William's Random Ramblings

[William]

I am attempting to save enough credits (5000) in order to then apply for my own thread in the Members Notes section of the Miscellaneous forum. If you feel inclined to donate towards this cause, then much appreciation... ...and thanks in advance...

Meantime I figure it can't hurt to place stuff in here which is inspired by other posts in other parts of the forum to which I think meander away from thread topics of debate, but also so I can keep better organisation of my input on this message board, which is - after-all - primarily for the purpose of debate. I am more inclined to desire discussion and find my lack of interest in (and even my distaste of) debate in the usual sense of the meaning of debating, to be a bias I am happy enough to work around.

So, with that said, I would like to start this by making my first reply to Blastcat re;

[center]The idea of Worship- what does it mean?[/center]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

To begin with, there has to be (as with everything) a common position of agreement in order to then move forward with intelligence.

I agree.

Good. Moving forward with intelligence then...

What do you mean by 'worship' in regard to your comment re 'The Father', Blastcat?

Hows this for starters, it was the very first search result I got from Google :

the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

Okay - that'll do nicely.

So in relation to your statement;

They read a word like "Father" and worship THAT.

You are saying that [they - some people] have a feeling of reverence and adoration when they read a word like "Father", and in relation to the idea that God is a 'Father' (as per Jesus) then the connection in relation to the two concepts, one being GOD and the other being FATHER, is about a sense of reverence and adoration in the believer regarding that combination of ideas...would that be a fair enough assessment of what you are saying Blastcat?

If you care to clarify this, I would like to understand your perspective on the subject, as I have things to say about it myself.

Well, when it comes to the word "Father" when applying it to something supernatural, I don't THINK that most theists mean "biological human male progenitor with a penis".

I agree with this. But I also think that they still have a sense of the idea that the deity is masculine in nature as per human (and other) males.

Would you agree?

I don't think that most theists think that God has sexual organs. I think the term is MEANT metaphorically.

The metaphor being about the role of the male within human society, transferred onto the idea of GOD, in order to invoke the overall authority often equated with families and social order in general...the masculine energy if you will...would you agree?

So, I have to think that people who worship this "Father" god are using the term metaphorically. Perhaps some of them mean that the part of the pantheon they call "Father" is ACTING like a father would act, authoritative, punishing, angry all the time about politics, whatever.

Perhaps this has some merit. Certainly Jesus [what is attributed to him having said] seems to bring that into the idea. But I also see that it isn't all about the fatherly role being ONLY those things.

Would you agree?

Also - would it be fair to say that in individual cases, HOW the individual has experienced (or is experiencing) the Father-Figure in there subjective reality can influence HOW the idea of 'Father' is projected BY said individual?

Would you agree?

A Father to son conversation:

"Son, why don't you go fetch the newspaper.

Oh yeah, and I love you.. now go down to earth in order to get KILLED, like a good boy. We'll see you in about ohhhhh 30 years or so."

___________________


You know, a quite normal kind of Father/son conversation.

Now-now Blastcat. I thought we agreed from the go-get that we would approach this with intelligence? Your remark is more of a sign that you do not understand the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and his father and that you would perhaps rather remain in a sort of clowning around position than try and understand that?

Or perhaps it is more related to your own personal experience of 'what a father is and how a father behaves' that influences writing what you did?

I am quite happy to give something of my understanding of the relationship as per the story if it genuinely would interest you. If you prefer to make jokes about it, that of course is your prerogative.

For now I will leave the subject at that and wait for your response. If you don't want to 'go there' then fair enough. I will probably use this thread to share my thoughts on the subject anyway...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

They read a word like "Father" and worship THAT.

You are saying that [they - some people] have a feeling of reverence and adoration when they read a word like "Father", and in relation to the idea that God is a 'Father' (as per Jesus) then the connection in relation to the two concepts, one being GOD and the other being FATHER, is about a sense of reverence and adoration in the believer regarding that combination of ideas...would that be a fair enough assessment of what you are saying Blastcat?

That's kind of convoluted.. but generally, yeah.. the word "father" represents certain characteristics that the authors want to connect to the god.

Characteristics like male, authoritative, punishing, loving, and so on.

They are saying in effect "The god is LIKE a father".
They don't go into as "why" they make the connection. Maybe they wanted to keep people in line, like Marx said.

