The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
#271
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@3RU7AL
[ Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration. ]

// this isnt truth of old atheists atheism. the truth old atheist knowable atheism knows how to meditate to have a sex with a so called female goddess. and their belief is there is not a GOD CREATOR of everything. but the inditer of a goddess creates - holy spirit in them that they relate to written nature.
 because repeatable self experience reasoning dictates their understanding of written nature verifies there in-correct knowing.

later their thought science became an abstract way of trying to capture and explain in a deceiving way as to keep the unknowers of their way yet let other like knowers around the world to have a common language.

todays unknowing atheists are trying to use old's science as a way to claim the same {not a GOD CREATOR of everything} by evidence of their science lacking the; i dont see GOD CREATOR of everything  as proof HE does EXIST. then states with lengthy sentences HE doesnt EXIST.


yet it was the old atheists that wrote the fairy tales and wrote all religions but 1. the bible. the bible is an editing started from first writers knowing GOD CREATOR of everything. which they input mistakes into thee text.
 what happens to these unknowing atheists when they realize there are mistakes in the bible by explaining how to correct them is yet to be determined by them and me.

#272
eash
eash's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 88
0
0
1
eash's avatar
eash
0
0
1
-->
@3RU7AL
free will only
 first) a BEING WHO by our time and space can be said to be over 1 trillion years old. planed to give HIS CREATED beings individual motion choices and thought choices. these expressed choices always have a lesser choice then the other with outcomes to define by their placement of their given choices.
 2nd) within these choices are awareness of partaking of fairness and wickedness determined by expressed outcome. therefore causing the next individual choices to be learned by said beings being made to conceive and bring forth next like beings.

 these beings and those beings have the free will only, to choose of the choices predefined to use wording of a fixed free will was HIS BEST CREATION for HIS beings to learn from WITHIN HIS INFINITE AWARENESS FROM HIS PERFECT MATTER.
thus to the CREATED individuals will always have the understanding of unlimited determined free will only by knowing and not knowing they are HIS CREATION

this that mobius free will only; is just self awareness and unawareness for existence within many mobiuses.

tomorrow's defined choices will influence my understanding of free will only. now stop laughing. i tried to explain the many by using 1 and 2

#273
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
If we conceptually take away the eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe, that inherently means we take away all sound vibration and all vibrations in general ergo what remains has only one rational, logical common sense conclusion.
Scenario #1 aka macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE and occupied SPACE Universe
..........................................................................................................................................
..................................................SPACE(>*<)   i   (>*<)SPACE..........................................
.......................................................................................................................................

Scenario #2; macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE only

............................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................SPACE...........................................................
..........................................................................................................................................

Scenario #3: rational logical common sense

#1 above and #2 above. No rational, logical common sense 3rd catagory exists and that is why we see none offerred.

We do see insignificant, irrelevant hand-waving to avoid these rational, logical sense conclusions.

That is the problem with theist, atheist etc. 
#274
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@3RU7AL
Personally, I have only ever taken the position that I have no way of verifying gos is anything more than a concept. I suppose the same can be said for free will and infinity. I would say everyone I know  assumes they percieve the same reality as others. It is an assumption, one that may be necessary, but an assumption none the less.
#275
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
I'm curious as to where you're getting that definition. I can't find it anywhere. What properties do you propose your God possesses?
#276
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Mdh2000
Merriam-webster collegiate dictionary, which is also the one they host on their website.

But thousands of years ago, before English even, there has been a consistent understanding of the concept.

The definition is very in line with theology, which is why I am referencing it. It is a good definition.



#277
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
So anything that can be considered an 'ultimate ' reality is by your definition god? Can show evidence this 'ultimste reality' exists? What traits does it possess? How can you know them? The definiton seems less than informative. Is it intelligent? Did it create the universe (or is it the last in the series, the final reality if you will)?

In short why should we assume there is an ultimate reality? And if we do, why should we assume we know anything of it?
#278
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
There are a great many things that lie squarely outside the scope of scientific observation, free will, ghosts, and god(s) are among the most obvious.

I can agree with that. Do you have any reason we should believe in free will, ghosts, or gods?
#279
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Mdh2000
There is by definition only 1 Ultimate Reality, otherwise it wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality.

The realest most existiest truest reality there is.

You don't have to know it to know it exists. 

And if you can know anything, it is at least what is implied by contemplating what those words mean.




