Armed activists show up to library and demand they ban books

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A mischievous question. Most men don't 'dress as women' (that is women who wear dresses and heels). 'Dressing as a woman' could mean wearing jeans and Doc Martens, or denim overalls and crocs, or trousers and a blazer with sneakers, or......So one could equally say that ALL men dress as women.

Let's say men in drag, then.

I'm not sure if there has been any research into the attire of men when they molest chldren. I think there have been quite a few in long black tents though..

[Age]

But ALL 'tenets' can be MISINTERPRETED, as can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout human history, and just within this forum.

And often deliberately misinterpreted by religious leaders, or at least interpreted with bias.

I do not think those people deliberately MISINTERPRETED the messages.

I think they have just MISINTERPRETED them, because of previous Wrong teachings, and have just passed on Wrong knowledge, unknowingly.

But, because of GREED, there will ALWAYS be some who deliberately DECEIVE or MISLEAD.

Oh, and by the way, is there some 'thing' within the bible, which a human being should not be doing anyway?

I haven't read the Bible, so I can only judge by what I hear about it. I don't think it is a good thing to worship or idolise anybody, or any thing, and I do not think it a good thing to regard any authority to be infallable. Those are things that I do not think a human being should be doing.[/quote]

Well the first one is in some religious texts, and, the second one would contradict a so-called 'authority', which ALL-knowing and ALL powerful.

Absolutely ANY BELIEF has the EXACT SAME rigid constraints. That is; while one has or holds a BELIEF they are NOT OPEN to absolutely ANY thing opposing THAT BELIEF.

I think it is the rigid constraints that you are applying to the word "belief" that is the problem here.

I KNOW that it IS the MISINTERPRETATIONS, which are causing the issues here.

Like most words, it can vary in meaning.

Sure, but what is the meaning of the word 'belief', if is NOT in relation to 'believe'?

Religious belief tends to be based on the principle that virtue lies in the act of believing, rather than its content.

And there is a VERY GOOD reason for 'this'. BUT we are STILL a LONG way from getting to 'there' YET.

A religious belief is not something you are supposed to question, but rather something you are encouraged to doggedly cling to.

But that is ONLY because the one's teaching, the MISINTERPRETATIONS, are NOT able to answer challenging questions, let alone just Truly OPEN questions, posed to them. That is WHY they TEACH to NOT question.

But those who are NOT prone to subtle forms of HYPNOTIZE do NOT follow this type of 'TEACHING', and usually just get REMOVED from such places of those types of TEACHINGS. Usually for just the simple task of just asking questions, which challenge the so-called "teacher".

Some people treat political beliefs like that, so it isn't confined solely to religion.

I think the above type of belief is a different thing to the type of believe one comes across in, say, a court room. A jury will convict or acquit based on the evidence that is presented to them, and they will be (or should be) open to the possibility that any belief they form, based on that evidence, might change in the light of any subsequent evidence. This kind of belief does not (should not) have any ideological or emotional attachment invested in it.

The word 'belief' relates to the word 'believe'. So, if one believes has a 'belief', then they BELIEVE it is true, or false. And, if one does NOT have FOR SURE, WITHOUT A QUESTION OF DOUBT that some thing IS TRUE, then WHY 'believe' it is true? WHY NOT just REMAIN OPEN until thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth comes through or comes forward?

Also, WHEN, and IF, that Truth comes-to-light, then there is NO need to have a 'belief' NOR 'believe', NOW, ALSO.

One word, but with two distinct meanings, I would suggest.

So, you CAN 'believe' some thing is true, and either:

That 'thing', to you, IS UNCHANGEABLE TRUE.

Or,

That 'thing', to you, may NOT be true AT ALL.

So, if you are to tell me that you BELIEVE some thing is true, then how do I KNOW WHICH ONE of these MEANINGS that 'you' are WITHIN?

In ALL religions the message is to FOLLOW thee True One, which is just thee True Self, which is within ALL of 'you', which has been MISTAKEN, MISCONSTRUED, and MISINTERPRET with the words "your self", along with other oxymorons, misnomers, and other False, Wrong, and Incorrect terms and usage of words. But this WILL all become MUCH CLEARER as 'we' move along here.

I don't agree. In Christianity, Jesus and God are not metaphors for self, they are literal characters.

Did you MISS the part WHERE I was DISCUSSING that the messages within the bible HAVE GOTTEN and DO GET MISINTERPRETED.

OF COURSE, the messages passed on down through the years are NOT saying that 'you' are God nor "jesus".

