Spirituality
05 Jun 22
@kellyjay saidDon't be so disingenuous, KellyJay. I do not "deny the possibility" of there being a creator entity. I do not "dismiss out of hand" the posibility there is a creator entity. Gosh, what is the matter with you? I have stated this explicitly to you dozens snd dozens and dozens of times. You are pretending I haven't. Don't be so low-integrity.
You want to deny the possibility of something that transcends the
universe, even though many things we all agree are part of the universe that have
nothing material in their makeup exists; you already accept such things; you want
to deny very possibly God, so you dismiss Him out of hand.
03 Jul 22
@fmf saidI've been clear you call yourself an Athiest, and as such, that is denial, or do you
Don't be so disingenuous, KellyJay. I do not "deny the possibility" of there being a creator entity. I do not "dismiss out of hand" the posibility there is a creator entity. Gosh, what is the matter with you? I have stated this explicitly to you dozens snd dozens and dozens of times. You are pretending I haven't. Don't be so low-integrity.
have another word you'd like to use to describe yourself, or do you intend to
reinvent the word to make it mean it isn't "A" theist you are all about?
03 Jul 22
@kellyjay saidWhy are you being so disingenuous? Why are you pretending to have not read or understood anything I have ever said to you?
I've been clear you call yourself an Athiest, and as such, that is denial, or do you
have another word you'd like to use to describe yourself, or do you intend to
reinvent the word to make it mean it isn't "A" theist you are all about?
03 Jul 22
@kellyjay saidYou are NOT "disagreeing with [my] point of view", KellyJay. You are being far, far more dishonest than that.
@FMF
Reading what you say and still disagreeing with your point of view can still be
part of reality.
You are pretending not to know what it is when, in fact, you do.
I have stated EXACTLY what my stance is over and over and over again directly to you.
And, nevertheless, claiming that I "deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe" is you being flat-out dishonest.
And for what purpose? To type a few grotty screeds on a message board? Is that what it amounts to with you now? Dishonesty and/or faux-amnesia and rhetorical grottiness?
You belittle yourself constantly, KellyJay.
03 Jul 22
@fmf saidWell that is your opinion!
You are NOT "disagreeing with [my] point of view", KellyJay. You are being far, far more dishonest than that.
You are pretending not to know what it is when, in fact, you do.
I have stated EXACTLY what my stance is over and over and over again directly to you.
And, nevertheless, claiming that I "deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe" is you be ...[text shortened]... onesty and/or faux-amnesia and rhetorical grottiness?
You belittle yourself constantly, KellyJay.
03 Jul 22
@kellyjay saidYou are fully entitled to speculate to your heart's content about what "The meta-narrative" is and then opine all you want about the degree to which it "conforms with reality". Your conjecture and certainty, however, will always be subjective, speculative and aspirational, a.k.a. faith.
The meta-narrative, from beginning to end, encompasses all things; while personal
opinions reside in one's self only, our opinions, our worldviews, they can accept or
reject that which doesn't conform with reality as we want it to be, and we can even
hold conflicting views as true at the same time.
03 Jul 22
@fmf saidIt was a pathetic thing!
That I have explained [1] my agnostic atheist stance to you, repeatedly, is a fact. And [2] that you are pretending that I have not and that I somehow "deny the possibility of something that transcends the universe", is a fact.
03 Jul 22
@kellyjay saidI have no problem whatsoever with you believing that your religious views "correctly encompass all of the truth of reality" and have what you call "correct merit".
Its only reality-based views that
correctly encompasses all of the truth of reality that has correct merit. Simply
rejecting something because it is offered up even as a subjective point of view
because it is a subjective point of view could be missing the reality that may be
accurately identified in it.
You can also assert that I am "missing the reality" and that you have "accurately identified the truth"; you can assert these things until you are blue in the face.
You know full well that I do not subscribe to the theories and doctrines that are founded on your speculations. You know full well that you misuse the word "know" in these situations.
For you to take your faith and claim that it is objectively true is something that has no validity outside your head once you speak it or write other than the fact that it can be said that it is, indeed, your personal opinion.
03 Jul 22
@fmf saidThanks for giving me permission to have my own opinion that is such a blessing I have your permission.
You are fully entitled to speculate to your heart's content about what "The meta-narrative" is and then opine all you want about the degree to which it "conforms with reality". Your conjecture and certainty, however, will always be subjective, speculative and aspirational, a.k.a. faith.