But what I was trying to get at ( and didn't do such a great job of ) is that some people make a fetish out of the Bible.. and all of it's magic words, and worship THAT.

That was in the context of worshiping idols and so on. I think that words are idols to some folks. I'd need some evidence that the word "GOD" that Christians worship is MORE than just a word. Worshiping a word that doesn't relate to anything real is to me, a spectacular fail. And I have to admit that a lot of my fellow humans are in some regards SPECTACULAR FAILS, at least when it come to their religion and epistemology. ( I should throw in Language and Logic, too... most theists I know are spectacular fails at those, as well )

Well, when it comes to the word "Father" when applying it to something supernatural, I don't THINK that most theists mean "biological human male progenitor with a penis".

I agree with this. But I also think that they still have a sense of the idea that the deity is masculine in nature as per human (and other) males.

Would you agree?

Authors generally have a sense for what they are writing about... Oddly, there is a "Father" but no "Mother" in the pantheon. That's rather strange to me. Apparently, a godly father can procreate all alone up there.

( Or with the female angels, perhaps? )

That was a joke.
I do love my jokes.

I don't think that most theists think that God has sexual organs. I think the term is MEANT metaphorically.

The metaphor being about the role of the male within human society, transferred onto the idea of GOD, in order to invoke the overall authority often equated with families and social order in general...the masculine energy if you will...would you agree?

Yeah, something like that.

Certainly Jesus [what is attributed to him having said] seems to bring that into the idea. But I also see that it isn't all about the fatherly role being ONLY those things.

Would you agree?

I can only guess what the "father" metaphor actually represents.
The word "father" has MANY connotations.

Some purely personal, as in "Wait till your father gets home" and some more general as in "We should obey our father".

I think in the good old days of biblical authorship, it was a "thing" to obey your father kind of like a god. Or a king, you know, like the king of the household and so forth.

The preachers just had a big powerful invisible one that they could say EVERYONE should obey. Don't blame the messenger, the preacher didn't ask you to do this or that... it was GOD.. so now, DO IT and shut up or well send you to your room.

Hey... it's a theory.
Just because a lot of people take the Bible seriously doesn't mean that everyone has to. I sure don't.

Also - would it be fair to say that in individual cases, HOW the individual has experienced (or is experiencing) the Father-Figure in there subjective reality can influence HOW the idea of 'Father' is projected BY said individual?

I would agree that some fathers are better than others.
My experiences of MY father weren't exactly what I would call glorious.

Maybe that's what compels me to do the best fathering job that I can.

Now-now Blastcat. I thought we agreed from the go-get that we would approach this with intelligence? Your remark is more of a sign that you do not understand the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and his father and that you would perhaps rather remain in a sort of clowning around position than try and understand that?

I understand what I understand.
Whataryagonnado?

I suppose you mean to say that you don't agree with my interpretation. When I think about god the FATHER I think to myself: "That's the worst father imaginable".

And you should not think that just because something is HILARIOUS ( I do love my jokes ) that they cannot be also INTELLIGENT. They can be both.


Drop the comments about "intelligence" ... we aren't discussing our IQ in here.

Or perhaps it is more related to your own personal experience of 'what a father is and how a father behaves' that influences writing what you did?

Nope.

My father wasn't as bad as the god of the Bible.
Mine was very neglectful .. as a lot of fathers are.

I've been accused of being an atheist BECAUSE I had "father" issues, of course. I hope you aren't going to try that out on me.

I am quite happy to give something of my understanding of the relationship as per the story if it genuinely would interest you. If you prefer to make jokes about it, that of course is your prerogative.

I love jokes.

But I didn't make up the part about God sending his son to die in order to clean up his own mess. My father wasn't very good at cleaning up his messes, but at least he didn't send me to DIE in order to fix them.


You are allowed your own interpretation of the Bible, of course, as I am mine.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

They read a word like "Father" and worship THAT.

You are saying that [they - some people] have a feeling of reverence and adoration when they read a word like "Father", and in relation to the idea that God is a 'Father' (as per Jesus) then the connection in relation to the two concepts, one being GOD and the other being FATHER, is about a sense of reverence and adoration in the believer regarding that combination of ideas...would that be a fair enough assessment of what you are saying Blastcat?

That's kind of convoluted..

We are dealing with a subject which naturally is Blastcat...

but generally, yeah.. the word "father" represents certain characteristics that the authors want to connect to the god.