But, just like you say "jurors" should ONLY 'judge' on the evidence put before them, I suggest that 'you' ONLY ALLOW ACTUAL PROOF influence the way 'you' LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

What WILL then BE SEEN is that the word "jesus" IS in relation to 'children', and the word 'God' is in relation to 'adults'.

But as I have ALREADY SAID and EXPLAINED 'you' are STILL A LONG WAY from SEEING and UNDERSTANDING this.

There is STILL MORE to LEARN and UNDERSTAND, FIRST.

[Age]

If the 'demon' is 'sinister' is it better to TEACH children to be frightened of 'the demon' or to be not alarmed of 'the demon'?

And, what is 'the demon', EXACTLY?

How many instances of child abuse, sexual or physical, are perpetrated by men dressed as women, would you say?

WHY do my questions get continually IGNORED completely, but I am asked questions, to answer?

When you say 'instances' do you mean by EACH one of just those "men" dressed as "woman", or by those "men" dressed 'in costume'?

And, 'instances' ONLY WHEN they are dressed up, in some particular way?

And, are you wanting the number of EVERY 'instance' that physical or sexual abuse took place?

And, WHY are you only wanting the 'instances' of sexual or physical? What about the mental, emotional, and/or spiritual abuse ALSO? Or, do those one NOT matter AS MUCH?

And, how in the hell would I KNOW how many 'instances' of sexual or physical child abuse is perpetrated by "men" dressed as "woman"?

If, for example, a "man" who dresses up as a "woman", abuses a child, sexually or physically, but is NOT dressed as a "woman" at the time of abuse, am I meant to include those times in "How many instances", as well?

All I KNOW, for sure, WITHOUT DOUBT is that ALL adults abuse children. And, ALL children have been abused, by adults. Well, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, and sexually, at least, and maybe ALL physically, also.

But as for the EXACT NUMBER of times, or of HOW MANY 'instances', this happens and occurs I am SORRY but I can NOT give you that number.

[Age]

If the 'demon' is 'sinister' is it better to TEACH children to be frightened of 'the demon' or to be not alarmed of 'the demon'?

And, what is 'the demon', EXACTLY?

How many instances of child abuse, sexual or physical, are perpetrated by men dressed as women, would you say?

A mischievous question. Most men don't 'dress as women' (that is women who wear dresses and heels). 'Dressing as a woman' could mean wearing jeans and Doc Martens, or denim overalls and crocs, or trousers and a blazer with sneakers, or......So one could equally say that ALL men dress as women.

And if one was to visit the pacific islands, where the "men" are BIGGER, and wear dresses, how many would be game enough to tell those "men", "You dress like a woman"?

Thee Truth is there is NO One way "men" and "woman" dress.

I have even put this question forward before, of which NO one answered, 'Besides the sexual organs of the human body, what is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between "men" and "women"?

[Age]

Have you NOTICED that you ask questions based upon your OWN ALREADY held ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS, and NOT just for CLARIFICATION purposes only?

I would have asked the same general question of you, and did ask a similar one is specific instances, but I have found out, after asking questions, that you do not believe any seeming assumptions in your questions or any assertions that you make. You lack beliefs except the one mentioned somewhere else in the forums.

If were NOT YET CLEAR, I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY thing.

And ALL you had to do was just ask me what I BELIEVE and/or DISBELIEVE.

I got confused because if I didn't beleive someone was scared but thought they might be, I would ask 'Are you scared?' Then move on,

But I did ask something LIKE THAT, but you would NOT answer that nor other questions.

And, if people are Truly Honest with thy Self, then most people do NOT answer questions because they are AFRAID and/or SCARED OF some 'thing'.

if I got an affirmative answer, to asking why. But now I see that even questions when used by many if not most people would indicate a belief or assumption, in your case, they do not. This is useful information. Perhaps there are even some idiosyncratic uses of words or communication that you have which would further clarify things. I think however I am more interested in the topic here than I am in your use of language.

YET you asked so MANY OFF-TOPIC questions to me.

But as long as you are NOW CLEAR, FOREVER MORE, that I NEITHER believe NOR disbelieve ANY thing, and that I do NOT like to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, then all is well and good here, and we can finally move along.

Is this what that other human being named "plato" would have done?

I am not named Plato,just to be clear, not that you believed I was named that.

I NEVER even thought you were called 'that', let alone even SAID or SUGGESTED that ANYWHERE here.

You appear to have MISREAD my words, ONCE AGAIN.