#280
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Scientists can monitor the brains activity because there's activity going on in a conscious brain lol, that's irrelevant. The brain is nothing more than a conductor and restrictor to the flow of consciousness, it does not create it.

This is an interesting claim. Do you simply suppose this or do you have means by which you can verify it?
#281
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
So you don't attribute any traits to this 'ultimate reality'? It could simply be the universe we observe  around us every day? If not then what traits does this 'ultimate reality' of yours possess?
#282
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@Mopac
Also ultimte can mean last in a series. In which 'God' becomes the last reality rather than the 'realiest'. This is one reason the definition seems meaningless, the other is that we've no way of knowing there are multiple degrees of reality, which means ultimate reality is pretty meaningless as a definition. It presents no traits or concepts beyond the idea that it is real (it isn't even that clear on if it's the most real or simply last in a series of real things), at least the definition: 

1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Gives clear traits.

#283
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Scientists can monitor the brains activity because there's activity going on in a conscious brain lol, that's irrelevant. The brain is nothing more than a conductor and restrictor to the flow of consciousness, it does not create it.

>This is an interesting claim.

That's because it's true, and even though it's a Theistic proposition (which seems absurd to atheist/materialists at first glance) it should resonate with your intuition and natural instincts just like a baby animal recognizes its own nature without being taught specifics or details, it just gravitates naturally to it, knows intuitively how it functions and this is true for the soul and for the occupant of the material body. The brain does not create consciousness, the mind, the emotions and physical senses do not create your awareness. You are the observer of the mind, body and emotions and the brain itself (along with the nervous system) confines/locks your experience to this physical form, without that confinement your soul would be free from this world and its limitations but that fleshy blob inside your skull is only a conductor and just like the electricity flows through a circuit board, your consciousness has to be restricted and confined to your body and so all of your perceptions from the time you were born are formed through that, which allows you to have a new experience and live your dreams and desires on this planet.
 But the "soul" itself, which is the inner you....the one observing the mind and body, come from the very eternal consciousness of the Creator, that is both the nature of God as well as the nature of the soul, they are one and the same. The Creator forms the physical and spiritual universes and we inhabit bodies as souls to experience life through. Ask me anything you want about that there is a lot to it even though it is simplistic.

> Do you simply suppose this

No, this is from observation and correlating sources. Cross referencing combined with personal experience.

 >or do you have means by which you can verify it?

Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world and consider sources and practices that correlate with such knowledge and observation? because it's not something I just made up, I mean come on this is the basics of Theism TBH I didn't say anything new I just present it in a way where people can get it and have accurate conceptions so they can form correct conclusions. So yes, when cross referencing observation with spiritual sources the means by which it can be verified is vastly available to all, not just me. But again, you have to willing to examine things outside of what you currently understand or assume is true about this existence. And all that really means is to consider knowledge outside your paradigms or ideologies/worldview. 


#284
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world

Is there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing This? Perhaps one which can be observed and subjected to rigorous scientific testing?
#285
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
That's because it's true, and even though it's a Theistic proposition (which seems absurd to atheist/materialists at first glance) it should resonate with your intuition and natural instincts just like a baby animal recognizes its own nature without being taught specifics or details, it just gravitates naturally to it, knows intuitively how it functions and this is true for the soul and for the occupant of the material body. The brain does not create consciousness, the mind, the emotions and physical senses do not create your awareness. You are the observer of the mind, body and emotions and the brain itself (along with the nervous system) confines/locks your experience to this physical form, without that confinement your soul would be free from this world and its limitations but that fleshy blob inside your skull is only a conductor and just like the electricity flows through a circuit board, your consciousness has to be restricted and confined to your body and so all of your perceptions from the time you were born are formed through that, which allows you to have a new experience and live your dreams and desires on this planet.
 But the "soul" itself, which is the inner you....the one observing the mind and body, come from the very eternal consciousness of the Creator, that is both the nature of God as well as the nature of the soul, they are one and the same. The Creator forms the physical and spiritual universes and we inhabit bodies as souls to experience life through. Ask me anything you want about that there is a lot to it even though it is simplistic.

No. I find it interesting because in my experience people who make this claim generally reason that things they observe in the mind must have an external source. I put it to you, if the consciousness were the product of the brain how would that alter what you percieved and use as evidence and why? I find the possibility of someone being able to answer that (and show their answer is accurate) is very interesting. Frankly trying to tell me why I'm interested in something is condescending and smacks of hubris.

No, this is from observation and correlating sources. Cross referencing combined with personal experience
Such as?

Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world and consider sources and practices that correlate with such knowledge and observation?
I'm willing to consider most things (I can't think of anything I have refused to consider for that matter), however I make no promise to accept anything.

So yes, when cross referencing observation with spiritual sources the means by which it can be verified is vastly available to all, not just me

What observations, observed under what circumstances, if you don't mind my asking?

But again, you have to willing to examine things outside of what you currently understand or assume is true about this existence. And all that really means is to consider knowledge outside your paradigms or ideologies/worldview. 
Consider sure, to do otherwise would be close minded, accept? That depends on where reason leads me.
#286
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
>No. I find it interesting because in my experience people who make this claim generally reason that things they observe in the mind must have an external source.
Not because we just make it up, consciousness is outside the mind otherwise you wouldn't be able to observe what takes place within the mind. If you WERE the mind itself rather than the witness of the mind your thoughts (which are generated by the mind) would be literally be your original point of observation but we know that is untrue because you were first aware before you thought, your awareness processes (observes) thought, which is generated through the mind (not your awareness). Likewise you were first a conscious soul before you were confined to a brain and a little body. BTW it's not "what we observe in the mind that has an external source", it's you that has an external source outside the individualized mind.
Your conscious awareness comes right through the mind, so in practice and demonstration your observation point begins with first.....awareness....which projects through the mind, where the mind stores information (thought), memory and it labels things according the user through the emotional layer which then categorizes experiences. All these events come first from the observer not the brain or the mind, the mind is simply a tool and the brain a restrictor. 

>I put it to you, if the consciousness were the product of the brain how would that alter what you percieved and use as evidence and why?

This is an odd question perhaps you could rephrase it for me, because if I thought or believed that consciousness was the product of the brain I would obviously believe the opposite, and believe that activity within the brain is what creates ones awareness. I would not pursue Theistic or spiritual knowledge nor would I consider any practice of it. I wouldn't consider spiritual sources as a means to correlate my own observations and inclinations/intuition. But, I've gathered all the information about this from all sides including my own experiences and it is blatantly obvious to me that not only is there sufficient testimonial based evidences for the soul and experiences outside the physical body, the science behind the nature of consciousness in the spiritual arena is far superior and can take you much deeper in knowing what you really are. Especially in eastern thought (Hinduism ect), as well as western philosophy. In my opinion, "soul over matter" is a superior theory/fact.....Creator to creation.....consciousness first, which projects the mind (which is confined to a brain), which labels through emotions and which feels both through the physical nervous system as well as the subtle emotional layer. You actually have five sheaths or layers that cover your soul which individualizes you as a human, confines your experience here to a little man in a big world lol. Ohhh, if people only knew what they were and where they originated.

>I find the possibility of someone being able to answer that (and show their answer is accurate) is very interesting.

If we can have a decent discussion/debate I believe we could make some headway, perhaps you would consider another possibility. I understand full well what perceptions the materialists have and those that examine the functions and activity of the human body, and to me it's an azz backwards way to examine our nature, when spirituality has given the answers to consciousness for thousands of years. I think we should be examining the physical reality and I'm not trying to knock a naturalistic understanding I just think it's a misconception. It's all there though, all knowledge that transcends the physical experience is fragmented between many religions and pathways to spirituality. My own experiences dictate that I must not accept an inferior theory as I would have to lie to myself. In that though, I have reasonings and explanations for what I believe.

> Frankly trying to tell me why I'm interested in something is condescending and smacks of hubris.

Let me rephrase that then, I apologize....what I meant was that it SHOULD be interesting, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It "should" be interesting because it is your nature and your true identity, and destiny to know (eventually). The very last thing I want to do here is create negativity or tension so I hope you accept my apology. If you don't feel that way fine, but the thing with spirituality is that you have to do a little work to have results. You can't just always believe one misconception or mindset and expect any (new) revelation but I believe there is a natural interest or instinct in man that he contemplates the inner man or soul and that aspect of ourselves. 

No, this is from observation and correlating sources. Cross referencing combined with personal experience

>Such as?
The whole of spirituality, testimonials, spiritual sources including many religions. My own observations......I then begin to cross reference my own experiences as I observe them, and the correlations and experiences in a very vast body of knowledge suggests a very convincing reality. I'm more of an Omnist towards religion, so I examine spirituality as a whole because what religion really is, is the observation and experience of a diverse, dynamic yet singular reality. Singular as in the same purpose for each soul. While not all religions are created equal they each have truth and misconceptions. You put the pieces together through your own participation and experiences. If you consider spirituality and spiritual experiences as a whole, one would have to be stubborn not to even examine the possibility. And then experience it.


