Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(29-11-2015 03:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-11-2015 02:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "It says that salvation, and purpose and meaning is for all."

It sounds like a generic Christian spiel is coming your way.

I wonder why he imagines his version is any different.

Just to clarify for anybody who hasn't been following this guy... he doesn't claim to be christian, or any other denomination. He had a personal hallucination revelation and is, as near as I can figure, some kind of panentheist. He makes comments about all religions being right in the sense that they are all tapping into this universal god/spirit/whatever. Getting an actual definition of what he believes is nearly impossible because he is so vague and often unable to compose sentences that even parse.

(29-11-2015 03:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  But then he claims he has evidence for God. He clearly hasn't accepted the agreed definition of "evidence." He has his own definition.

He equates belief with knowledge. The fact that he personally believes something means that he knows it to be true and we are all just fools for not accepting it because he can't be wrong because reasons.
None are fools for not believing me. Knowledge is not 3rd hand and cannot be for you either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(29-11-2015 03:33 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-11-2015 02:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I got him to admit to the following


perhaps there is hope after all Smile

Good luck. I've gotten that from him before. He just falls right back onto the evidence being there if we'd just open our minds and accept it. It's woo all the way down.
Not woo. Unbiased observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(29-11-2015 07:03 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(29-11-2015 03:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Just to clarify for anybody who hasn't been following this guy... he doesn't claim to be christian, or any other denomination. He had a personal hallucination revelation and is, as near as I can figure, some kind of panentheist. He makes comments about all religions being right in the sense that they are all tapping into this universal god/spirit/whatever. Getting an actual definition of what he believes is nearly impossible because he is so vague and often unable to compose sentences that even parse.


He equates belief with knowledge. The fact that he personally believes something means that he knows it to be true and we are all just fools for not accepting it because he can't be wrong because reasons.

Ugh, he talks about universal this or that, but then he goes into a need for salvation, a specifically Christian doctrine and not universal by any stretch. It all strikes me as a half thought out religious concept, but different enough that he can proclaim he has some sort of special knowledge.
This is the kind of crap I've come to expect from theists, it seems that Christianity is the jumping off point into whatever flavor of delusion you can concoct in your mind.

[Image: ralph_wiggum___im_special_by_eduardorivera-d4nmrel.jpg]
Read the Gita, examine the Exeter Book, religion des las Druze. Salvation has to do with detachment and change of perception and action by way of experience. Generally one must fall quite far to come to a realization. It is indeed a universal concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(29-11-2015 08:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-11-2015 03:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Just to clarify for anybody who hasn't been following this guy... he doesn't claim to be christian, or any other denomination. He had a personal hallucination revelation and is, as near as I can figure, some kind of panentheist. He makes comments about all religions being right in the sense that they are all tapping into this universal god/spirit/whatever. Getting an actual definition of what he believes is nearly impossible because he is so vague and often unable to compose sentences that even parse.


He equates belief with knowledge. The fact that he personally believes something means that he knows it to be true and we are all just fools for not accepting it because he can't be wrong because reasons.

Oh.

Thanks for filling me in.

Not sure I can be bothered commenting if his woo isn't Christian.
I do not conform specifically to Christianity because other religions teach the same things. They are the same at their core.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(30-11-2015 08:54 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(29-11-2015 03:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yes.

But then he claims he has evidence for God. He clearly hasn't accepted the agreed definition of "evidence." He has his own definition.
Yes I do. Just because I have proof and evidence that I cannot reproduce doesn't mean its not evidence to me. Does that conform to what you define as evidence to fit your argument? No. Is it still proof? Yes to the individual who experienced it.

Whatever your experience was, it does not fit the definition of proof or evidence.

You do not have either, what you have is an internal experience that has no external reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-11-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(30-11-2015 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-11-2015 08:54 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes I do. Just because I have proof and evidence that I cannot reproduce doesn't mean its not evidence to me. Does that conform to what you define as evidence to fit your argument? No. Is it still proof? Yes to the individual who experienced it.

Whatever your experience was, it does not fit the definition of proof or evidence.

You do not have either, what you have is an internal experience that has no external reality.
Internal? No, not limited to any internal thing at all. Experience is proof to whom experienced it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(30-11-2015 10:04 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(30-11-2015 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Whatever your experience was, it does not fit the definition of proof or evidence.

You do not have either, what you have is an internal experience that has no external reality.
Internal? No, not limited to any internal thing at all. Experience is proof to whom experienced it.

Your experience is internal to you - it is in your head and unavailable to anyone else.

That is not evidence of anything external to your mind.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-11-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(30-11-2015 08:54 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes I do. Just because I have proof and evidence that I cannot reproduce doesn't mean its not evidence to me. Does that conform to what you define as evidence to fit your argument? No. Is it still proof? Yes to the individual who experienced it.

