept of transcendent something, then it is possible to believe in a transcendent "truth" without knowing it in the sense of knowledge in the universe. Now if such a person attempts to assert an allegedly transcendent "truth" as knowable, provable, or factual in any deductive sense then they deserve ridicule - and lots of it.

The bottom line is that "faith" has no epistemological credentials.. It is not an alternative means of discovering truth, and those who believe it is rightly deserve to be ridiculed.

Depending on what you mean by the words faith, truth, and discovering, I fully agree.

 

[nonlnear]

Not precisely, but rather I was disputing the implicit suggestion that reality is itself an axiomatic system.

Yes, that would be a fantastically stupid assertion!

I understand why you think it is ironic, but it isn't, because I'm not talking about the quality of being real in the same way you were talking about existence as if it were a thing. I won't take you to task over it, however, since you explained your usage above.

Actually your objection to my usage of existence in "Existence exists" is one of my major problems with Rand. IMHO she is quite sloppy with her treatment of properties, specifically her assertion that properties have exist objectively. That's why I don't follow Rand very far.

 

[nonlnear]

What are your axioms?

You decide so long as it presents realistically recognizable and undeniable evidence of the existence of a god. It has to be presented as physical reality, not metaphysical what ifs. Since a god allegedly influences this universe so thoroughly, and influences in reality leave physical traces, it should be relatively simple to produce some physical proof that's comprehensible by man.

You don't seem to understand what an axiom is...

You don't understand that I'm not going to fall into the trap you were trying to set. bt, dt. I gave you my parameters. Provide your proof.

Well it shouldn't be a surprise that you don't understand what a proof is, given that you don't know what an axiom is! It's pathetic that you think that asking a person to precisely outline their beliefs in logical terms is somehow setting a trap. It would be excusable if you claimed to be a mystic or religious or something, but if you are going to pretend to love reason you should at least be competent with its tools. On the other hand if you really are strictly embracing "realistically recognizable and undeniable evidence", "physical reality", and rejecting all "metaphysical what ifs", then you need to stop pretending that you like logic at all. If that is the case then you detest it quite passionately.

Look, I get that epistemology fell out of fashion with postmodernism, but if you're going to mock a person for demanding logic you should at least be shamelessly honest about it and not present your worldview as having anything to do with reason. Your answer to my request for axioms reads like the contents of a chicken gizzard after eating a philosophy of science 101 textbook. It's kind of sad.

 

[totalnoob]

Actually your objection to my usage of existence in "Existence exists" is one of my major problems with Rand. IMHO she is quite sloppy with her treatment of properties, specifically her assertion that properties have exist objectively. That's why I don't follow Rand very far.

We can't prove existence by means of nonexistence. We can't prove consciousness by means of unconsciousness. The point of Rand is that we must take these things as a given.. "Existence exists." may be a clumsy shorthand way of saying it, but it's about the best we can do with limited human language.

 

[nonlnear]

We can't prove existence by means of nonexistence. We can't prove consciousness by means of unconsciousness.

Of course not. I wouldn't dream of making such an argument. I have a reasonably good idea of what an axiom is, what it does, and what is required to prove it. (To preempt an unnecessary discussion with anyone who chooses to pounce on the last bit: Yes, that's a joke!)

The point of Rand is that we must take these things as a given.. "Existence exists." may be a clumsy shorthand way of saying it, but it's about the best we can do with limited human language.

I quite like Rand's concise statement as a contemplative tool. It's a clumsy as a strictly construed axiom, but it's catchy. I only went to the effort of spinning it out because of the objection made that it was a fallacy of reification.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well it shouldn't be a surprise that you don't understand what a proof is, given that you don't know what an axiom is! It's pathetic that you think that asking a person to precisely outline their beliefs in logical terms is somehow setting a trap. It would be excusable if you claimed to be a mystic or religious or something, but if you are going to pretend to love reason you should at least be competent with its tools. On the other hand if you really are strictly embracing "realistically recognizable and undeniable evidence", "physical reality", and rejecting all "metaphysical what ifs", then you need to stop pretending that you like logic at all. If that is the case then you detest it quite passionately.

Look, I get that epistemology fell out of fashion with postmodernism, but if you're going to mock a person for demanding logic you should at least be shamelessly honest about it and not present your worldview as having anything to do with reason. Your answer to my request for axioms reads like the contents of a chicken gizzard after eating a philosophy of science 101 textbook. It's kind of sad.

