There is the atheist who claims at outset that God exists after which is nothing to believe in for the reason of realizing love on Earth being without question redemption for the sanity. There also is the atheist who makes no claim about God's existence, because it is the fabrication of the Other for the other at man/woman. Love must be believed in as the cause of faith in the Other for necessity determined change, evolution of the successful Man. Which one are you, not that God cares?:2thumbsup:
That would be a happier state of faith achievement of God's presence then the troll really did. Cause to effect without meaning: cause to effect; eventually the symbol generation saves the wad in the bank.:love:
This reply makes me think Okiefreak might have a point. Otherwise he would have answered Manservant's question, me thinks. I wondered the same by the way, but wether the OP's mothertongue is english or not he seems to be mainly in it to be as vague as possible... Nobody who wants to sincerely bring a point across avoids all questions for clarification.
Yeah. It's kinda what I figured but I wanted to give OP the benefit of the doubt. The point of his double talk is to try and appear more intellectual. That's why cults use that strategy to make sure that the people in the cult 'get it' and those outside the cult obviously don't and are thusly stupid/ignorant of the truth. Meh. Whatever makes him feel better about himself. It's not like we haven't seen his kinda trick around here before, eh?
GreatestIAm is very transparent. I can see what he thinks makes sense and what not. It is equally disappointing since they are both unpleasant to conversate with.
I jest about War John, but I can usually follow his thoughts. Though I think it's more schizophrenia in his case, than wanna be intellectual, like OP
I'm not sure about War John but if they put their non thread related posts (or so they seem when they appear truly too abstract ) in a new thread every time (as War John seems to do) it is easier to avoid. When in a serious and interesting thread someone is repeatedly posting and even reacting to me in an incomprehensible way I am still inclined to react. It simply ruins the thread when you feed someone who just doesn't want to make sense.
It's not that aggravating to me. As soon as we know what to expect from a user I easily take their posts for what they are and thus skip them... or react to them when they actually seem to try to make sense and making an effort to be understood :cheers2:
the big problem i have, with the whole abrahamic schmaggle; judaism, christerism, islamism, baha'i, and all their predicessors, is the inconsistency with what we can see of this universe we live in, of need for, nor likelihood of, the infallibility, of anything. i have no problem with the existence of big, friendly, invisible, totally nonphysical things, that give great hugs, do not micro-manage, and owe nothing to what anyone thinks they know about them. and i certainly have no problem with encouraging everyone to avoid screwing everything up for themselves and each other. though i do have one with then telling them to fallow some magical formula, instead of figuring out how it works, to avoid doing so. thus i do not consider myself an athiest in any absolute sense, but rather a disbeliever in the likelihood of nonphysical beings, conforming to human expectations. it also seems exceedingly unlikely that any such thing that knows of our existence, and has the capacity to do so, wishes us any particular harm, considering the simple fact that we exist and continue to do so. indeed i have no problem with any belief, that does not claim those not sharing it, are somehow condemned for not doing so. in short any which does not invent boogie men to bully with.
