Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

continues....

People on the "spiritual path" are just as prone to delusions as anyone else, of course.
Last week I got 2 separate hate messages through FB messenger. The first one was from a lunatic American who hated Europe and called all Europeans "Eurotrash". I must have called him out on FB, because he sent me a private message and went on an hour long tirade on how Americans are superior to Europeans in every way. I enjoyed trolling him real hard, I have to admit. ????
The second one was from a Russian woman. I'm following a channeler on FB who often posts inspirational quotes. There are lots of what I call "yoga aunties" (know you the ones who always wear purple hippie clothing and walk around with that spaced out look) and they all praised the post and said just how good it makes them feel. Well, I dared to point out that while I agree with the quote, it didn't provide any practical way on how to achieve that blissful state it referred to, and that knowledge without practice is useless....you know me ???? . The yoga aunties were merciless in their replies: "You didn't understand", "You're shallow and the teaching just flew over your head", "Where's your humility?". The Russian woman even felt the need to message me directly and called me a child molester because I live in Thailand! ???? 

It seems I'm pissing off a lot of people lately. ????

LOL.  I usually keep what I know to myself.  As I've said before, the intention of this experience was that we play with ideas.  Children are excellent examples.  Unfortunately, as we become adults we set aside the playful attitude and become so attached to the ideas we settle on holding that through that attachment we become guarded and protective of our ideas.  To the point where some would willing, proudly and honourably die for their ideas.  That's how bad the attachment gets.

 

Ideas have become absolutely synonymous with the person holding the idea, as if they were one and the same.  Which of course they most definitely are not.  Hence when one expresses a point of view which another doesn't agree the response is, "You're an a$$hole (or other similar slur)."  The idea expressed is conflated with the speaker.  So rather than attacking the idea they attack the person.

 

I do have an aspect of impishness to my character, but in a harmless way.  I thoroughly enjoy jolting peoples' sensibilities.  All in good humour, though.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's very true in general, but of course there can be exceptions.

As individuals, we can enjoy a bit of unpredictability just to see what happens.

Some people are very predictable, some are less, many artists are known to be eccentric and often unpredictable.

I absolutely agree . . . in general.

[Tippaporn]

BTW, where has everyone else gone?  I have a few guesses but does it seem odd to you guys?  Ever since about Sunday late afternoon/evening.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, where has everyone else gone?  I have a few guesses but does it seem odd to you guys?  Ever since about Sunday late afternoon/evening.

Apparently, your demolition of science as the new cult, has had a devastating effect on the ungodly hordes.

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Apparently, your demolition of science as the new cult, has had a devastating effect on the ungodly hordes.

I know that Vince's reply to my reply to his post was, at least in my opinion, weak.  My last reply to his went completely unanswered.  Maybe he's out of ammo?  I dunno.  I've seen him browsing several times but, as of yet, no longer posting.

 

Then again, the subject matter I'm raising would be so utterly foreign to those whose extent of knowledge does not extend much beyond science's tenets that they're lost in providing responses.  Imagine being in a roomful of astrophysicists, all highly engaged with each other, while you have zero knowledge of the subject matter.  Chances are that you'd be sitting in a corner of the room all by your lonesome.

 

And then again, maybe they consider me to be so far out in space, a raving lunatic perhaps, that they feel it's not worth their time to enter into any exchanges with me.  I mean, who wants to dialogue with a crazy person?

 

Of course, they might be busy in their lives.  I've been known to disappear from TVF for weeks on end sometimes.

 

Whatever.  We'll wait and see what happens.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

Something else to reconnect to my previous post about the "yoga aunties"...

There's a nasty vulgarization of a spiritual truth going around and spreading like a virus. It's often repeated ad nauseam by the aunties and used as a feel-good blanket remedy for anything that is not rainbowy and pink fluffy cloudy. 

This is copy/pasted from one of the FB comments I mentioned earlier:
"Be still. Stop struggling.
Enter the holy shrine of your heart, and there find peace and joy. You have always been perfect and you will always be perfect. There's absolutely nothing you have to delete or add." 