You may consider it proof enough for you but that is apparently the result of very limited critical thinking skills on your part. A personal experience that can't be replicated can't be distinguished from a hallucination and you have no basis for treating it as knowledge unless and until you can demonstrate it. You certainly have no justification for trying to get anybody else to accept it.

(30-11-2015 08:58 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Wow. Atheist for approximately 25 years. My parents and upbringing have nothing directly to with my faith. Also, real Faith is knowledge of things that cannot be seen by all or necessarily by the believer. It isn't superstition. It is the knowledge of things not readily perceivable to all.

You previously posted that you were not an atheist because it wasn't that you didn't believe, you were angry at him. You should really try to keep your story straight.

(30-11-2015 09:00 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Not woo. Unbiased observation.

Facepalm
A personal revelation that you can't communicate to anybody else is unbiased? It is about as biased as you can get. It is all your interpretation of some experience that you claim to have had that nobody else can investigate.

(30-11-2015 09:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Read the Gita, examine the Exeter Book, religion des las Druze. Salvation has to do with detachment and change of perception and action by way of experience. Generally one must fall quite far to come to a realization. It is indeed a universal concept.

Deepities, woo, and unadulterated bullshit. You are, at best, giving your interpretation and since you've shown that your reading comprehension is virtually nil there's no point in paying attention to anything you say.

(30-11-2015 09:05 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I do not conform specifically to Christianity because other religions teach the same things. They are the same at their core.

More unevidenced personal interpretation.

(30-11-2015 10:04 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Internal? No, not limited to any internal thing at all. Experience is proof to whom experienced it.

If you had any ability to do critical thinking you would understand that that is not rational.

Get help pops, you need it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
30-11-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
Unfogged,

It's not that it can't be replicated. It's that it is only observable to the perceiver/s, and not replicatable by their will alone.

No I stated that at one point I had much anger towards God and at the same time had some level of disbelief because if I did not then I wouldn't have had the balls to dare and curse it.

I can communicate it and show the effects there of to some extent.

Read them yourself without bias. That is the only way. Again it is personal and not third hand verifiable, technically, in terms of proof or truth without doubt.

Again read and observe.

If you could stop playing little word games and take things for what they are as opposed to bickering over a particular version of a particular definition of a particular word then you might begin to see as opposed to blinding yourself with illogical, unrealistic, constructs.

Linear thinking is an effective way to limit observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Commentary: Full Circle & popsthebuilder’s fireside chat
(30-11-2015 12:11 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It's not that it can't be replicated. It's that it is only observable to the perceiver/s, and not replicatable by their will alone.

That's one of the more inane things you've ever said. It's not that it can't be replicated, it's just that the person can't replicate it. Right.

Something that's only observable to the perceiver can't be distinguished from a hallucination, even by the pereciver. There's no rational reason to assume it is being caused by anything external to that person's brain.

Quote:No I stated that at one point I had much anger towards God and at the same time had some level of disbelief because if I did not then I wouldn't have had the balls to dare and curse it.

I will quote your post: "Was thinking; I used to not only vehemently not believe in God, but also held a very strong contempt for God simultaneously. I recall cursing God out of some mix of hatred and disbelief. Thinking or recollecting this brought me to the realization that I indeed must have never been a true atheist, as one cannot hold any emotion towards a thing that they don't believe in. So although I was an evolutionist for the majority of my life thus far, I cannot claim that I was a real atheist because of my contempt or hatred towards God."

I'm not sure how you define "disbelief" because if you had contempt for god and hated god then you didn't disbelieve. You also directly state that you "must have never been a true atheist". Please pick a story and stick to it.

Quote:I can communicate it and show the effects there of to some extent.

Then do so. You haven't yet. Alll you've done is spout unsubstantiated woo.

Quote:Read them yourself without bias. That is the only way. Again it is personal and not third hand verifiable, technically, in terms of proof or truth without doubt.
Again read and observe.

I've read a great deal of scripture. There is nothing there that could not easily have been the product of the cultures it came from. It is all created by man and some similarities are to be expected because people are basically the same.

Quote:If you could stop playing little word games and take things for what they are as opposed to bickering over a particular version of a particular definition of a particular word then you might begin to see as opposed to blinding yourself with illogical, unrealistic, constructs.

I'm not playing word games. You're the one who can't seem to follow what others are saying because you insist on thinking that vague generalities actually convey something meaningful. Until you define your terms and provide evidence for your claims you come off as just another deluded theist.

Quote:Linear thinking is an effective way to limit observation.

I'm sure you think that sounds impressive but it's not true. The problem isn't with lack of observation, it's that you accept whatever conclusion you happen to like without any evidence. Perhaps if you employed some thinking, linear or otherwise, you'd see how ridiculous you sound.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: