« Jed McKenna -- an illusion of enlightenment? | Main | Floating in a boundless sea »

August 14, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian
How sad that you repeat the same old same old. You seem unable to answer the most simple of questions, I do hope others to this blog are taking note.

Perhaps I should not ask more than one question at a time, or make more than one statement at a time.
It may be one way to engage you in debate instead of reading your same old diatribe

I repeat my first question, do we either believe something, which is to assume knowledge in lack of rigorous proof or evidence, know something, or not know, and be open to the possibility. Is there another state of mind? (I am excluding irrational, illogical and insanity states)?

It appears from your response above that you are as open in mind about God as you are about Pink Elephants. You know pink elephants do not exist, therefore you know God does not exist.

You justify this view on the basis that an open mind will let in all sorts of crap.

Brian, I finally understand you, and I now see your point. In fact I have come around to your way of thinking, and, as I think about it, you make more and more sense.

I believe I have finally understood your position in regard to an open mind, open debate, this blog and previous comments.

I apologize for taking so long, and causing so many difficulties to people and you on this blog, for finally it has become clear.

An open mind is not desirable for the reasons Brian states, it will let in all the crap as well.
You see, I had assumed intelligence would also be present, intelligence is that power that can filter what is so called within the box, while being capable of operating outside of the box. Great discoveries in science have come about not by having an open mind alone, but by the use of intelligence.
It is intelligence that recognizes concepts, permits pattern recognition allowing new concepts to be formed, generates original thought, and makes intellectual progress.

This is why this blog is almost entirely composed of quotes of others, links to the works of others, recollection of what others have said, repeats of tired old ideas, and no, repeat NO original thought,

Brian, my sincere apologies, I had made the assumption that you had some modicum of intelligence.

Brian
Are you capable of any original thought?
At various times, I have wondered how a parrot views his world, I now have a much better understanding

Thank you for that!

Neut er all, I love it when commenters resort to personal attacks, because this shows that I've won the argument. Yay! I won! My huge ego loves to win arguments!

With regard to the physical world, it isn't solely intelligence that lets us recognize what is true. Intelligent people, like Aristotle, reasoned out falsities -- such as that a heavy object falls faster than a light object. He never put his theory to the test, which would have showed a lack of evidence for it.

Do you ever read my posts and comments carefully? Or do you just repeat what you believe regardless?

I didn't say that I know pink elephants and God don't exist. In fact, over and over I say that usually it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. So you made that up.

It's a matter of your opinion how original my thoughts are. To me, often they seem pretty darn original, because there is nobody like me, just as there is nobody like you (I'm tempted to say, "thank goodness," but I won't -- except, oops!, I just did).

Request: please point out which of your own ideas are original. It's tough to come up with something that nobody, at any where or any time, has thought before. Sure, occasionally that something is a work of genius. But often it is a work of craziness. Wisdom is sorting out which is which.

Tao,

I don't think you are the most arrogant of people around. What am I doing wrong?
Did you enjoy the video, I sent?
Roger

Brian and tAo,
You both had some very interesting arguments, but the one I quickly wished to respond to is that there is no proof of a God.

Firstly, let's start off with science. Throughout these posts I've seen, it appears that, Brian and tAo, you both are referring to "evidence" in the scientific form, which is practically reasonable. However, one thing that you must understand is this: Science is not going to prove God's existence...maybe His works...but not Him. Now this does not me that I agree with you that because science can't prove God, God doesn't exist. You can't make such a claim if you do not understand one of main elements of Christianity: Everything is subject to God. This doesn't mean he's a tyrant at all, what it means is that God is the Supreme Being. Due to this fact, His properties will never be able to be understood or proven by something under Him. Sure, the Bible tells us what He's like, but due to the fact that we are fallen, we will NEVER be able to understand everything about God until we reach heaven (for those who accept Him). So please don't make that claim that since science can't prove God, God doesn't exist, because that is a job that science will never be able to do. And mind you, just because science is not able to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Christianity is based upon sound philosophical and logical concepts that point to a God. So in the end, if science WERE to prove God, then God wouldn't be God because that means God is subject to science.

I apologize if this was hard to understand. Please inform me on any parts I need to clear up.

Another point: There is support for God's existence (non-scientifically). People have experienced the grace of God, felt His presence etc. However, last time someone pointed out this fact, tAo claimed it was not God but an individual's on enlightenment (or something along that line). Should tAo or anyone else have the same objection, I have these two responses:

1. As a person who has personally experienced such things, a person can tell that this is something WAY BEYOND any mortal emotions. It is literally indescribable.

2. If you continue to claim that it's just a person, you'll be in direct connection with Buddhism...there are no exceptions. Buddhism STRICTLY (this is what the Buddha spent his whole life teaching) teach that a person can be enlightened by self-meditation and searching deep into yourself.

That's all I have for now.

C, if you read more of my posts, you'll find that I never deny that people have an experience of God. Or an experience of anything else that is subjective -- like the taste or a strawberry, or the emotion of listening to beautiful music.

These things are real. To the person experiencing them. It's great that you've felt the presence of God. More power to you. You just can't expect that other people will accept that God exists, just because you've experienced the divine presence.

People experience things that aren't objectively real. Naturally people also experience things that are indeed objectively real. We use the scientific method to distinguish "objectively real" from "subjectively real."

So something can be real, yet not objectively so.

To: BRIAN and Roger (and all readers),

Please be informed that I did NOT, I repeat DID NOT post the comment that was dated August 22, 2009 at 09:07 AM. I was not even up and awake at that time this morning. So it was, again, most likely that sick lair and troll Neuterall, posting in my name.

Also, so that you will know and verify that this here comment is really me, know that I have been already registered into TypePad for a long time... in fact ever since Brian tried out that other fancy TypePad format about a year ago. So since I was already registered, all I had to do was to login. TypePad already had my e-mail address and password on file.

So I am now posting this comment/message via my previously registered TypePad account... so this here is really me, because Neut does not have my e-mail address or my password.

That being said, the point I want to make here (and Brian you can delete this comment as well after you delete Neut's fake comment that he posted in my name earlier today) is that you should please delete the fake comment that Neut so dishonestly posted in my name this morning: August 22, 2009 at 09:07 AM.

Here is a copy of that fake comment (and also below it are Brian's and Roger's comments that both mistakenly assumed that it was I who posted earlier today).

Just so there is no confusion whatsoever about this Brian, please understand that this following comment was NOT posted by me (tAo):

--------------------------------------------

tAo said...
Brian
Neut er all, you are so WRONG, about everything as usual. Every time Brian contributes to his blog, he writes original thought. Its you who read him wrong, he is one of the most original writers on planet earth
Reply August 22, 2009 at 09:07 AM

--------------------------------------------

And so then, Brian and Roger had both also responded to the above fake comment, mistakenly thinking it had been posted by me:


Blogger Brian said...
tAo, it's nice to read a comment that I totally agree with. I just have one comment on your comment: you might have said that I am one of the most original AND HUMBLE writers on planet earth. But not entirely Buddha-like, for I continue to get irritated when jerks post comments under my name ("Blogger Brian") and also other people's names (tAo, Catherine) as someone just did. Gosh, I wonder who it could be? So sophomoric. So out of place. So against blogging decency.
Reply August 22, 2009 at 09:14 AM


Roger said...
Tao,
I don't think you are the most arrogant of people around. What am I doing wrong?
Did you enjoy the video, I sent?
Roger
Reply August 22, 2009 at 09:42 AM

--------------------------------------------

So Brian, please delete that fake comment (shown above) which was posted in my name, most likely by Neut.

My thoughts and conclusions about all this;

It still amazes me that someone who pretends to be so legit and honest and truthful, will resort to outright lies in the form of posting fake comments pretending to be other people. It's hypocrisy and dishonesty and fraud to the extreme. It incredible how these religious and guru-cult believers, who claim to follow saints and god-men, will resort to such fraud and dishonesty.

It is now my own conclusion that such people should be given NO slack whatsoever. Their comments should be summarily deleted asap, and these liars and trolls should be removed from here as soon as they appear. But of course that is up to you Brian. I just think its high time to kick this sick demented bastard out. He has repeatedly crossed the line by dishonestly posing as other folks. He doesn't deserve to be allowed to remain here any more, for any reason, imo. He has been given enough opportunities already. He has absolutely no integrity, and so whatever measures atre necessary to remove him should be implemenmted.

Like you indicated Brian, it just goes to show how sick and twisted these religious believers and guru-cult freaks are, and how low they will go. Its certainly been an eye opener to me.

It is these same kind of people who wage wars and commit terrorism in the name of their religion and beliefs. And this guy Neut/Walker/JAP etc is no different. He too is a terrorist, a petty blog terrorist, but he is nevertheless someone who will resort to any extent of dishonesty and deviousness and lies in order to attack and undermine other people who don't subscribe to his brand of religious fundamentalism and sickness.

I now conclude that his guy Neut/JAP/Walker is a complete fraud in all and everything that he has said. But he has shown one thing: just how messed up and crazy and even evil religion and believers can become. If Brian's blog has done one good thing, it is to reveal this fact in all its uglyness.

And finally, Neut you are one sick dude. You are bad news. If you have any shred of intelligence at all, you will go get some serious professional psychiatric help.