Ugh. I'm not mocking anyone for demanding logic. However, neither am I going to delve into all the philosophical aspects of how to achieve that logic. I refused to provide any axiom because I've been through this same argument about demanding axioms like, uh, 15 years ago. It's an old tactic. The argument then devolves into how the axioms aren't really applicable in revealing a proof of a god and the discussion goes nowhere. iow, it's a pathetic diversion that is used as a vehicle to completely run around having to provide any sort of proof in the first place.

If you REALLY want to talk about being honest here, simply admit that you can present no proof regardless of the axioms, then move on. Because it's readily apparent that you have no proof of the existence of a god.

 

[nonlnear]

Ugh. I'm not mocking anyone for demanding logic. However, neither am I going to delve into all the philosophical aspects of how to achieve that logic. I refused to provide any axiom because I've been through this same argument about demanding axioms like, uh, 15 years ago. It's an old tactic. The argument then devolves into how the axioms aren't really applicable in revealing a proof of a god and the discussion goes nowhere. iow, it's a pathetic diversion that is used as a vehicle to completely run around having to provide any sort of proof in the first place.

It's hardly a diversion. What is a diversion is claiming that you believe in the value of "proof" without doing any groundwork for it. Demanding "proof" of God while knowing that the concept of proof is not applicable to it is the epitome of dishonesty - especially because people making such a case are typically trying to implicitly claim the logical high ground.

If you REALLY want to talk about being honest here, simply admit that you can present no proof regardless of the axioms, then move on. Because it's readily apparent that you have no proof of the existence of a god.

Of course there is no proof. Why would you think that I would dodge a fact as simple as that? And did I catch an insinuation that I hold a specific [unnamed] belief? That's uncalled for! I simply understand the terrain and respect logic for what it is and what it can do - which means being honest about what it cannot do.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's hardly a diversion. What is a diversion is claiming that you believe in the value of "proof" without doing any groundwork for it. Demanding "proof" of God while knowing that the concept of proof is not applicable to it is the epitome of dishonesty - especially because people making such a case are typically trying to implicitly claim the logical high ground.

Of course there is no proof. Why would you think that I would dodge a fact as simple as that? And did I catch an insinuation that I hold a specific [unnamed] belief? That's uncalled for! I simply understand the terrain and respect logic for what it is and what it can do - which means being honest about what it cannot do.

Actually, I'm claiming that regardless of any axioms provided there still is no proof you can present. That's being as honest and logical as there is. If you want to employ ultimately invalid diversions to avoid answering the question and didn't state in the first place that you cannot provide proof regardless of the conditions or parameters, when you readily admit you already knew, you should question who is really being dishonest.

Edit: As far as insinuating some specific [unnamed] belief, I have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such insinuation on my part.

 

[nonlnear]

Actually, I'm claiming that regardless of any axioms provided there still is no proof you can present. That's being as honest and logical as there is.

Of course. We agree perfectly on this matter. The only question is then whether the concept of proof is relevant to a construct which by definition cannot be subject to proof or disproof.

I agree that it is perfectly legitimate to dismiss such concepts as nonsense, but to insinuate that

If you want to employ ultimately invalid diversions to avoid answering the question and didn't state in the first place that you cannot provide proof regardless of the conditions or parameters, when you readily admit you already knew, you should question who is really being dishonest.

If you are trying to insinuate that I was intentionally avoiding an admission to that effect you really shouldn't. Ask me a question and I'll answer it. This entire exchange began as my reaction to your statement "I have an open mind. Prove your god is a fact." That set up a few things quite clearly: that you have a notion of rules of "proof", that you hold "fact" (whatever that is) as your test of validity of a concept of God, and implicitly that this standard of "fact" is actually a sensible test to apply to the concept of God in the first place. You then object to using logic at all, and get bent out of shape when it is pointed out (even by you!) that "God" and "fact" are irreconcilable - in the sense that it is quite meaningless to make a claim one way or the other.

Now this may all be academic in the case that you were simply being informal with your use of the term "fact". However if that were indeed the case I wonder how you would deride an unprovable deity as some sort of end run when it is clearly nothing of the sort. It is only an end run around "proof" to those who embrace the sentiments of fact and proof without any practice in their strict application.

Edit: As far as insinuating some specific [unnamed] belief, I have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such insinuation on my part.

Never mind then. I thought you may have been insinuating that I was secretly rooting for a deity of some sort. Raw text can take on a life of its own sometimes. Sorry for reading too much into it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Of course. We agree perfectly on this matter. The only question is then whether the concept of proof is relevant to a construct which by definition cannot be subject to proof or disproof.

