Thought without limit

Again that is your conviction, and all from assumptions from your head. I merely try to point out not all theists are crazy for believing in a deity, nor does it makes them the most evil people in the world as certain atheists like to portray it. Then you in your irrational anger come in and try to make me look as a crazy one denying truth also. But I am not.
If i am (according to you), just point it out please (because as you can see, I am willing to learn and see it)

 

So it is only your grasp in fact that you are talking about! You haven't addressed my thinking except to be at a loss for words.

 

Six of one, half dozen of the other.
It's imagination.

 

Am I making dozen of threads about it? Do I bother other people by ridiculing their beliefs or lack thereof? No, you seem to be that one I am only ever posting my opinion after you or airyfox or someone similar makes one of their endless repeating messages of hate and what seems to me irrational judging and generalizing.
So if you are bothered by my repeating messages counteracting yours you might wonder who is too busy relentlessly posting hateful irrational ignorance in the first place

 

they present synthetic hate , logical in only that it has been devised .

 

:2thumbsup:

 

relentless , hateful , and irrational ... when practiced artfully by a
professional that performer gets paid well . the art of it is in not
getting prosecuted , thus too , avoiding guilt while demonically pos-
sessing an entertainer's smiley face . in his audience there can by
emulators - students of the style - who ineptly can be a whole lot
more trouble . the most disturbed among them will be influenced so
cruelly as to rampage and kill - to (bleep) children for instance .

employment opportunities may also be found at torture.gov .

the method may also be introduced intimately , directly to a child by a
terribly conflicted black-out drunken highly articulate parent who curses
one's child insensibly , relentlessly , with twisted words , until passing out .

it's of the darkness .
.
.

 

thedope:

Infinity can be measured infinitely, there is no end to its measure. Its measure is beside the point. The question is why you think it isn't physical.

If all you'd said was that reality is non-local, it would've been. Nowhere have I reasoned existence is nil. You have attempted to reason that god is existence, when existence is already what it is, with or without your prejudice.

Reality its location.

No, it is a common perception that a location is non-local in the idea of remoteness, not that reality is.

Is it vain to think I arbitrate more meaning than you when you defer to the dictionary? lol

Forget harm. Who is this human being?

 

just thought i'd mention that i was interviewed by a public security
agent while logged on at the library (yesterday). an edit (in red)
has been made to that post today .

 

My point was the physical is not infinite but indefinite by definition. It can be assumed in practice that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy as there are no experimental means to generate them.

No I have not reasoned that god is existence, I have reasoned god as per the definition put forward as fundamental to our efforts. You have reasoned that existence is nil in you. Like I said self-denial. God exists, but not for you.

Road closed, local traffic only.

And what did I say of the idea of non-local, that it is a fantasy.

Is it vain to seek agreement in terms rather than dispute them in perpetuity.
You are the one being a word nazi when we can share meaning.

Exactly, satisfaction is not a who and harm has no face.

 

Do you agree with AiryFox then that society should be freed from the fetters of religion, and our minds cleansed? Or are you just speaking in general terms?

In Post #34, I quoted from Mussolini as he promoted fascism. My post was written with humorous intent, but it is still genuine to the assertions that AiryFox made. Do you connect Mussolini's train of thought to the same militant atheist train of thought?

Maybe Airyfox did not mean it in the sense of actually stamping out religion in a political manner, but that is the implication---the logical conclusion. That is the problem of objectivism as it so effectively represses the subjective in the Modern World.

And do you guys see the irony of the idea of a universal diversity in a world where religion---the essence of cultural diversity---has been stamped out?

Whenever anyone starts talking of stamping out something to create a better world----we are heading straight towards a dystopia.

If the logic of what I am saying is not so obvious to you, then look at it this way---reread the posts that you guys have posted, and everywhere you see the word religion, or religious (or any other reference to it)----replace it with the word Jew, Jewry, or Judaism.

 

There can be no peaceful universal diversity so long as religion is a part of the world. So long as there are differing beliefs, there will always be fundamentalists within the factions who will distort the message simply because something without proper evidence to support it as truth will always be open to interpretation. When there are people who believe in the same god fighting over how to interpret lines of scripture, then what hope is there for the rest of humanity?

Universal diversity is a great concept, but coexistence is impossible when it comes to differing religious and political ideals simply due to the fact that man will always seek to control how others should live according to his worldview.

If religion has caused more trouble for society than good, and history is a very testament to this fact, then it is time to consider fixing the problem rather than allowing it to continue with the silly concept of an unrealistic hippy coexistence. Religion does need to be removed from society, of that there can be no doubt, because religion has shown that it cannot produce peace any more than it can produce coexistence within its own god-believing factions.

 

divine anarchy vs. universal diversity

oh hum

that game has already been played . dirty pirate kids for jesus win
because ... they have vvvvitality !

 

They win!? How's that? I'd think they came from loser homes and the rest of it. Mostly at technology they wish to be clever at it.

But, life is a product of personal experiences.

 

You mean like arbitration of the meaning of the U.S. constitution and the vote?

Wrong, coexistence is a fact regardless whether contentious or not.

Your ifs and thens do not have the weight of appropriate statistical analyses.
Religion is a societal expression.

 

That is past life. Having and being are the same.

 

hello Anaximenes . missed you lately .


anarchy kids are wild and good and clever and psychic . they
know how and who you are .

unto anyone who is vainly self-rightious , and too properly civilized ,
and judgementally impolite - a coyote trick gets played on them and
then those people cry .

 

Some people prefer to not live in a coexistence created by the supression of others. That would not be real coexistence, despite the majority's unwillingness to rise up against an unnecessarily controlling religious faction that wants to inform everyone to live according to their worldview. Religion in America has its claws in the government where it does not belong, and it is something that needs to be stopped. There is a separation of church and state for a reason, and only those too comfortable in their mundane lives are unwilling to do anything about it. Their ignorance is astounding. I do not need religion informing me how I should live my life, yet that is precisely the overall goal of religion, especially in America and the middle east.

 

The anarchy matter still cannot get away from the opinion and truth issue. Is your situation really worth being ignored. And this conservative content has to be recognized for acting out opinions that really on their own have no ultimate truth. Allowing oneself to be wrong in a situation will normally not do for understanding peoples' goals and points for changing the world.:sultan:

 

Obviously you are not one of those.

What is real is what does exist and does not necessarily represent what you think should qualify.

Your should be's are a type of thinking that is the same in content as the religious thinking you claim to be against. That is you seek to define what is socially acceptable.