 

 I long struggled with this, because it didn't quite fit with my understanding, but I couldn't pinpoint where the problem was. Then it dawned on me...
While I think that it is true on the soul level, many take it to be true on the ego level too. Meaning that there's nothing they need to do to improve themselves, because they are just perfect the way they are. Basically, according to their understanding, there's no need to do any introspective work, and if you suggest otherwise, "you are shallow" and "you didn't understand the teaching".

I honestly understand the frustration of atheists when they are confronted with these kinds of spiritual platitudes. "So if everything is already perfect as it is, why do you keep busting my ballz??"
I feel you brothers! ????
 

[Skeptic7]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Apparently, your demolition of science as the new cult, has had a devastating effect on the ungodly hordes.

Apparently...NOT.

 

Demolition??? 555 

 

Devastating??? Hardly 

 

Cult??? Wow

 

But so good to see your delusions and misconceptions are still firing on all cylinders! ????

[Tippaporn]

30 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Apparently...NOT.

 

Demolition??? 555 

 

Devastating??? Hardly 

 

Cult??? Wow

 

But so good to see your delusions and misconceptions are still firing on all cylinders! ????

Looks like we have a player!

 

Good opening post.  Very convincing,  Maybe next post you'll lay out something substantive?

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Looks like we have a player!

 

Good opening post.  Very convincing,  Maybe next post you'll lay out something substantive?

Well, next he'll tell you how happy he is with his wine and his girl friend, and watching the birds, don't expect too much more

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/24/2020 at 1:04 AM, sirineou said:

Only in the sense of a biblical Deity .

I suspect that many of you are also Atheists but don't know it yet. 

God? what is God, ask a thousand people and you will get a thousand answers, 

You are all suspect there is something greater than yourselves and with good reason, you would want to know what it is and so do I. The only difference between me and some of them I like  to use reason rather than faith. Science is simply a process that applies reason towards a goal, If God is ever to be found it will be reason (science) that will find it.  Faith limits the search to the scope of that faith, Reason expands horizons, and if we are to find God whatever that is, we need to look far and wide. 

So Keep on looking my friend don't let faith, me, or anyone else  limit your scope.  This is your show, we are all actors in it, as you are in mine. 

439 pages and you still don't get it! God is infinite so can be whatever a believer wants God to be. If you don't understand by now that God isn't what is in the Bible, then how can you be still debating with mauGR1 and Sunmaster.

Perhaps you should stick to talking with those posters that believes in the Bible as the word of God.  The rest of aren't in that game.

 

BTW thinking humans will ever understand God is like thinking an amoeba can understand the laws of gravity.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

We've all met them at one time or another.  And probably more often than once.  The Intelligensia!  My sister is one.  She's Mensa.  A proud member of a select few who can claim the coveted inclusion into the top 2% of the human brain trust. 

So, to ask the obvious question, what does she do with all that intelligence? Does she solve climate change, solve overpopulation, pollution, destruction of the rain forest?

Does she save people lives, help the poor, prevent parents beating their children to death?

Genuine question, as I know zero about mensa.

What I do know is that I want someone that can save my life if I'm dying, feed me if I'm starving, comfort me if I'm low, build me a house if I need shelter etc, and most people can learn to do that.

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, to ask the obvious question, what does she do with all that intelligence? Does she solve climate change, solve overpopulation, pollution, destruction of the rain forest?

Does she save people lives, help the poor, prevent parents beating their children to death?

Genuine question, as I know zero about mensa.

What I do know is that I want someone that can save my life if I'm dying, feed me if I'm starving, comfort me if I'm low, build me a house if I need shelter etc, and most people can learn to do that.

I can't knock her too much.  I grew up in the same world she did and was exposed to the same ideas and beliefs that she was.  It ain't easy to sort through it all and come out of it without ending up with a whole lot of misconceptions.  Same reasons as to why I can't really knock the atheists or agnostics here.  It's tough when you've been fed a lot of information with half-rationales that have a modicum of logic which gives it the appearance of some degree of sense.  And you have no way of proving it or disproving it yourself.  You just take it on faith and nod your head and you fit in and the world is a happy place.

 

But if you want to discuss rationally and use sound logic then let's go.  We can have a fair debate.  You end up getting a lot of the same as Skeptic's last post.  Bravado but nothing to back it up.  I think his post was just a hit and run.  He won't be back with anything noteworthy to say.  I wish he would.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Looks like we have a player!