I'm not sure that we agree perfectly. As someone else has already pointed out, a god allegedly has its (I use "its" because a male or feminine pronoun likely doesn't apply to a god) hand directly involved in our universe, specifically in the actions of man, and rather heavy-handedly. Actions in this universe leave a detectable trace. They change quantum randomness in a way that cannot possibly be erased without affecting or eradicating the original changes in the first place, even by a god. A god's interactions in our universe should leave a trail, particularly a god that is so thoroughly invested in the way man's religions describe. Therefore, man should relatively easily be able to detect and demonstrate the actions of a god by showing that not all quantum interactions are random and are influenced by an outside force. Nothing has ever shown that to be the case.

I agree that it is perfectly legitimate to dismiss such concepts as nonsense, but to insinuate that

If you are trying to insinuate that I was intentionally avoiding an admission to that effect you really shouldn't. Ask me a question and I'll answer it. This entire exchange began as my reaction to your statement "I have an open mind. Prove your god is a fact." That set up a few things quite clearly: that you have a notion of rules of "proof", that you hold "fact" (whatever that is) as your test of validity of a concept of God, and implicitly that this standard of "fact" is actually a sensible test to apply to the concept of God in the first place. You then object to using logic at all, and get bent out of shape when it is pointed out (even by you!) that "God" and "fact" are irreconcilable - in the sense that it is quite meaningless to make a claim one way or the other.

Now this may all be academic in the case that you were simply being informal with your use of the term "fact". However if that were indeed the case I wonder how you would deride an unprovable deity as some sort of end run when it is clearly nothing of the sort. It is only an end run around "proof" to those who embrace the sentiments of fact and proof without any practice in their strict application.

My stance is that god is not unprovable, as I explained previously.

Never mind then. I thought you may have been insinuating that I was secretly rooting for a deity of some sort. Raw text can take on a life of its own sometimes. Sorry for reading too much into it.

No problem, though I'm a bit confused as to whether you personally believe in a god or not. You seem to imply that you believe one exists. Am I wrong on that account?

 

[JEDIYoda]

The problem with this whole subject of God is that Science cannot prove nor disprove that there is a God.....

Just because in your opinion something is NOT there or just because in my opinion something is there has no bearing on if there is a God or not....duh...wake up!!

Then you idiots seem to think you can define what the word faith means...yet this is such an individual thing it`s not even worth discussing.....
I cannot tell you that your definition of the word FAITH as far as you are concerned is wrong...
Yet you cannot tell me that my definition and the way I approach the subject of faith is wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The problem with this whole subject of God is that Science cannot prove nor disprove that there is a God.....

Science can indeed prove that very thing. A miracle would require a change in the quantum randomness in our universe. Any intervention at all would demand that quantum randomness be non-random and even a god cannot contravene that fact because any intelligent intervention non-randomizes quantum behaviour. That non-randomness by an outside force could be detected. Therefore a god would leave traces of any intervention.

It's possible that science hasn't yet taken that approach to proving or disproving god. Thus far though, nothing has shown that quantum behaviour is influenced by any outside force.

I guess it could be claimed that a god has already designed things so that everything is already predetermined, however, that in and of itself implies that randomness is not really random and that chaos theory is completely invalid. iow, we're all bound by fate. There's no scientific evidence of that though.

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken;29985225]iginally Posted by Moonbeam
M: No, but if it makes them more integrated folk thereafter, I'm glad they saw one.

"Integrated?" lol. In the real world, when people claim to have seen ghosts, faeries, leprechauns, cupcabras, vampires, or werefolves those people are generally considered either mistaken or somewhat mentally unstable.

What does it matter how people are considered. It is because the wise are considered to be fools by fools that the wise sometimes adopt that term. Integrated, psychologically, means the left and the right halves of the brain are friends. What you ridicule shows what little you know about much of anything. One might even say you are upside down.


Quote:
M: Let's look again at what I said:

Let's not.

Despite all of your contradictory statements, you insist that god exists but cannot provide proof. It's as simple as that.

Yes, let's not look to closely at anything that reveals how silly is your thinking. I will prove there is a God but first you must take back all the negative things you have said about me. You will have to give me all your money. You will have to announce to the forum that you are an uncultured and bad mannered fool and that you are sorry you have a huge ass. There are some other things but I'll save those for when you finish these.


Quote:
Again, I do not believe in God in any way you would recognize as religious. You are tilting at windmills.

I don't care one whit about your specific religious concepts or lack thereof and haven't spoken to that aspect of it. You insist a god exists. Prove it. It's as simple as that.