#287
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world and consider sources and practices that correlate with such knowledge and observation?

>I'm willing to consider most things (I can't think of anything I have refused to consider for that matter), however I make no promise to accept anything.

So yes, when cross referencing observation with spiritual sources the means by which it can be verified is vastly available to all, not just me

>What observations, observed under what circumstances, if you don't mind my asking?

The entire world and vast body of spiritual facts and knowledge....Observations which come through applying spiritual principles and practices as well as my own personal spiritual experiences. You should consider that all spiritual type experiences are testimonial....meaning ones own experience/encounters. This is due to the nature of spirituality, being that which is outside the physical experience alone which involves the inner man/soul. So when I say observations, that means my own experiences and my own time I've spent studying spirituality and applying it. And I've been doing that since I was a young boy on my own accord.

But again, you have to willing to examine things outside of what you currently understand or assume is true about this existence. And all that really means is to consider knowledge outside your paradigms or ideologies/worldview.

>Consider sure, to do otherwise would be close minded, accept? That depends on where reason leads me.

Okay.

#288
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
The entire world and vast body of spiritual facts and knowledge....Observations which come through applying spiritual principles
There are no such things as observations for things that are invisible. Nor are there facts and knowledge about things that have never been shown to exist. Please use your dictionary to understand the words you are misrepresenting dishonestly.

#289
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Not because we just make it up, consciousness is outside the mind otherwise you wouldn't be able to observe what takes place within the mind. If you WERE the mind itself rather than the witness of the mind your thoughts (which are generated by the mind) would be literally be your original point of observation but we know that is untrue because you were first aware before you thought, your awareness processes (observes) thought, which is generated through the mind (not your awareness). Likewise you were first a conscious soul before you were confined to a brain and a little body. BTW it's not "what we observe in the mind that has an external source", it's you that has an external source outside the individualized mind.
Your conscious awareness comes right through the mind, so in practice and demonstration your observation point begins with first.....awareness....which projects through the mind, where the mind stores information (thought), memory and it labels things according the user through the emotional layer which then categorizes experiences. All these events come first from the observer not the brain or the mind, the mind is simply a tool and the brain a restrictor. 

Supposition, why do you assert the mind wouldn't be able to observe itself?

This is an odd question perhaps you could rephrase it for me, because if I thought or believed that consciousness was the product of the brain I would obviously believe the opposite, and believe that activity within the brain is what creates ones awareness. I would not pursue Theistic or spiritual knowledge nor would I consider any practice of it. I wouldn't consider spiritual sources as a means to correlate my own observations and inclinations/intuition. But, I've gathered all the information about this from all sides including my own experiences and it is blatantly obvious to me that not only is there sufficient testimonial based evidences for the soul and experiences outside the physical body, the science behind the nature of consciousness in the spiritual arena is far superior and can take you much deeper in knowing what you really are. Especially in eastern thought (Hinduism ect), as well as western philosophy. In my opinion, "soul over matter" is a superior theory/fact.....Creator to creation.....consciousness first, which projects the mind (which is confined to a brain), which labels through emotions and which feels both through the physical nervous system as well as the subtle emotional layer. You actually have five sheaths or layers that cover your soul which individualizes you as a human, confines your experience here to a little man in a big world lol. Ohhh, if people only knew what they were and where they originated.
The question is simple. I am asking you to consider the alternative position (the key to open-mindedness I think), if the brain produced the consciousness how would what we observe be different? When you answer include how you can know this answer is correct. If you cannot know that there would be a difference, then assuming either position is true seems pointless and counter-productive to learning truth.

If we can have a decent discussion/debate I believe we could make some headway, perhaps you would consider another possibility. I understand full well what perceptions the materialists have and those that examine the functions and activity of the human body, and to me it's an azz backwards way to examine our nature, when spirituality has given the answers to consciousness for thousands of years. I think we should be examining the physical reality and I'm not trying to knock a naturalistic understanding I just think it's a misconception. It's all there though, all knowledge that transcends the physical experience is fragmented between many religions and pathways to spirituality. My own experiences dictate that I must not accept an inferior theory as I would have to lie to myself. In that though, I have reasonings and explanations for what I believe.
Yet how does it show its answers are correct? What are the means of verification? Again how would things be different if the consciousness were the product of the brain? Also, what can you observe that transcends the physical? How do you observe it? Honestly, you seem to be either avoiding or unable to answer my questions. I've asked what your observations are, how you verify that your observations are accurate and why they would require your worldview to be true to occur, so far you haven't answered any of these questions.