 

Good opening post.  Very convincing,  Maybe next post you'll lay out something substantive?

Opening post??? You need to do your homework Newb. Been playing here for going on a year. All I have left to say is deniers deny and Woo-sters spin "woo". You'll fit in well here with your fans and your Deepak Chopra word salad style...which once digested still leaves everyone starving. 

 

Here's a song for ya Tipp...or is it Porn? It sadly sums up precisely what's left of this dead thread. 

 

Hopelessly Devoted To You (just sub Woo) - Grease

 

And here's a tip for ya Tipp...should hang with yo sis more!

 

 

 

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

And then again, maybe they consider me to be so far out in space, a raving lunatic perhaps, that they feel it's not worth their time to enter into any exchanges with me.  I mean, who wants to dialogue with a crazy person?

In a word...Yes.

 

But you're in right fine like company. ????

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, next he'll tell you how happy he is with his wine and his girl friend, and watching the birds, don't expect too much more

Absolutely! So nice of you to keep me in your fondest memories! Just had a fab vegan meal. GF is a gourmet chef, as certainly you'll recall. A bottle of divine red wine to go with dinner and ep 1 of Dracula 2020 afterwards. 

 

ALSO added 9 new avian species to my Thailand list over the past 3  weeks and got pix of all but one! 

 

Life and our natural world is simply GRAND. No woo required. ????

Edited February 25, 2020 by Skeptic7

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

While I think that it is true on the soul level, many take it to be true on the ego level too.

It would be very interesting to discuss just this sentence.

 

Yet, the other relevant part of your post highlights some of the misunderstandings and sometimes even conflicts which may arise between folks who are looking, in theory, for some kind of enlightenment.

It seems to me that human relationships are one of the most difficult part of the human existence, and often, what we don't like in others, reflects what we don't like about ourselves.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

12 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

It would be very interesting to discuss just this sentence.

 

Yet, the other relevant part of your post highlights some of the misunderstandings and sometimes even conflicts which may arise between folks who are looking, in theory, for some kind of enlightenment.

It seems to me that human relationships are one of the most difficult part of the human existence, and often, what we don't like in others, reflects what we don't like about ourselves.

 

 

Yes, it was something that bothered me for a while now, but I only realized why.

 

I think that in the last 20-30 years, spirituality has become a lot more mainstream, sparking the interest towards ancient teachings as well as more modern "New Age" stuff.
As it so often happens when something goes mainstream, it loses quality and authenticity in favour of a more digestible approach. The ancient teachings that until the 50's were more or less restricted to a selected group of sincere seekers, were then imported into the West (thanks to the LSD and the hippie movement), dumbed down and sometimes mixed with wacky new stuff, taught by self-proclaimed teachers.
Then came all the New Age self-help books (I know...I've read a lot of them...), Ophra, the "feel good" culture of "you are perfect as you are", and while they brought a lot of people closer to spirituality and filled a need that no religion or science could, it also brought a lot of confusion. This is the kind of spirituality most, if not all the atheists and agnostics were exposed to. No wonder they have such a dislike towards it...

I saw one of the confusions in this thread a while ago, when a poster mentioned "The Secret" (one of the most popular New Age feel-good bibles) and said that all we had to do was to use our intention to attract what we want in our lives. While I DO believe that concentrating our intention on something can create and facilitate the manifestation of something , the way that most people understand this is exceedingly naive in my opinion. If it were that simple, believers of The Secret would never get sick and would all be millionaires, wouldn't they? The reality is that pure concentration take a long time to practice. Concentration is focusing your mind towards a single goal, be it your relationships, your financial situation or a particular problem in your life. Meditation on the other hand, is concentration, but exclusively directed towards knowing God. 
So, once you have sharpened your mind with precise and unwavering concentration, then yes, things can materialize in your life much faster. But this is not simple wishing for something to happen.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I think that in the last 20-30 years, spirituality has become a lot more mainstream, sparking the interest towards ancient teachings as well as more modern "New Age" stuff.
As it so often happens when something goes mainstream, it loses quality and authenticity in favour of a more digestible approach. The ancient teachings that until the 50's were more or less restricted to a selected group of sincere seekers, were then imported into the West (thanks to the LSD and the hippie movement), dumbed down and sometimes mixed with wacky new stuff, taught by self-proclaimed teachers.
Then came all the New Age self-help books (I know...I've read a lot of them...), Ophra, the "feel good" culture of "you are perfect as you are", and while they brought a lot of people closer to spirituality and filled a need that no religion or science could, it also brought a lot of confusion. This is the kind of spirituality most, if not all the atheists and agnostics were exposed to. No wonder they have such a dislike towards it...

