|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/12/07 20:40
"Giganews Moderator" <nobody@mixmin.net> wrote in message
news:1388828de090a6c094065a13b9c3f921@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net...
> In article <xCKPi.6$762.4@newsfe05.lga>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote:
>> > Sir, I have seldom seen a more masterful laying of snares, and
>> > in so little time! With so little effort, calm wit, and
>> > masterful superiority. Why doth the heathen rage? Because he
>> > knoweth his time is short! Fear not those who can kill the body,
>> > but fear the One who can burn both body and soul in everlasting
>> > hell.
>>
>> WTF?!!!
>>
>> all anyone needs is fire, right? the concept of soul in an individual's
>> mind
>> ends precisely the moment the mind ceases to function. those of us who
>> use
>> our minds to think, tend to want proof of such things as 'souls' and
>> 'everlasting hell'. the only thing keeping god alive is man's primal
>> activity of affixing meaning and purpose to everything...including
>> himself.
>> right now, gawd is on life support since science gives better, more
>> accurate, and evidencially supported answers to meaning and purpose - and
>> that, through function.
>>
>> there's already one fuckwit by the name of omh (matthew moulton) running
>> around in here...i hope you're not the next loose nut!
>
> Do you address my message to yourself?
i address your message, yes. my response applies to your message. as i'm an
atheist, it would be silly for me to address (apply) it to myself.
> Does a natural man
> comprehend language of the spirit?
lack of proof of a spirit aside, part of the problem is that no one can.
that means that one may believe ANYTHING about the spirit world, god
included, and be just as accurately incorrect as the next. this is where
pascal makes himself look a bit silly, since that's what he begins his wager
with 'no one *can* know gawd' <paraphrased>.
> Do they argue where they have
> no understanding?
i don't know. i argue where ever i see fit. as for being allowed to draw
conclusions about a postulate or theory someone has, abso-fucking-lutely!
were there proof, there'd be no understanding...or at least a means to fill
in the gaps to create a good picture. since man invented gawd(s), one cannot
understand a specific gawd or spirit unless he invests himself in learning
its resident culture. it has little to do with non-existent things, however.
> As is the case with the murderer who dug the
> pit for another? He has fallen into his own creation. I watch
> him attempt to claw from it. He races and struggles to avoid
> already having been caught.
to where exactly, does he race? he's in a pit, remember? the fellow should
have watched his step. the circumstance was wholly avoidable. you consider
the acceptance or denial of 'spririt' as inevitable and unavoidable. that
certainly is not the case. 'spirit' is a concept...unless you're talking
about jim beam.
> While he yet has spirit that
> confirms this,
confirms what? that he's in a pit? does he need a spirit for that?!
> if he dare listent to it,
he's avoiding listening to whatever voices you're saying are in his
head...he doesn't want to be considered crazy on top of having fallen into a
pit, like a dumbass.
> he instead denies it in
> great fear and lack of understanding.
no, it's like i said, if you hear voices in your head, you should seek
psychiatric help. plus, it's hard for him or anyone else to see he's not in
a pit. this is completely unlike spiritualism where there is no objective
condition for the fallen man that everyone can observe and agree upon -
that's what you get when you have no proof.
> So the noose tightens.
thought he was in a pit? you're very confusing.
> Fear is met with still more fear.
only by the reluctant, unwitting, or cowardly.
> Until any opportunity for
> escape is closed.
a ladder? in the initial condition of your analogy, there was no mention of
a ladder. am i to assume there was one there the whole time? he should have
climbed out then. since there is no spirit whereby a person can heft
themselves out of said pit, i see spiritualism even less helpful than this
mans own efforts to free himself.
> Fire, yes, ignited by the tongue and musings
> of the fool.
are you saying your tonge is hard and rough enough to produce fire? mine is
kinda wet and soft-ish, not unlike most other people's. now, if by musings,
you mean wit...well, that's most often very dull or very sharp or somewhere
inbetween the two. since you have yet to 'muse', and given the intellectual
effort afforded in this writing of yours, it would be hard for me to
conceive of you being able to produce even a slight burning sensation in my
side - i doubt you can make me laugh enough. i could be wrong on that
however. if you post more of this drivel, chances are that subsequent posts
of yours will probably degrade into even more sillines.
> See what a GREAT fire it is!
ummmm, no, your analogy is that i'm in a pit, remember?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|