Actually, I did get the impression that Plato presented Socrates as believing things but used a process of questioning rather than direct stating. But given that this is another mind, in another culture, speaking through a character (if based on a real person), I do not know if this is the case.

If 'you' REALLY 'wanna be plato', then you would HAVE TO DO what "plato" would do.

The name I chose here was Iwannaplato not Iwannabeplato. I have explained elsewhere, in another thread, why I chose that moniker, but in any case I do not want to be Plato.

What was your explanation, elsewhere, in another thread?

Or, WHY did you choose that label/name/moniker?

See, unlike 'you', "iwannoplato", "plato" would NOT be AFRAID and SCARED of being QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED.

And before our recent exchange I would have thought by saying this it meant you believed I was afraid, scared of being questioned etc. But now I know you assert things you do not believe, because over and over when asked if you believe what you asserted, you answered 'no.'

So, FINALLY you UNDERSTAND, correct?

But just to be CLEAR, are you under some sort of ASSUMPTION that because I do NOT 'believe' what I assert that I then in someway 'disbelieve' what I assert?

This was helpful clarification for me. For the record I am not scared.

So, WHY then have you NOT been answering the questions I have asked you, for CLARIFICATION?

I certainly found the interaction interesting, but not challenging in any negative sense. I am not sure what nuance is added by saying 'Not be AFRAID' and then adding SCARED, also. But neither applies to my emotional state during our exchange.

AGAIN, here is ANOTHER example of one INFORMING of what they are NOT sure of, but STILL NEVER even asks A question, in order to gain FINAL CLARIFICATION.

Also, and AGAIN, WHY do you NOT just answer the questions I posed to you, for CLARIFICATION?

As said, I found this interesting, mainly in finding out how you...hm...perhaps it's best to say...how you don't usually use language and some of the things you do not mean when you assert things. Truly interesting. But, now, have gone through that process, I will focus on other topics.

What does, "how you don't usually use language", actually mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, LOL I have NEVER even SUGGESTED that I do NOT 'mean' what I 'assert', let alone SAID 'that' ANYWHERE. So, WHERE and WHEN you go 'that', ONLY 'you' would KNOW. Also, the EXACT OPPOSITE is ACTUALLY what IS True.

[Harbal]

Like most words, it can vary in meaning.

Sure, but what is the meaning of the word 'belief', if is NOT in relation to 'believe'?

I'm starting to wonder what we are trying to establish here, and why.
I said that deeply held religious beliefs are not accessibe to reason or persuasion. I think you said that no beliefs are open to persuasion. I don't agree with you. For example: IC, on this forum, has got beliefs about God that are completely impervious to any and every argument against them you could come up with. He also believes that I live in South Yorkshire. I have told him so in a conversation we had a while back, and he appeared to accept it as being true, therefore, I assume him to believe that it is true. Were he to witness my telling someone else that I lived in Derbyshire, he would no doubt begin to question his belief that I lived in South Yorshire. Were I to admit to him that I was lying when I said I lived in Yorkshire, he would probably abandon the belief altogether. Actually, I daresay he would end up not knowing what to believe.

What I am trying to explain is that there can be a big difference in nature between types of belief.

The word 'belief' relates to the word 'believe'. So, if one believes has a 'belief', then they BELIEVE it is true, or false. And, if one does NOT have FOR SURE, WITHOUT A QUESTION OF DOUBT that some thing IS TRUE, then WHY 'believe' it is true? WHY NOT just REMAIN OPEN until thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth comes through or comes forward?

Some of our beliefs are deeply significant and play a major role in how we live our lives, others are trivial and only have a minor function in our day to day conduct. You might ask your wife if she remembered to buy milk when she went shopping. If she says yes, would you be inclined to just believe her, or would you demand proof first?

So, you CAN 'believe' some thing is true, and either:

That 'thing', to you, IS UNCHANGEABLE TRUE.

Or,

That 'thing', to you, may NOT be true AT ALL.

So, if you are to tell me that you BELIEVE some thing is true, then how do I KNOW WHICH ONE of these MEANINGS that 'you' are WITHIN?

You would just have to use your judgement, and be prepared for the possibility of your not being able to know for sure.

[Age]

But if you really do know of A BELIEF, which you could really 'reason' with, then I, for one, would LOVE to SEE 'it'.

I think we are letting ourselves get hemmed in by language here, Age.

I KNOW I AM CERTAINLY NOT.

I AM USING 'language' here to My VERY ADVANTAGE.

Words should be our servants, not our masters.