Sometimes i have the same feelings about the New age fashion, for some people it's just "cool" to do a yoga or a reiki course, yet as far as they get some benefits from it, i think it's harmless.

Perhaps the only tiny detail where i beg to differ, is that i have little merciful feelings towards atheists in general, as most of them seem to be only focused on their physical pleasures and their personal gain, thus negating themselves a more ample vision of what we call "reality".

Yet, we live in the best possible world, judging others is wasted time, and it's just wonderful to be able to choose from such a great variety of fields of knowledge.

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sometimes i have the same feelings about the New age fashion, for some people it's just "cool" to do a yoga or a reiki course, yet as far as they get some benefits from it, i think it's harmless.

Perhaps the only tiny detail where i beg to differ, is that i have little merciful feelings towards atheists in general, as most of them seem to be only focused on their physical pleasures and their personal gain, thus negating themselves a more ample vision of what we call "reality".

Yet, we live in the best possible world, judging others is wasted time, and it's just wonderful to be able to choose from such a great variety of fields of knowledge.

Regarding yoga...That's another one of those confusions.
What people see of yoga in the West is mainly Hatha Yoga, the physical part of yoga. While it certainly gives you a lot of physical benefits if done right, you will hardly get any closer to God even if you practice it for 50 years. 
I remember Krishnamurti answering a question about yoga (the way it's practiced in the West), and he started his answer with "From the sublime to the ridiculous" ???? 
 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Sunmaster

[UbonThani]

Life is simple. Thinking is not.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Regarding yoga...That's another one of those confusions.
What people see of yoga in the West is mainly Hatha Yoga, the physical part of yoga. While it certainly gives you a lot of physical benefits if done right, you will hardly get any closer to God even if you practice it for 50 years. 
I remember Krishnamurti answering a question about yoga (the way it's practiced in the West), and he started his answer with "From the divine to the ridiculous" ???? 
 

 

 

Great master, and never accommodating for hypocrisy, agree, most people when they think about yoga, think about contortions.

[transam]

Whose fave song is this then...? 

PS. Not mine though...???? 

 

 

[Tarteso]

6681 posts and looks like God don’t want to help in this Topic writing any word to all incredulous people. ????

 

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Tarteso

[Sunmaster]

[Skeptic7]

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

555 this one was my second cartoon choice!

[UbonThani]

Why is god an angry white guy? The original humans were black so if created in his image he's black.

[Tippaporn]

On 2/25/2020 at 8:53 PM, Skeptic7 said:

Opening post??? You need to do your homework Newb. Been playing here for going on a year. All I have left to say is deniers deny and Woo-sters spin "woo". You'll fit in well here with your fans and your Deepak Chopra word salad style...which once digested still leaves everyone starving. 

 

Here's a song for ya Tipp...or is it Porn? It sadly sums up precisely what's left of this dead thread. 

 

Hopelessly Devoted To You (just sub Woo) - Grease

 

And here's a tip for ya Tipp...should hang with yo sis more!

 

 

Excellent trash talk, Skeptic.  If nothing else it is creative.  I mean that with sincerity.  You've quoted me twice now but left out the one and only relevant quote.

 

On 2/25/2020 at 8:37 PM, Tippaporn said:

He won't be back with anything noteworthy to say.

Since I've been posting I've noticed you around handing out "reactions" but never commenting on anything.  Maybe it is as you say; after a year you're completely tuckered out because after all of this time and for all of your seemingly rational presentations of what reality is (not seemingly to you, of course) you've been unable to convince anyone who holds an alternate view of reality.  That's fine and well and if that's where you want to leave it then there's nothing "wrong" with it.