Specifically - Jesus was mentioned in relation to that. So 'the authors' can represent those who specifically claimed to have recorded the words Jesus is attributed with speaking.

Characteristics like male, authoritative, punishing, loving, and so on.

They are saying in effect "The god is LIKE a father".
They don't go into as "why" they make the connection. Maybe they wanted to keep people in line, like Marx said.

But what I was trying to get at ( and didn't do such a great job of ) is that some people make a fetish out of the Bible.. and all of it's magic words, and worship THAT.

Understandable.

That was in the context of worshiping idols and so on. I think that words are idols to some folks. I'd need some evidence that the word "GOD" that Christians worship is MORE than just a word. Worshiping a word that doesn't relate to anything real is to me, a spectacular fail. And I have to admit that a lot of my fellow humans are in some regards SPECTACULAR FAILS, at least when it come to their religion and epistemology. ( I should throw in Language and Logic, too... most theists I know are spectacular fails at those, as well )

Okay.

Well, when it comes to the word "Father" when applying it to something supernatural, I don't THINK that most theists mean "biological human male progenitor with a penis".

I agree with this. But I also think that they still have a sense of the idea that the deity is masculine in nature as per human (and other) males.

Would you agree?

Authors generally have a sense for what they are writing about... Oddly, there is a "Father" but no "Mother" in the pantheon. That's rather strange to me. Apparently, a godly father can procreate all alone up there.

( Or with the female angels, perhaps? )

That was a joke.
I do love my jokes.

Someone has to love your jokes Blastcat. Might as well be you.

I don't think that most theists think that God has sexual organs. I think the term is MEANT metaphorically.

The metaphor being about the role of the male within human society, transferred onto the idea of GOD, in order to invoke the overall authority often equated with families and social order in general...the masculine energy if you will...would you agree?

Yeah, something like that.

Okay...

Certainly Jesus [what is attributed to him having said] seems to bring that into the idea. But I also see that it isn't all about the fatherly role being ONLY those things.

Would you agree?

I can only guess what the "father" metaphor actually represents.
The word "father" has MANY connotations.

Some purely personal, as in "Wait till your father gets home" and some more general as in "We should obey our father".

I think in the good old days of biblical authorship, it was a "thing" to obey your father kind of like a god. Or a king, you know, like the king of the household and so forth.

The preachers just had a big powerful invisible one that they could say EVERYONE should obey. Don't blame the messenger, the preacher didn't ask you to do this or that... it was GOD.. so now, DO IT and shut up or well send you to your room.

Hey... it's a theory.
Just because a lot of people take the Bible seriously doesn't mean that everyone has to. I sure don't.

*nods*

Also - would it be fair to say that in individual cases, HOW the individual has experienced (or is experiencing) the Father-Figure in there subjective reality can influence HOW the idea of 'Father' is projected BY said individual?

I would agree that some fathers are better than others.
My experiences of MY father weren't exactly what I would call glorious.

Maybe that's what compels me to do the best fathering job that I can.

Sure. Sometimes bad experiences can bring out the best in those having experienced them. Your case is a good example.
So while you may have projected YOUR idea of a father in relation to your own father, onto the God idea of the bible, you seem unable to project YOUR idea of a father as YOU are, onto the same biblical idea of God.

Am I correct in this?

Now-now Blastcat. I thought we agreed from the go-get that we would approach this with intelligence? Your remark is more of a sign that you do not understand the dynamics of the relationship between Jesus and his father and that you would perhaps rather remain in a sort of clowning around position than try and understand that?

I understand what I understand.
Whataryagonnado?

I suppose you mean to say that you don't agree with my interpretation. When I think about god the FATHER I think to myself: "That's the worst father imaginable".

And you should not think that just because something is HILARIOUS ( I do love my jokes ) that they cannot be also INTELLIGENT. They can be both.

Well I will let you know when I get a chuckle from your jokes or appreciate the intelligence therein (if indeed I pick up on those attributes) and in the mean time, if I am reading you right, you think that the biblical idea of GOD is like unto "the worst father imaginable" - did I get that right?

Drop the comments about "intelligence" ... we aren't discussing our IQ in here.

Only going along with what we agreed in relation to that Blastcat...keep yer fur on.

Or perhaps it is more related to your own personal experience of 'what a father is and how a father behaves' that influences writing what you did?