And I am USING 'words' to GET WHAT I WANT here.

The word "belief" can have various meanings and connotations,

Just like MANY other words.

In fact there are MANY words that have more than one meaning and connotation. Some words have VERY MANY meanings and/or connotations. While some words have some meanings and connotations, which are the EXACT OPPOSITE. BUT, there are NO two words with the EXACT SAME meaning.

so I can't usefully give you an example of what you are asking for.

So, if you can NOT answer the question, posed to you for CLARIFICATION, and an example of what you CLAIMED was true, then, as it STANDS, there is STILL NO 'BELIEF' AT ALL, which is OPEN to 'reason'.

One of my biggest goals, here in this forum, is to learn how to OVERCOME people's BELIEFS, and if there is A WAY, then I am Truly SEEKING 'it' OUT. So, if you can help me in ANY way AT ALL I would REALLY LOVE to SEE and LEARN 'that way'.

Why is this your goal?

BECAUSE the MAIN 'thing' that STOPS 'you', human beings, EVOLVING, or MOVING FORWARD, to CREATE 'that', which 'you' ALL Truly WANT and DESIRE, is 'your' BELIEFS.

Once I learn A WAY to OVERCOME 'them', then I can SHOW and REVEAL HOW SIMPLE and EASY it REALLY is to learn HOW it is Truly POSSIBLE to live in a Truly PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS 'world'.

I think we have to distinguish between beliefs that pose a danger to society, or groups within society, and beliefs that may be considered to be foolish, but are harmless.

Well, IF you START to PROVIDE SOME example, then we, at least, have SOME 'thing' to LOOK AT and DISCUSS. But, UNTIL THEN, from what I have observed absolutely ANY one with a BELIEF is NOT OPEN to absolutely ANY thing that is contrary to 'that BELIEF'. AND, from what I have observed also it does NOT matter iota what the BELIEF is of EXACTLY.

If someone believes it is right to persecute people because of skin colour, or sexual orientation, then their beliefs should be challenged -in my opinion- but if they just believe the Earth is flat, why make the effort?

This is of absolutely NO concern AT ALL to me.

What I am concerned about is HOW to get one PASSED their BELIEFS?

It does NOT matter what one BELIEVES is true. How is it POSSIBLE to 'reason' with one WITH A BELIEF?

You have previously CLAIMED that:
A belief that does not have the authority of God behind it is more likely to be a belief that you could 'reason' with.

I would just LOVE to SEE one of 'these BELIEFS', and then SEE how you could actually 'reason' with 'it', so that I could then LEARN how I could do the SAME ALSO.

ANY and ALL examples would help me out TREMENDOUSLY.

Maybe if I START, then we could move this along.

For the sake of this discussion let us assume that I BELIEVE;
It is right to persecute people because of skin color or sexual orientation (you can choose either one "harbal")

Now, you BELIEVE that these BELIEFS of my 'should be' CHALLENGED right?

If yes, then could you PLEASE show me HOW you could reason with this BELIEF, of mine?

If you really do KNOW how to 'reason' with people with BELIEFS, then will you PLEASE share that knowledge with me?

If i appear to be begging and pleading here, then this is because i AM begging and pleading with you here.

I don't think you can reason with beliefs that are not based on reason, and this is what I meant when I said that people who are embedded in a religion are not open to reason.

So, you have the BELIEF that people who are, SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY so-called 'embedded' in 'religion' are NOT open to reason, correct?

If yes, but this BELIEF of yours is open to reason, correct?

Also, will you provide an example of a BELIEF that is based on 'reason', but which is STILL open to 'reason'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think you are setting yourself an impossible task, Age.

I just asked you to provide an example of what you claimed was true. And if you think that 'that' is IMPOSSIBLE, then, obviously, the POSSIBILITY or IMPOSSIBILITY of this is SOLELY DEPENDENT UPON on 'you', here "harbal".

So, if you think that me setting an IMPOSSIBLE task by just asking you to provide an example of what you claim is true, then you WILL MAKE 'this task' an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Most of the people here are here to assert their own views, not to be persuaded by the arguments of others.

I KNOW, and AGREE.

And this can be CLEARLY SEEN by the way people WRITE and SPEAK here.

Oh, and by the way, I am just asking here now to be provided with what one is ASSERTING is true.

See, without PROOF, I become NONE the WISER.

I actually think that some of them believe they are the reincarnation of great bygone philosophers, and you are going to get absolutely nowhere with those.

But is ONLY 'you', "harbal" who 'I' am concentrating on and talking WITH here now.