 

But how did I know your post was just a hit and run and you would not come back to post anything meaningful, just more trash?  Perhaps it's the kind of obviousness some posters here attempt to explain but which completely escapes other posters such as yourself.  What's obvious to some is not to others.  So it will always be.  And how did I know that my statement, "I wish he would," would be simply too tempting for one like you to resist replying to?  Now, you don't necessarily need to have any firm understanding of what beliefs are and how they operate in order to perceive someone's predictability.  But having that understanding certainly makes it easier.  You're response to that statement was completely predictable, Skeptic.  It's called hurt pride.

 

Now I have to laugh that you bring up terms such as "woo" and "word salad."  I had brought up an anecdote earlier about a chick who unceremoniously dumped Seth into a hornet's nest of hard core skeptics on a forum run by the Skeptic's Society.  Those two terms, "woo" and "word salad" were used by the members of the forum in profusion.  So, for those who may not have proper definitions for them I'll provide them.  And correct me if I'm wrong, Skeptic.

 

Woo - this is an invented term, perhaps the etymology can be traced directly to one skeptic's forum or another.  I'll assume as much.  It is used to dismiss, out-of-hand, ideas, concepts or an alternate view of reality for which a skeptic has no valid arguments to counter with.  It is used, as I've mentioned, profusely since there are a great many ideas and concepts which skeptics can find no way to counter.  It let's them off the hook, so to speak, and protects them in the sense that no one who claims to be in possession of a rational and reasonable mind could ever consider ideas once labeled as "woo" as having any validity whatsoever.  Used as a device to declare "the final word."

 

Word salad - This is another invented term and I would likewise suspect that it's origins are to be found in the mind of a skeptic.  The definition refers to well expressed ideas or well expressed views of alternate views of reality which the skeptic refuses to educate himself or herself on.  Those here might remember my earlier mentions regarding the proper requirements for the successful arguing of one viewpoint or another.  One needs to be well rounded and have intricate knowledge of both viewpoints.  For how would it be possible to argue against when you have zero idea of what it is you are arguing against??  Skeptics can be very lazy and oftentimes refuse to do the required work.  So to relieve themselves of what should be their duty they simply refer to well expressed explanations of ideas and concepts for which they have no familiarity with as "word salad."  One of the mantles skeptics drape themselves in is that of Ultimate Debunkers.  If one is to proclaim him/her self as a professional debunker then my humble suggestion would be to know what the fvk you're talking about.

 

I should mention as well that for those who have so successfully stymied a skeptic and reduced them to having no other option but to attack with that phrase I would view it as the utmost compliment they could bestow.  So thank you, Skeptic.

 

Again, if you wish to enter a debate of differing world views please come prepared.  Be knowledgeable about the subject matter which you attempt to refute.  If you are not then chances are good that from your limited and one-sided perspective of reality you will ultimately become so entirely frustrated and exhausted that you end up being reduced to posting merely pure trash.  There are no other responses available to you.  When that happens you have, in the words of mauGR1, been demolished.

 

Interesting that I've seen you around the forums many times (and I believe we've argued with each other elsewhere before - does Tommy Robinson ring a bell?) and have always thought your chosen username had a very specific meaning behind it.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

I'm going to here attribute some credibility to Seth for those who are more concerned with the source than the information which the source provides.  Jane Roberts and her husband, Robert Butts, have been contacted by a number of serious scientists throughout their 20+ years of producing Seth's material.  The scientists generally are not named for obvious reasons.  I'll quote here from someone who had asked the question elsewhere of which scientists, by name, have acknowledged Seth in their work:

 

"As the years have passed and various theories about probable and parallel universes and the simultaneous nature of time seem to have gained acceptance, I've wondered to what extent the scientists presenting these ideas were influenced by Seth's books. Discovering that Tom Campbell is one of those who, in collaboration with Robert Monroe, used her work as a guideline was delightful!

I had assumed that no scientist would have the courage to admit to being influenced by the Seth books because they would face instant rejection for any ideas that they acknowledged came from a trance medium, or her guiding "entity" - how wonderful to discover that I'm wrong!"

 

Instant rejection.  I think posters here know a bit about how instant rejection operates in the real world.

 

Also, the Seth material is the only such material produced by a psychic, or spirit medium, or whatever meaningless label one wishes to ascribe to such people, to be archived in a prestigious university.  The works, both published and unpublished, are housed in the Yale University Library Archival Collection.  It is said to be the most frequented material contained within that Library Archival Collection.