What you refer to as simple I would call simplistic. I don't insist a god exists, I know God exists. I know, therefore I know. That is what one could call simple. I set out a long time ago to prove there is a God and I failed. I not only failed to prove there is a God but I failed to find any meaning to life at all. My God cost me everything I had and everything I loved. He stripped me of everything I believed and left me necked, unloved and alone in total black misery. All my hope and longing died and I know I would never recover, that I would suffer till my death. So Bob's your uncle. If you want proof of God it's easy. All you have to do is die. God, you see, is the self you have forgotten long ago, that which remains when all the self that can be lost is taken. God is a state, the state of being. God is what is when the false self dies and the real self awakens.

You laugh at the religious with their idiot faith, but they will die much more easily than you can. They have faith they will be caught on the way down. God bless the meek for they can awaken to this Paradise earth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Science can indeed prove that very thing. A miracle would require a change in the quantum randomness in our universe. Any intervention at all would demand that quantum randomness be non-random and even a god cannot contravene that fact because any intelligent intervention non-randomizes quantum behaviour. That non-randomness by an outside force could be detected. Therefore a god would leave traces of any intervention.

It's possible that science hasn't yet taken that approach to proving or disproving god. Thus far though, nothing has shown that quantum behaviour is influenced by any outside force.

I guess it could be claimed that a god has already designed things so that everything is already predetermined, however, that in and of itself implies that randomness is not really random and that chaos theory is completely invalid. iow, we're all bound by fate. There's no scientific evidence of that though.

Oh Boy, if you can believe this bull shit I should have no problems with religious faith. I think I just need to take you down to the river.

 

[woolfe9999]

Arm or leg? When does the last moron to the game get a break? You might note that many Atheists think the OP sort of Atheist is a fool, eh? The irony, my dear wild dog, is that those who fancy themselves to be free of religious bigotry are as big of bigots and any religious wingnut can be.

Perhaps, but atheists haven't burned people at the stake, at least not in the name of atheism. Atheists don't generally care enough about something they don't believe in to act out in that manner. Some atheists may sneer at religious people, but that's about as far as it goes.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps, but atheists haven't burned people at the stake, at least not in the name of atheism. Atheists don't generally care enough about something they don't believe in to act out in that manner. Some atheists may sneer at religious people, but that's about as far as it goes.

- wolf

I understand what you are saying but I man not see things as you do. When you look at an Atheist you see somebody who doesn't care about things. I see what I always see, folk who do not have the faintest idea they feel they are the worst in the world and would rather the world die than have to feel that truth. I see everybody as a potential monster if the right buttons are pushed. Who would imagine that conservatives could be such complete nut cases but look at how insane they become not that their world views are dying. They have gone certifiably nuts, eh?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Science can indeed prove that very thing. A miracle would require a change in the quantum randomness in our universe. Any intervention at all would demand that quantum randomness be non-random and even a god cannot contravene that fact because any intelligent intervention non-randomizes quantum behaviour. That non-randomness by an outside force could be detected. Therefore a god would leave traces of any intervention.

It's possible that science hasn't yet taken that approach to proving or disproving god. Thus far though, nothing has shown that quantum behaviour is influenced by any outside force.

I guess it could be claimed that a god has already designed things so that everything is already predetermined, however, that in and of itself implies that randomness is not really random and that chaos theory is completely invalid. iow, we're all bound by fate. There's no scientific evidence of that though.

nO science cannot prove or disprove there is a God.....
maybe your science can...

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/scientific-proof-of-god-faq.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

 

[The Sauce]

How about gays are child molesters?

http://www.nambla.org/

Of course blacks are problems too.

http://www.midwestfreepress.com/2009/09/27/cdc-report-shows-dangers-of-black-males/


The fact is that most religious, gay and black people don't go around blowing shit up, they don't rape your kids and they don't do drive-by's.

Yes but the religious commit other heinouis attrocities in the name of religion that cause untold suffering to countless millions routinely without even thinking about it - like voting GW into office. Most Christians I know did that purely because of his religious beliefs and look how that turned out...

 

[1prophet]

Science can indeed prove that very thing. A miracle would require a change in the quantum randomness in our universe. Any intervention at all would demand that quantum randomness be non-random and even a god cannot contravene that fact because any intelligent intervention non-randomizes quantum behaviour. That non-randomness by an outside force could be detected. Therefore a god would leave traces of any intervention.

It's possible that science hasn't yet taken that approach to proving or disproving god. Thus far though, nothing has shown that quantum behaviour is influenced by any outside force.

I guess it could be claimed that a god has already designed things so that everything is already predetermined, however, that in and of itself implies that randomness is not really random and that chaos theory is completely invalid. iow, we're all bound by fate. There's no scientific evidence of that though.

You have just created god according to your image and given god limitations and rules that god must abide by.

