3RU7AL

They're on the run, running scared. When you easily refute someone, you don't run from them.

will can never be free from desire

I never disagreed with this.

My disbelief is based on the fact that I have not encountered a sound argument that supports the idea that there is a god who interacts with us.

because Sidewalker claimed on numerous occasions that theism is scientific. An absolute nonsensical statement that is rejected even by the best religious apologists and philosophers

You stand the various religions side by side so you can draw lines horizontally between them and find great differences, but these are the surface level differences, cultural differences of form rather than content, solely exoteric differences.

I draw them vertically along a graded scale of ascending religious discernment in esoteric recognition that every religion has, underlying their various and conflicting literal meanings, a transcendent dimension, which is essential, primordial and universal. 

Ontologically speaking, my faith is in a transcendent Unity, commonly referred to as God (but not always); and using a vertically graded worldview it can be said that “above” the religions converge, and “below” they differ. I think it can also be said that epistemologically speaking, and on the same vertical scale that I referred to as ascending religious discernment, that cognitively, religious discernment unites above the line also. 

Each religion approaches the transcendent reality from different cultural directions or frames of reference, but they do essentially converge on this understanding of the epistemology of knowledge. 

I disagree, you do need justification for all of the things you mentioned. There are reasons I am not Christian and muslim and taoist etc. Atheism requires justification too. Its not just well I dont believe just because. You need reasons for your non belief or you are the same as theist who don’t have reasons for their belief. 

There are reasons all those religions are not compelling. 

Your religion is Scientism

because, you know, it's a word, it's only people that make claims.

"You can tell what ideologies are different based on who tried to get rid of who" is fundamentally flawed.

I never disagreed with this. I am saying it free to do one or the other.

And what is the definition of will? According to you?

It is obviously what determines what the thing is. Which leads us to reason it is also the principle of its existance.

The fact is that you can choose. Even what is not your preferred option.

I am not quite sure what you are asking here. What do you mean?

In my experience, "cultural liberalism" not only embraces "elitism"; it DEPENDS on it.

No. you can still choose otherwise.

Energy is a form.

Dark matter is formless.

If you mean that we cannot think of them as seperate we obviously can.

a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.

Even with all the available information the will still can choose something else.

They are not seperable in Reality. The mind can seperate them to use reason to know them further.

Third, what you are talking about is metaphysics, specifically ontology (Google it), the study of existence, and anyone with even a cursory understanding of philosophy (maybe Google philosophy too) knows that there is no such thing as an ontological proof.  That's why, when I challenge you guys to prove your own metaphysical presuppositions, rather than respond, you guys cry like a little bitch.  

First, you are the one making the BOP claim, so the Burden of Proof is on you, you must prove the above assertion.  (The Pavlovian response is nuh uh, the BOP is on you)

Republicans are so right to be concerned about the rights of the accused, just like they have always been over the decades.

What is the true definition of "fascism"?

And no. I can choose against what I know is the best option.

No. The form itself is not composed of matter. The thing is composed of matter and form.

Then you agree with me that the Burden of Proof game is bullshit?

Your words are EXACTLY the same words preached by muslim clerics.

They are humans, albeit with intent to kill every israeli kafir harbi. Perhaps they have a feverish belief to prove to everyone that their prophet was a perfect manifestation of mercy, even if they had a good record of gunning down random israeli citizens. The intent to reduce civilian casualties should not downplay the clear, obvious threat that islam poses to the west. For example, all of Hamas battalions are revered as heroes in the muslim world, even if the battalion consists of only rapists and pedophiles (though, only if they prey on kafir harbi children; they'd still get punished and disowned if they start molesting muslim kids though).

You need to really really disprove leprechauns, maybe by inventing some kind of inter-dimensional machine and we go check in every possible dimension, take videos, come back here and show it to them. Im sure that won’t suffice too since leprechauns might have unknown powers and can just decide to hide somewhere else if they want to, kinda hard to argue against something that can do literally whatever it wants.

If you can't prove that God exists to me, then you aren't allowed to be a Theist.

What about deism. That could be helpful. A little bit of special pleading but…. Anyway… A god that just created everything, gave it a kick start and now its hands off the project. Hmm, it could give the needy people an explanation for whats the first cause etc but theres some problems with that too. How do we really know about that god and why should we really care? Does deism answers anything or just complicates things more? Couldn’t the universe be eternal? Can’t the universe exist out of necessity? We can just say the same things about the universe itself as for a deistic god. Why does it exist? Well because it has to. So adding one more thing in the picture and not answering anything .. doesn’t sound like a better hypothesis to me. If we dont have any good arguments for or against God what do we do?

define exactly which stamp collecting you don't believe in?

And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..

So... not the best option, but what you see as the best option.

I said it is free to choose regardless of desires. It can choose none of the desires.

"No argument" is weak, you didn't even talk about Unicorns and the Easter Bunny, c'mon, let's see some real philosophy LOL.

Rock is atheist, as rock doesnt believe in God. Yet no one can say that rock made a claim of any kind.

The will is free to choose even an option that is not the best. I know doctors who habitually smoke. I think they know it is not the best option, yet they still choose...

If it "must always" do the best option, then it is not choosing.

And no contrived interaction problem.