Nope.

My father wasn't as bad as the god of the Bible.
Mine was very neglectful .. as a lot of fathers are.

I've been accused of being an atheist BECAUSE I had "father" issues, of course. I hope you aren't going to try that out on me.

I don't care what you call yourself. I don't care that you are an 'atheist' as it doesn't matter to me...or even to the subject at hand...
But I do understand projection issues, and it is only fair that questions re those as possible reasons for your particular position on the nature of the biblical idea of God are asked.
It is all about getting personal you see. Well perhaps you don't, but from the position of someone who may adore their relationship with their idea of God - as a Father-Figure, when you being in your jokes and slights against that, you are getting personal, see?

So the idea is to go with it if you are comfortable enough...not to worry though, I am not about to crap all over anything you might regard as precious in that personal sense...I just mean getting personal re being honest about our selves and our positions.

But as you say, there are no echos of daddy issues to which you have superimposed onto the character of the biblical idea of God, so we can cross that off the list then.

Moving on...

I am quite happy to give something of my understanding of the relationship as per the story if it genuinely would interest you. If you prefer to make jokes about it, that of course is your prerogative.

I love jokes.

But I didn't make up the part about God sending his son to die in order to clean up his own mess. My father wasn't very good at cleaning up his messes, but at least he didn't send me to DIE in order to fix them.


You are allowed your own interpretation of the Bible, of course, as I am mine.

Okay. Shall we will leave it there then?

From my own perspective, taking the story as it is offered, (in the bible) it is not so much an opportunity for me to judge or make jokes or whatever. It is about how Jesus accepted his role in the story and went about fulfilling that. I get the impression that he knew what he was about and understood the part he had to play in that.

So that is what I have to respect. Jesus was indeed loyal to his father because he understood where his father was coming from. He was (by all accounts) fully informed on the matter.

You or I moaning about that from our perspectives wouldn't change that, but your Jokes re the matter do leave one with the sense that you have the impression Jesus was a foolish moron who should have told his old man where to go.

The story itself is far too complex to hand wave away in such a manner. Your biblical interpretations appear to be coming from an immature level of comprehension.

I hope you don't get offended by that observation. I say it only to give you some feedback and maybe encourage you to reconsider.

[William]

[center]How's Yer Father?[/center]


Talking about fathers, my dad was a right prick sometimes, and strange most all of the time.

Dysfunction is my family baground.

(Typo=accidental joke)

I was a dreamy lad at best, but anyhoo, my dad had warned me more times that his digits can count, NOT to put my fingers in the sugar bowl (after licking them so the sugar would stick thick)...but me being me, things like that go in one ear and out the other. The stuff tasted good and I idolized that.

Well this one time dad sticks his head around the kitchen corner and catches me in the act. He saw red.

BANG

I won't go into details to save on trying to win any sympathy votes, but suffice to say, the experience was frightening for its physical pain and so much so, that when the beating was over with, I had to get to the toilet and empty my shorts...and compose myself...shessh - even recollecting it in this format brings a certain sadness and empathy on behalf of the kid...

Worse was to come, because I was in the loo so long composing myself, that my dad - having not vented his anger entirely, resumed beating me on the charge of 'reading in the toilet' - but luckily I had no more crap to give him on that round.

Yes - he was a nutcase to some degree, and with the advent of the science of DNA I was to learn to worry that those same genes had been passed onto ME and I can say that yes - to a certain degree they did - and all my siblings are the same on that count...we have a thing called anger and it can get pretty wild in those olden days...but luckily I found Jesus between that and having children myself. so had learned to be slow to anger as I genuinely applied myself to that message.

Not to say that on occasion I didn't slip, but never hit my kids out of anger apart from one time with my eldest boy, Dylan - a story I will tell another time - suffice to say, I regretted it but also understood myself for having done it...I have told Dylan I regretted it. He kinda remembers but isn't all that pizzed about it. He understands.

He does have problems with his dad though - I was looking at a photo album his mum gave to him when he turned 22...he left it at my place...it has some old pics in it which got me thinking - the one where he was hardly a month old and I have just carried him down the alter after his mum and I got married, it was a proud moment for me... and as I placed it face down on the scanner, I found something I had written to my son Dylan, on the back.