Therefore an omnipotent infinite all powerful God unbound by the limitations men such as yourself place on God cannot possibly exist.

 

[The Sauce]

So, then, are we all of us clear, now, that because an orgasm is chemical we can all now laugh our asses off at Atheists who persist in wanting sex, that they are really suffering delusions induced by their brains, or in this case, lack thereof?

Now this is is perhaps the best response in the thread. It acknowledges that religiosity fills a basic human need - i.e. reduces the anxiety associated with fear of dying.

However, because I experience orgasms does not lead me to contemplate the wholesale slaughter of everyone else who does not experience them in exactly the same way as I do. Historically religion has shown this tendency ad infinitum.

 

[nonlnear]

I'm not sure that we agree perfectly.

Well we would if you didn't insist on a certain rather sloppy construction of a deity:

As someone else has already pointed out, a god allegedly has its (I use "its" because a male or feminine pronoun likely doesn't apply to a god) hand directly involved in our universe, specifically in the actions of man, and rather heavy-handedly. Actions in this universe leave a detectable trace. They change quantum randomness in a way that cannot possibly be erased without affecting or eradicating the original changes in the first place, even by a god. A god's interactions in our universe should leave a trail, particularly a god that is so thoroughly invested in the way man's religions describe. Therefore, man should relatively easily be able to detect and demonstrate the actions of a god by showing that not all quantum interactions are random and are influenced by an outside force. Nothing has ever shown that to be the case.

This is an incredibly wild conjecture, layered with a mysticism all its own. You seem to know more about quantum phenomena and the nature of randomness than the entire corpus of scientific research.

My stance is that god is not unprovable, as I explained previously.

It's unfortunate that you cling to a god that you have fashioned in your head for the very purpose of reaching this conclusion.

[edit] I do agree with you that any God who by definition interferes in detectable ways has been or will be disproven. But to assert that any deity must be detectable or otherwise [dis]provable is a bizarre claim. In fact it is nothing less than a religious claim.[/edit]

No problem, though I'm a bit confused as to whether you personally believe in a god or not. You seem to imply that you believe one exists. Am I wrong on that account?

Ah well the knife of unintended insinuations cuts both ways now...
You are right to be confused as I am deliberately avoiding making an implication one way or another. After all it is my firm belief that arguing one way or another (at least in logical terms) is always an act of purest dishonesty or total ignorance - and occasionally both.

[edit 2] To be clear, I only mean that arguing against every God is logical terms is incorrect. There certainly are many particular deities which merit deconstruction.[/edit 2]

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What does it matter how people are considered. It is because the wise are considered to be fools by fools that the wise sometimes adopt that term. Integrated, psychologically, means the left and the right halves of the brain are friends. What you ridicule shows what little you know about much of anything. One might even say you are upside down.

In psychology, "integrated" can mean any number of things. Apparently in your world, where up is down, left is right, and inside is out, integrated would seem to mean 'barely holding it together,' in psychological terms of course.

Yes, let's not look to closely at anything that reveals how silly is your thinking. I will prove there is a God but first you must take back all the negative things you have said about me. You will have to give me all your money. You will have to announce to the forum that you are an uncultured and bad mannered fool and that you are sorry you have a huge ass. There are some other things but I'll save those for when you finish these.

You must imagine such retorts as being clever. Truthfully, they reveal nothing more than what a whack job you are.

What you refer to as simple I would call simplistic. I don't insist a god exists, I know God exists. I know, therefore I know. That is what one could call simple. I set out a long time ago to prove there is a God and I failed. I not only failed to prove there is a God but I failed to find any meaning to life at all. My God cost me everything I had and everything I loved. He stripped me of everything I believed and left me necked, unloved and alone in total black misery. All my hope and longing died and I know I would never recover, that I would suffer till my death. So Bob's your uncle. If you want proof of God it's easy. All you have to do is die. God, you see, is the self you have forgotten long ago, that which remains when all the self that can be lost is taken. God is a state, the state of being. God is what is when the false self dies and the real self awakens.

You laugh at the religious with their idiot faith, but they will die much more easily than you can. They have faith they will be caught on the way down. God bless the meek for they can awaken to this Paradise earth.

You assume too much, and the fact that you're so often wrong with those assumptions demonstrates that you're not nearly as enlightened or knowledgeable as you pretend to be.

I don't laugh at anyone for having religious faith. In fact, I will defend to my death the right of anyone to have and hold a religious belief even though I don't hold one myself. What I laugh at is you as an individual with all your silly illusions of moral supremacy along with your trite, billious utterings that are essentially nothing more than a defense mechanism to keep from having to deal with the real world.

Good luck Moonie. You're going to need it.