If you REALLY do KNOW of A BELIEF, which you can 'reason' with, then I would just LOVE to SEE an example of that BELIEF. That is ALL I am REALLY asking for here, now.

[Age]

Like most words, it can vary in meaning.

Sure, but what is the meaning of the word 'belief', if is NOT in relation to 'believe'?

I'm starting to wonder what we are trying to establish here, and why.
I said that deeply held religious beliefs are not accessibe to reason or persuasion. I think you said that no beliefs are open to persuasion. I don't agree with you. For example: IC, on this forum, has got beliefs about God that are completely impervious to any and every argument against them you could come up with. He also believes that I live in South Yorkshire. I have told him so in a conversation we had a while back, and he appeared to accept it as being true, therefore, I assume him to believe that it is true. Were he to witness my telling someone else that I lived in Derbyshire, he would no doubt begin to question his belief that I lived in South Yorshire. Were I to admit to him that I was lying when I said I lived in Yorkshire, he would probably abandon the belief altogether. Actually, I daresay he would end up not knowing what to believe.

And you are PROVING my questioning here about WHY BELIEVE some thing is true, or false, when all along 'it' might NOT be true, or false, AT ALL?

Also, I said; WHILE one is BELIEVING some thing is true, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing that BELIEF. I also said something about how WHILE one has a BELIEF then they are NOT OPEN to 'reason'.

What I am trying to explain is that there can be a big difference in nature between types of belief. [/quote]

There can be big differences in nature between types of OTHER 'things' as well, but SO WHAT?

You claimed that "A belief that does not have the authority of God behind it is more likely to be a belief that you could reason with."

I have NOT seen one of these BELIEFS YET, AND you have NOT YET provided ANY example AT ALL of ANY such BELIEF. So, from what I have observed so far, there is NO BELIEF, whatsoever, which one could 'reason' with.

I could ask you, once again, will you provide us with an example of a BELIEF that you could 'reason' with, but I would only be wasting my time, correct?

The word 'belief' relates to the word 'believe'. So, if one believes has a 'belief', then they BELIEVE it is true, or false. And, if one does NOT have FOR SURE, WITHOUT A QUESTION OF DOUBT that some thing IS TRUE, then WHY 'believe' it is true? WHY NOT just REMAIN OPEN until thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth comes through or comes forward?

Some of our beliefs are deeply significant and play a major role in how we live our lives, others are trivial and only have a minor function in our day to day conduct.

I KNOW that that is what 'you', adult human beings, have and do.

I am just asking, OPENLY, WHY BELIEVE some thing is true, when thee ACTUAL Truth IS that 'it' may well NOT be true, AT ALL?

In other words, WHY NOT just REMAIN OPEN ALL THE TIME, INSTEAD?

You might ask your wife if she remembered to buy milk when she went shopping. If she says yes, would you be inclined to just believe her, or would you demand proof first?

NEITHER.

Are there ONLY these two choices, which exist in your life?

So, you CAN 'believe' some thing is true, and either:

That 'thing', to you, IS UNCHANGEABLE TRUE.

Or,

That 'thing', to you, may NOT be true AT ALL.

So, if you are to tell me that you BELIEVE some thing is true, then how do I KNOW WHICH ONE of these MEANINGS that 'you' are WITHIN?

You would just have to use your judgement, and be prepared for the possibility of your not being able to know for sure.

So, EVEN if I was to just ask you a question, for CLARIFICATION, like, for example; which one is it? you would STILL NOT answer this question OPENLY and Honestly, so that I could just obtain CLARIFICATION, correct?

[Harbal]

So, EVEN if I was to just ask you a question, for CLARIFICATION, like, for example; which one is it? you would STILL NOT answer this question OPENLY and Honestly, so that I could just obtain CLARIFICATION, correct?

Oh, Age, you exhaust me.

[attofishpi]

So, EVEN if I was to just ask you a question, for CLARIFICATION, like, for example; which one is it? you would STILL NOT answer this question OPENLY and Honestly, so that I could just obtain CLARIFICATION, correct?

Oh, Age, you exhaust me.

LMAO!

How much battery power do I exhaust in my TV remote scrolling down, down, down through shit unworthy of reading, just because I know sum 1 like u have posted...only to read...ooh poor old Harbal is finally exhausted by...an enigma that should never be poked.

ffs.

[Dontaskme]

Pointless ………..

[Iwannaplato]

And ALL you had to do was just ask me what I BELIEVE and/or DISBELIEVE.