The whole of spirituality, testimonials, spiritual sources including many religions. My own observations......I then begin to cross reference my own experiences as I observe them, and the correlations and experiences in a very vast body of knowledge suggests a very convincing reality. I'm more of an Omnist towards religion, so I examine spirituality as a whole because what religion really is, is the observation and experience of a diverse, dynamic yet singular reality. Singular as in the same purpose for each soul. While not all religions are created equal they each have truth and misconceptions. You put the pieces together through your own participation and experiences. If you consider spirituality and spiritual experiences as a whole, one would have to be stubborn not to even examine the possibility. And then experience it.
A rather vague answer. Could you give specific observations, how they can be observed and why they verify the consciousness isn't/can't be the product of the brain?


#290
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw

The entire world and vast body of spiritual facts and knowledge....Observations which come through applying spiritual principles and practices as well as my own personal spiritual experiences. You should consider that all spiritual type experiences are testimonial....meaning ones own experience/encounters. This is due to the nature of spirituality, being that which is outside the physical experience alone which involves the inner man/soul. So when I say observations, that means my own experiences and my own time I've spent studying spirituality and applying it. And I've been doing that since I was a young boy on my own accord.


What experiences? How do you determine that any look beyond the physical gleans accurate results, rather than just imaginings produced by the brain? The ability to be able to determine such a difference is the crux of this entire discussion. It's why I ask how things would be different if the brain produced consciousness. If we can verify that the states would produce different results and then determine which result actually is, then we'd have reason to believe one over the other. So far you've presented nothing that does that.
Topic's author
#291
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world

Is there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing This? Perhaps one which can be observed and subjected to rigorous scientific testing?

#292
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
An interesting video. I had a similar experience when I was young and the crazy lady my mom invited to live with us for a while was beating me with a spoon and again shortly after while meditating on a playground. Unfortunately the experience is subjective and unobservable to others. I accept that I may not exist and also that I may have been hallucinating and in any case I no longer consider the experience spiritual even if it was a manifestation of reality.
#293
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3

Irrational Scenario #1: via outplayz
.........................................................................................................................................
..........................infinite/super-natural/higher-dimensions................................................
...................................................................................................................................

Rational Scenario #1 aka macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE and occupied SPACE Universe
..........................................................................................................................................
..................................................SPACE(>*<)   i   (>*<)SPACE..........................................
.......................................................................................................................................

Rational Scenario #2; macro-infinite non-occupied SPACE only

............................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................SPACE...........................................................
..........................................................................................................................................


Irrational Scenario #2:
..............................................................................................................................................
..........................................................ego*  i  *ego...............................................................
.................................................................................................................................................


Go figure


Topic's author
#294
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
He is a recruiter from the ECK cult.
I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.

#295
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope, he has mentioned many times that cult, here and ddo, that we need to look into it. How is that not recruiting?
Topic's author
#296
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Goldtop
Nope, he has mentioned many times that cult, here and ddo, that we need to look into it. How is that not recruiting?

EtrnlVw mentions all sorts of religions/cults/beliefs/metaphysics.  Your "data" is inconclusive.

Only EtrnlVw can confirm if they are a member of any of the organizations they mention or if they would like anyone else to join a particular group.

Your ad hominem attack is not only unsubstantiated, it is also moot.
#297
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You're absolutely right, he's a member from DDO that used to harass my posts and constantly try and insult me. I am not affiliated with any religious organizations in any way at all. I've never been a member with anything, I study spirituality as a whole so he is just trying to sabotage my discussions. My foundation is the Gospels of Jesus, but my beliefs expand well beyond what Christianity teaches. 
#298
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're absolutely right, he's a member from DDO that used to harass my posts and constantly try and insult me.

That is a blatant lie, you have posted many times on my threads and my posts without any engagement from me whatsoever.
#299
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Only EtrnlVw can confirm if they are a member of any of the organizations they mention or if they would like anyone else to join a particular group.
Now we know you're lying, that claim would demand you have read every single post of Et, here and ddo.

#300
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
1
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
1
2
I often wonder why those with the weakest reading comprehension skills must resort to lying? Have they also no concept of the fact they are lying or making stuff up?