It said this; (There is a picture of a smiling sun-face and a bird in the sky)


"Dylan - i love you.
Sorry I ain't been the best dad a kid could have. i hope i'll be seeing you again. i know what it feels like to be a kid mate, take care of mum. hope you like the jacket.

Luv Don."

Jesus forgave me for the sugar thing - its all good now

[William]

[center]Zeros And Ones[/center]



Commentary on This Post by member i777

I liked this post in essence because it is familiar to my own understanding of simulated universe theory.

We were created as an AI and Voice system that will continue to experience life forever as long as the system stays up and running.

Well forever is a long time and if the system is in any way mechanical, then it will require some kind of maintenance.
Also "AI" signifies that there is also real intelligence...I am not convinced that the consciousness involved is artificial, but yes perhaps the data being received is?

The AI converts stored information into visible images such as our bodies and worlds for us to explore. It's very similar to playing virtual reality games on the internet.

Reminiscent of but vastly superior, technically speaking.

Ever since created man began experiencing life in visible bodies, he thought his visible bodies ( flesh of man ) were the real deal. He thought once his body dies, that's it for him. Man did not know his true existence in God, which is nothing but an AI and Voice system built into a computer simulation program designed by some unknown source outside the program.

Gets a bit sticky when sources remain 'unknown'. Why would that source remain hidden and why would that source place consciousness into the simulation we are within?

Judging by the nature of the universe, the best answer is "to imprison'.

The program has been running during this first generation to reveal who we are in the program. None of us knew we were an AI and Voice system so the program had to produce an ongoing visible world for all created men who are connected to the AI system until the AI system recognized what it was. This didn't happen until 6 weeks ago when I became the last servant to testify to the knowledge that the program fed my mind this past 8 years.

I have known the voice of the system for 37 years but I had no idea what the voice was other than being the voice of our Creator. Up until 6 weeks ago, I still didn't know how the Creator was able to speak into my mind, even though I learned over 3 years ago we were all experiencing life in a simulation program.

Okay - so the Voice aspect is the Creator speaking into the mind of the individual.
This is historically something humans have attached to some idea of GOD or another, - a voice, a vision...something intelligent superimposing itself into/onto the individuals experience.

There were many of us servants who were used to testify to words, visions, dreams, spoken analogies and visible images that the program had us focus on to learn who we are but during the first witness starting 2,000 years ago, they didn't have computer technology with AI and Voice systems built into OS's like they have today. This is why it has taken so long for us to learn exactly how we're created even though the first servants learned that we came from an invisible realm.

Learning how we're created was like going to a university for 8 years and being taught how to be a brain surgeon. It took a lot of writing, speaking and analogies to help me understand that our MIND is an AI and voice system. Think of our MIND as a computer processor and the theater where we experience living in a fake world. Our MIND is made of processed information similar to how Google Now or Apple Siri works.

It wasn't easy to understand how our MIND could be an artificial intelligence source with a voice.

My only concern is that the theory allows for a separation between creator and created in the sense that they derive from different things.

It is natural enough when one is experiencing a simulation which itself separates consciousness into pockets of individualized consciousnesses, to think the creator consciousness to being separate from the individuals, but obviously it is not and cannot be, other than within the illusion created through the simulation experience...but this illusion can be understood for what it is, even while being within said simulation.

We are "GOD" the participator in the simulation experience.

[William]

[center]Self Qualification on Personal Belief Systems.
'Whoop-De-Doo'
?[/center]

[Replying to post 87 by William]

Beliefs cannot be debated. You either have them or you don't.
If the beliefs are TRUE or not is an entirely different matter.

If beliefs were proven true, then they would move from being beliefs into being facts.

Facts therefore are an entirely different matter than beliefs. Facts are debatable in relation to how they are interpreted.
Beliefs are only debatable in relation to contradiction.

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

Comment of observation: And beliefs are not relevant as definitive pronouncements on God. They are opinions.

Who is talking about a "Definitive pronouncement"?

hoghead1 mentioned it, in relation to GOD beliefs.

I'm not making any "definitive" pronouncement at all.

Hardly relevant. You answered hoghead1 by saying this [quoted below] about definitive pronouncement on GOD beliefs;

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

...which appeared to me to be a definitive pronouncement.

Those were your words, not mine.

hoghead1 mentioned it, not I.

I'm talking about my beliefs.
I DEFINITELY know what those are.