I learn best through back and forth with concrete examples as they occur.

YET you asked so MANY OFF-TOPIC questions to me.

Yes, I was interested then. And now I want to do something else.

Is this what that other human being named "plato" would have done?

I am not named Plato,just to be clear, not that you believed I was named that. [/quote]

I NEVER even thought you were called 'that', let alone even SAID or SUGGESTED that ANYWHERE here.

You appear to have MISREAD my words, ONCE AGAIN.

Well, I didn't misread it, but my deep, deep apologies if I misunderstood. I read this....

If 'you' REALLY 'wanna be plato', then you would HAVE TO DO what "plato" would do.

and

Is this what that other human being named "plato" would have done?

where you refer to 'that other person named plato. I didn't know there was a third person in some way named plato. That other person being Plato of old. I missed who this third person was, given that it appears I wasn't one of the two indicated by that sentence. Well, I am sure you can see how it might have been written more clearly and I am sorry for any misunderstanding my part.

What was your explanation, elsewhere, in another thread?

Or, WHY did you choose that label/name/moniker?

It's mainly a private joke and homage to a beloved friend who passed. Decades ago we played with the Abbott and Costello Who's on first? comedy routine, but using philosophers' names. It never quite worked, but we laughed and came back to it now and again. For example, A: Can you tell me who's on first? B: Kant. A: Why not? B: That's what I say. I think he plays well there. A:[?]
Iwannaplato said in a particular accent was part of the bit, though I can't remember quite how. So, it's a little nod to an old, dear friend who I sometimes miss very much.

So, heading back to other topics. Take care.

[Age]

So, EVEN if I was to just ask you a question, for CLARIFICATION, like, for example; which one is it? you would STILL NOT answer this question OPENLY and Honestly, so that I could just obtain CLARIFICATION, correct?

Oh, Age, you exhaust me.

So, that is a RESOUNDING YES.

Now, if you had just said from the outset that you were NOT going to clarify things for me here, then that would have saved us a LOT of the back and forth responses.

So, what we have is you BELIEVE and CLAIM that there are BELIEFS, which you can 'reason' with. But, you are going to keep these ones completely and utterly HIDDEN, from the rest of us.

This appears to be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one with a BELIEF, which they CLAIM to be true, but do NOT appear to have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for. Which, REALLY, just reinforces my CLAIM that there are NO BELIEFS AT ALL that "another" can 'reason' with.

[Harbal]

This appears to be ANOTHER EXAMPLE of one with a BELIEF, which they CLAIM to be true, but do NOT appear to have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for. Which, REALLY, just reinforces my CLAIM that there are NO BELIEFS AT ALL that "another" can 'reason' with.

I just made a comment that seems to be true to me, Age, others are free to agree or disagree. I'm sorry to have wasted your time, that was not my intention.

[Age]

So, EVEN if I was to just ask you a question, for CLARIFICATION, like, for example; which one is it? you would STILL NOT answer this question OPENLY and Honestly, so that I could just obtain CLARIFICATION, correct?

Oh, Age, you exhaust me.

LMAO!

How much battery power do I exhaust in my TV remote scrolling down, down, down through shit unworthy of reading, just because I know sum 1 like u have posted...only to read...ooh poor old Harbal is finally exhausted by...an enigma that should never be poked.

ffs.

SO, we have a 'philosophy forum', where people come to express their views, assumptions, and/or beliefs, and/or make claims.

But it is becoming increasingly CLEAR that these people, REALLY, do NOT want to be QUESTIONED nor CHALLENGED over those beliefs, claims, et cetera, and just rather that "others" just take their word for it that those claims, beliefs, et cetera are IRREFUTABLY true, right, or correct.

Which all sounds like going to 'church' again, and just being PREACHED to, all over again.

Maybe this forum should change its name to Church Now.

So when you come here you are going to Church Now.

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that if one is NOT YET ABLE to back up and support the BELIEFS nor the CLAIMS BEFORE they express them here, then they REFRAIN from doing so UNTIL they have the ACTUAL PROOF. Otherwise, be forewarned that I will QUESTION an/or CHALLENGE you OVER them, while all the time, VERY SUBTLY, EXPOSING 'them' for what they REALLY ARE.

Also, I suggest that if ANY one here does NOT understand the 'enigma' here, then ALL they have to do is just ask a Truly OPEN question, posed for CLARITY.

Obviously 'poking' is NEVER GOOD and DOES NOT WORK in creating a Truly HEALTHY and UNDERSTANDING environment.