[Brian, you are welcom to delete this, after deleting that fake comment that

was posted in my name. Thanks. And also thanks for deleting IT's misquoting comment as well.]

tAo,
I wanted to start off saying that I completely agree with you that what has just happened with the fraud thing is out right wrong and should not take place at all. However, there's one part in your post that naturally urged me to clarify a point.

tAo: "it just goes to show how sick and twisted these religious believers and guru-cult freaks are, and how low they will go." Now God forbid that I not condemn wrong actiosn such as this fraud. The one thing I wanted to point out was simply that just because so called "followers" of a religion act, doesn't mean that you may condemn the religion itself unless the religion actually does support such actions.

In the case of Christianity, such attacks have been made on the way Christians act. Yes, we are sinful, yes we committ bad acts...we're not perfect. But that doesn't mean that because we are flawed that the Bible or teachings of Christianity are...the Bible actually condemns sinful actions. We sin because we are fallen creatures, but we try to get back up (only through God) and move forward and try not to sin and pray to God to help us not sin anymore.

Now as for radicals who kill in the so called "Name of Christ,"..two responses.

1. That's condemned in the Bible, therefore not in accordance with Christianity and the person's twisted view points, not the Bible, is to blame.

2. THEY AREN'T A TRUE CHRISTIAN!!! Just because a person "claims" to be a Christian, doesn't make them one if they continue to sin. A true Christian would accept the sin and try to stop it by living in accordance with the Bible, not what radicals do. So please don't connect radicals with Christianity because Christianity condemns their actions and these are what we call "false Christians."

Just to clear that up.

Hi C,

You said:

"The one thing I wanted to point out was simply that just because so called "followers" of a religion act, doesn't mean that you may condemn the religion itself unless the religion actually does support such actions."

"In the case of Christianity [...] that doesn't mean that because we [Christians]are flawed that the Bible or teachings of Christianity are"

My reply: Before you go preaching what christianity is all about to me (as you do below), let me explain where I am at. I know quite alot about christianity... I know it from the actual experience of really living it, not just from reading the Bible. I spent over 10 years walking literally thousands of miles with nothing but a robe and a blanket in total faith as a christian sadhu/monk. I also know what the Bible teaches, and I also know what christians believe, so spare me the details.

Now then, I did not mention christianity in my previous comment. I was simply referring to religious fundamentalism in all its forms. And it is my experience that, although the christianity that the Bible teaches is not necessarily bad, it is interpreted in many different ways. And some of these interpretations are the basis for a lot of christian religious fundamentalism. But much of it stems from things that are in the Bible. Not all of it, but enough to be a problem. Most religions are this way. Some more, and some less. And christianity and christians are no exception. So don't just try to blame it all on a few radical christians. It is part of the fabric of christianity as well as the Bible.

You said: "We sin because we are fallen creatures, but we try to get back up (only through God) and move forward and try not to sin and pray to God to help us not sin anymore."

-- Well, I understand that that is what you believe, but I myself don't believe that... namely that "We sin because we are fallen creatures". I just do not see it that way at all. I do not regard people - humans - as being "fallen creatures".

"as for radicals who kill in the so called "Name of Christ",...
1. That's condemned in the Bible, therefore not in accordance with Christianity and the person's twisted view points, not the Bible, is to blame."

-- However, the Bible is the basis for those viewpoints, regardless of how distorted and twisted as they may end up.

"2. THEY AREN'T A TRUE CHRISTIAN!!! Just because a person "claims" to be a Christian, doesn't make them one if they continue to sin."

-- That is not my own view of christianity. My view has nothing to do with "sin", nor about a "true" versus a false christian. My kind of christianity (if you will) is simply about treating all others as being as important as one's own self... aka 'the golden rule'.

"please don't connect radicals with Christianity because Christianity condemns their actions and these are what we call "false Christians."

-- You can call them "false Christians" if you like, but my feeling is that religion does far more harm than good. Religion has caused enormous suffering and conflict in the world. I feel that religion, and religious beliefs and superstitions must fade away if humanity is ever going to progress towards real sanity and light and peace. As it was said in a parable: "one cannot put new wine into old bottles, lest the bottles break". Religion is the old bottles, and that includes christianity.

Roger,

Thank you so much my good friend, I totally enjoyed the youtube video that you emailed to me. [even though I don't drink a lot of coffee anymore... I'm a green-tea man now]

Well I think its only appropriate for me to post the link to it here as well, so that everyone else can benefit from its message too.

Thanks again Roger, and I hope all is well with you and yours. Keep in touch anytime.

Here's the link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NgzQ9Pcsg


Thanks Roger for the folling link and Thanks Tao for providing it here.

It is an exellent one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NgzQ9Pcsg

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.