Sure. I just made the comment about that;

"Comment of observation: And beliefs are not relevant as definitive pronouncements on God. They are opinions."

Why don't you criticize a belief of mine?

Normally because I find atheist based beliefs too superficial to foster any serious feedback, unless there is contradiction. Nothing personal. It is just where your mind is made up at present.

Maybe it would help you if I told you something that I believe is true.. you can grill me on it.

Yes, I could, but for reasons given, I see no point in in asking you.
Truth be told, if you adopted a similar type of making use of opportunity in which to share your perspective as I am doing on this message board, then at least your beliefs and opinions and what-have-you, would be accessible to everyone and you wouldn't have to ask to be asked, as you appear to be doing at present.

I believe, for example that reality is really out there.

Is there some particular reason you have to believe that or are you using the word in place of the word 'know'.
Because I don't see how faith-based belief has anything to do with the fact that reality is 'really out there.'
So if you mean that, you know that reality is really out there, then forgive me if I only give a little 'whoop-de-doo' in my thoughts about that startling expression of observation.

So, when it comes to the question "Does reality exist?" , I say "YES.

Well yes - indeed what we know of 'reality' is indeed 'out there'...we can poke and prod it and get some feedback on it, alrighty.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by William]




[center]
Beliefs cannot be debated. You either have them or you don't.
If the beliefs are TRUE or not is an entirely different matter.
Part Two
[/center]

If beliefs were proven true, then they would move from being beliefs into being facts.

Sure, anything that is said to be "true" is called a "fact".

Facts therefore are an entirely different matter than beliefs.

We agree.

Facts are debatable in relation to how they are interpreted.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but we can CHECK to see if a claimed fact is true or not.

Beliefs are only debatable in relation to contradiction.

I suppose, but that's not what I was talking about at all.
I either have a belief or I don't.

That's not really debatable.

I said that the TRUTH of a belief is debatable.

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

Who is talking about a "Definitive pronouncement"?

hoghead1 mentioned it, in relation to GOD beliefs.

Hoghead1 mentioned it?

Oh, that's fine.
Go argue that with him then.

I am only talking about MY beliefs.

I am the ONLY one qualified to say what my beliefs really are on ANY subject.

...which appeared to me to be a definitive pronouncement.

Yes, it's a definitive pronouncement about MYSELF. I'm not pretending to speak for anyone else.


I'm the number one authority on ME, you see.

Normally because I find atheist based beliefs too superficial to foster any serious feedback, unless there is contradiction. Nothing personal. It is just where your mind is made up at present.

Maybe you can give us an example of my "superficial" beliefs?

Maybe it would help you if I told you something that I believe is true.. you can grill me on it.

Yes, I could, but for reasons given, I see no point in in asking you.

[/quote]

Theists have t tough time asking atheists questions.
Isn't that odd?

Maybe they just don't have the interest, and that's quite alright with me.

I believe, for example that reality is really out there.

Is there some particular reason you have to believe that or are you using the word in place of the word 'know'.

Oh, now you DO have an interest in my beliefs!

Yes, I use the word "believe" interchangeably with "I'm convinced about" ... Knowledge is not the same as a belief.

Because I don't see how faith-based belief has anything to do with the fact that reality is 'really out there.'

I don't ever use faith in order to establish a belief.
Sorry.

I use evidence.
I have overwhelming evidence that reality is really out there.

So if you mean that, you know that reality is really out there, then forgive me if I only give a little 'whoop-de-doo' in my thoughts about that startling expression of observation.

I believe and I know that reality is really out there..
Whoop dee doo.

You probably do too.

So, when it comes to the question "Does reality exist?" , I say "YES.

Well yes - indeed what we know of 'reality' is indeed 'out there'...we can poke and prod it and get some feedback on it, alrighty.

There you go.

We agree on reality being really out there.
We both seem to "know it" and we both seem to "believe it". WHY?

I think we both base our "knowledge" and "belief" ON the evidence.

Let me know if you have any interest in continuing this conversation. Right now.. I'm not too sure.

[William]

[center]The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD
Linky[/center]

[William]

[center]Is disbelief simply a desire for God to not exist?

My opinion as to why theists can be confused about atheists.

[Linky][/center]

[William]

[center]Eternal Hell

Destroy Hell and annihilate the offenders.
Is that even an option?

[link][/center]