RE: A Non-Violent Solution?
February 18, 2012 at 7:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm by Abracadabra.)
Dear Cosmic Ape,
Genkaus make a very specific claim to me. He demanded that I must accept his "proof" that no possible concept of spirituality can exist and all possible concepts of spiritual have already been "ruled-out".
I knew immediately that his claim was totally bogus and lame. It's nothing more than an overly-arrogant personal opinion on his part. I told him that I don't accept his axioms. Then he tried to ram his axioms down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I pointed out why his axioms were not applicable in an absolute sense that he thought.
He continued to RAM his opinions down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I've showed him clearly why I do not need to accept his petty limited axioms. He's claims are totally ungrounded in modern knowledge.
So now you're jumping on the Genkaus bandwagon. Are you fully aware of what you are supporting?
You are supporting the idea that there cannot be any possible spiritual essence to reality and that this can be proved in a way that no one can deny.
That's what you need to support in your jump on Genkaus' bandwagon.
So you're taking Genkaus' position that spiritual agnosticism has been RULED OUT? There can be no possible spiritual essence to reality. And therefore spiritual spiritual agnosticism is no longer a valid view because we now KNOW that spirit cannot exist in any possible imaginable form.
I mean, if you too hold that view, fine.
But the TRUTH is that neither the scientific community nor the philosophical community proclaim this to be the case, nor would they be stupid enough to even pretend to. They know that we simply do not yet have enough information about the true nature of reality to make such an absurd and outrageous claim.
So if you're supporting Genkaus' position, then you too are supporting false information being spread to the public.
Stop for a moment and think about how lame Genkaus' position truly is:
Here's the position:
1. The only example of consciousness that we are aware of is biological consciousness.
2. Consciousness appears to require a physical brain in this case.
3. Therefore we can rule out any and all spiritual philosophies because we don't think there could be any other kind of consciousness.
That's got to be the lamest argument ever given in all of history.
Genkaus make a very specific claim to me. He demanded that I must accept his "proof" that no possible concept of spirituality can exist and all possible concepts of spiritual have already been "ruled-out".
I knew immediately that his claim was totally bogus and lame. It's nothing more than an overly-arrogant personal opinion on his part. I told him that I don't accept his axioms. Then he tried to ram his axioms down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I pointed out why his axioms were not applicable in an absolute sense that he thought.
He continued to RAM his opinions down my throat demanding that I must accept them. I've showed him clearly why I do not need to accept his petty limited axioms. He's claims are totally ungrounded in modern knowledge.
So now you're jumping on the Genkaus bandwagon. Are you fully aware of what you are supporting?
You are supporting the idea that there cannot be any possible spiritual essence to reality and that this can be proved in a way that no one can deny.
That's what you need to support in your jump on Genkaus' bandwagon.
So you're taking Genkaus' position that spiritual agnosticism has been RULED OUT? There can be no possible spiritual essence to reality. And therefore spiritual spiritual agnosticism is no longer a valid view because we now KNOW that spirit cannot exist in any possible imaginable form.
I mean, if you too hold that view, fine.
But the TRUTH is that neither the scientific community nor the philosophical community proclaim this to be the case, nor would they be stupid enough to even pretend to. They know that we simply do not yet have enough information about the true nature of reality to make such an absurd and outrageous claim.
So if you're supporting Genkaus' position, then you too are supporting false information being spread to the public.
Stop for a moment and think about how lame Genkaus' position truly is:
Here's the position:
1. The only example of consciousness that we are aware of is biological consciousness.
2. Consciousness appears to require a physical brain in this case.
3. Therefore we can rule out any and all spiritual philosophies because we don't think there could be any other kind of consciousness.
That's got to be the lamest argument ever given in all of history.
Christian - A moron who believes that an all-benevolent God can simultaneously be a hateful jealous male-chauvinistic pig.
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
Wiccan - The epitome of cerebral evolution having mastered the magical powers of the universe and is in eternal harmony with the mind of God.
Atheist - An ill-defined term that means something different to everyone who uses it.
~~~~~
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Clearly Jesus (a fictitious character or otherwise) will forgive people if they merely know not what they do
For the Bible Tells us so!