 

Granted, all of the above will be argued by some as providing no standing of credibility.  I'll remind that one particular skeptic on the Skeptic's Society forum outed Jane as a mere drunk.  So the weight of opinion or evidence as to credibility can be decided by the individual.  For myself, I am interested only in the validity of the information.  The source is neither here nor there from my standpoint.  Even fools have been known to tender words of wisdom.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Excellent trash talk, Skeptic.  If nothing else it is creative.  I mean that with sincerity.  You've quoted me twice now but left out the one and only relevant quote.

 

Since I've been posting I've noticed you around handing out "reactions" but never commenting on anything.  Maybe it is as you say; after a year you're completely tuckered out because after all of this time and for all of your seemingly rational presentations of what reality is (not seemingly to you, of course) you've been unable to convince anyone who holds an alternate view of reality.  That's fine and well and if that's where you want to leave it then there's nothing "wrong" with it.

 

But how did I know your post was just a hit and run and you would not come back to post anything meaningful, just more trash?  Perhaps it's the kind of obviousness some posters here attempt to explain but which completely escapes other posters such as yourself.  What's obvious to some is not to others.  So it will always be.  And how did I know that my statement, "I wish he would," would be simply too tempting for one like you to resist replying to?  Now, you don't necessarily need to have any firm understanding of what beliefs are and how they operate in order to perceive someone's predictability.  But having that understanding certainly makes it easier.  Your response to that statement was completely predictable, Skeptic.  It's called the defense of hurt pride.

 

Now I have to laugh that you bring up terms such as "woo" and "word salad."  I had brought up an anecdote earlier about a chick who unceremoniously dumped Seth into a hornet's nest of hard core skeptics on a forum run by the Skeptic's Society.  Those two terms, "woo" and "word salad" were used by the members of the forum in profusion.  So, for those who may not have proper definitions for them I'll provide them.  And correct me if I'm wrong, Skeptic.

 

Woo - this is an invented term, perhaps the etymology can be traced directly to one skeptic's forum or another.  I'll assume as much.  It is used to dismiss, out-of-hand, ideas, concepts or an alternate view of reality for which a skeptic has no valid arguments to counter with.  It is used, as I've mentioned, profusely since there are a great many ideas and concepts which skeptics can find no way to counter.  It let's them off the hook, so to speak, and protects them in the sense that no one who claims to be in possession of a rational and reasonable mind could ever consider ideas once labeled as "woo" as having any validity whatsoever.  Used as a device to declare "the final word."

 

Word salad - This is another invented term and I would likewise suspect that it's origins are to be found in the mind of a skeptic.  The definition refers to well expressed ideas or well expressed views of alternate views of reality which the skeptic refuses to educate himself or herself on.  Those here might remember my earlier mentions regarding the proper requirements for the successful arguing of one viewpoint or another.  One needs to be well rounded and have intricate knowledge of both viewpoints.  For how would it be possible to argue against when you have zero idea of what it is you are arguing against??  Skeptics can be very lazy and oftentimes refuse to do the required work.  So to relieve themselves of what should be their duty they simply refer to well expressed explanations of ideas and concepts for which they have no familiarity with as "word salad."  One of the mantles skeptics drape themselves in is that of Ultimate Debunkers.  If one is to proclaim him/her self as a professional debunker then my humble suggestion would be to know what the fvk you're talking about.

 

I should mention as well that for those who have so successfully stymied a skeptic and reduced them to having no other option but to attack with that phrase I would view it as the utmost compliment they could bestow.  So thank you, Skeptic.

 

Again, if you wish to enter a debate of differing world views please come prepared.  Be knowledgeable about the subject matter which you attempt to refute.  If you are not then chances are good that from your limited and one-sided perspective of reality you will ultimately become so entirely frustrated and exhausted that you end up being reduced to posting merely pure trash.  There are no other responses available to you.  When that happens you have, in the words of mauGR1, been demolished.

 

Interesting that I've seen you around the forums many times (and I believe we've argued with each other elsewhere before - does Tommy Robinson ring a bell?) and have always thought your chosen username had a very specific meaning behind it.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by Tippaporn