Atheism

[Age]

Like all the others who were in my penalty box, Age is free again to pollute my forum view with his eye-blisterin' posts. And like some of those others: I will never respond to him.

Autists, dick-flashers, gammas: I see you, but you are beneath me.

'nuff said on that.

"beneath me". The words of the one's who BELIEVE that 'they' are the "SUPERIOR ONES", in Life.

The 'ONE" that BELIEVES that 'it' CAN KILL and MURDER "others", if "the others" just 'touch the "SUPERIOR ONE's" 'stuff'.

And, as for SAYING that those who are "autistic" are 'BENEATH YOU' just SHOWS and REVEALS the REAL 'you' "henry quirk".

The Fact that 'you' CAN NOT REFUTE ANY of my CLAIMS here, ABOUT 'your' WORDS, just PROVES how INADEQUATE, UNSOUND, and INVALID your WORDS and CLAIMS are here.

But this is enough said on 'that'.

[Dontaskme]

AND WHERE WAS and IS 'your' IMAGINATION 'drawn upon FROM', EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

Where ever you are/is...which is everywhere and nowhere.

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

BUT LOL 'I' have ALREADY SEEN, and thus ALREADY UNDERSTAND, 'THE SOURCE', EXACTLY, and FULLY.

Yes, source is known, and seeing is another form of knowing.

Seen implies an object seen.

Objects seen, cannot see, they are only being looked upon and known by seeing which is another word for knowing.

[Age]

So are you saying that only 'person can make up the rules as to what meat can be eaten and what cannot be eaten?

In context, the only rule is don't eat people.

And that any living sentient feeling creature that is not a 'person' has no natural right to exist, because the 'person' who has a natural right to exist, says so?

A person is a person independent of what anyone sez. If Bessie is a person (and I'm certainly willing to accept she is) then it's wrong to eat her.

But 'you', "henry quirk", are SO INCAPABLE here that 'you' can NOT even EXPLAIN and TELL us what a 'person' IS, EXACTLY, WITHOUT CONTRADICTORY your OWN previous WORDS and CLAIMS.

you SAY and CLAIM, 'Do NOT eat people', but WHEN QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED 'you' do NOT even KNOW who NOR what a 'person' IS, EXACTLY, anyway.

[Dontaskme]

And, as for SAYING that those who are "autistic" are 'BENEATH YOU' just SHOWS and REVEALS the REAL 'you' "henry quirk".

Henry is just another pretentious scoundrel who believes he knows what he is talking about, he looks only at himself, and talks to himself only, believing everything he tells himself to the point where he can only believe and think he has understood. He only, has a natural human right to exist and everything else is beneath him, especially autisic people and animals.

He'll come back and give that a big thumbs up...you'll see, just wait.

[Age]

I said have you ever seen the image of the ''me'' and you said yes in a mirror.
So then I said, you cannot shave the beard in the mirror where your image is seen.
If there is another way to see ''me'' then where can ''me'' be seen, if you don't like the mirror image analogy?

I could have my eyes surgically extended out so, like a crab, I could turn them toward myself and see myself.

But, that's a little extreme to prove a point.

There is no 'Henry' looking out of your eyes either, you said yourself, you can only see yourself as a mirror image of the imageless.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE "dontaskme" that "henry quirk" would say some 'thing' like; 'I can only see myself as a mirror image of the imageless'?

The last three words here sound like some 'thing' that ONLY 'you' "dontaskme" would say and claim.

Ok, prove you have an image of yourself, post a picture of Henry the deist?

No. I will, as I say, describe myself, but, no, I'm playin' that stupid, attention whore's game of postin' selfies.

Are you playing the whore selfie game or not ?

You said you would post a picture of yourself, you said it here >

''I'm a deist (not an atheist), I can post a picture or description of myself, so, you're wrong.''

By the way, you can never see yourself, and is why you have to use a mirror as to know you are only a reflected image of the imageless,

Can 'you' REALLY STILL NOT YET SEE the ABSURDITY of the CLAIM, 'you' are ONLY a REFLECTED IMAGE, OF 'the imageless', "dontaskme"?

NOW OBVIOUSLY, a 'person' or 'self' could NEVER be seen in a mirror, but just AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that human bodies can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY seen, in a mirror.

And, just AS OBVIOUS is that the 'self' and 'person' are IMAGELESS, but this IN NOW WAY MEANS that 'they' can NOT be SEEN, in the sense of BEING UNDERSTOOD.

See, BECAUSE I TOTALLY and FULLY UNDERSTAND what 'it' IS that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, EACH are SO DESPERATELY TRYING TO SAY and ARGUE FOR here this MEANS that I CAN and DO SEE ALL of 'you' FULLY here. Although ALL of 'you' are, literally, IMAGELESS I can SEE ALL of 'you' VERY CLEARLY, AND ABSOLUTELY.

if you do not want to come off as an attention seeking whore...stop gazing in the mirror at your own selfie. Could you do that? could you stop looking at yourself, and giving yourself some attention?

[Age]

There is no 'Henry' looking out of your eyes either, you said yourself, you can only see yourself as a mirror image of the imageless.

I said no such thing.

Are you playing the whore selfie game or not ?

No.

You said you would post a picture of yourself, you said it here >

''I'm a deist (not an atheist), I can post a picture or description of myself, so, you're wrong.''

I can, not I will.

WHY WILL you NOT?

WHAT, EXACTLY, are 'you' AFRAID and SCARED OF here "henry quirk"?

By the way, you can never see yourself

Yeah, I could. I told you how just up thread.

This IS BECAUSE 'you', the 'person', "henry quirk", ARE 'meat', right?

and is why you have to use a mirror as to know you are only a reflected image of the imageless

I use a mirror becuz I can't, crab-like, turn my eyes to view myself.

WHY would 'you' even WANT TO LOOK AT 'that body' FOR, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Basically, all you are saying is that God who is human said humans can eat animals but not humans

Nope.

And BECAUSE this is EXACTLY what "henry quirk" ALLUDED TO, BEFORE, 'it' WILL now ONLY ANSWER WITH 'nope' BECAUSE if 'it' EVER TRIED TO CORRECT what 'your' INTERPRETATION is here "dontaskme" "henry quirk" WOULD COMPLETELY CONTRADICT 'its' OWN PREVIOUS WORDS and CLAIMS.

[Age]

Like all the others who were in my penalty box, Age is free again to pollute my forum view with his eye-blisterin' posts. And like some of those others: I will never respond to him.

Autists, dick-flashers, gammas: I see you, but you are beneath me.

'nuff said on that.

Just scroll past Age's posts if they annoy and pollute your mind, it's not too difficult to just scroll past them, but why insult?.. Age has just as much right to post as everyone else does. We all have to live on the same planet, and breathe the same air. Age is human, please do not exclude Age.
Age has natural rights to exist too.

NOT IN "henry quirk's" TINY, LITTLE 'world'.

[Age]

I can, not I will.

Even if you did post a picture of yourself, there would be no conscious entity named Henry in the picture. That's all I'm pointing out.

I use a mirror becuz I can't, crab-like, turn my eyes to view myself.

Nothing can see/view itself.

NOTHING that is a 'seer' can see/view itself, with physical eyes.

BUT, BECAUSE "henry quirk" BELIEVES that 'it' IS the 'human body/meat', "henry quirk" then BELIEVES that 'it' CAN see "its" 'self', with the physical eyes.

Then you like looking at yourself, like everyone else, so you too are a stupid attention seeking selfie whore. Could you ever not depend on a mirror to see yourself, can't you just know you exist, without looking at yourself?

[Age]

Well I am a human with experience, which is all I have to draw on, as God and I don't communicate.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of 'this' here?

I am an atheist, God does not come into my reckoning.

As A BELIEVER that God does NOT exist, then 'you' will OBVIOUSLY NOT RECOGNIZE if ANY ACTUAL communication between 'you' AND 'God' was taking place.

As 'you' have NOT ALWAYS been A BELIEVER here, then 'you' AND 'God' may have ACTUALLY BEEN communicating BEFORE.

And, if thee Truth be KNOWN, then ...

[Immanuel Can]

My view of morality influences my conduct, and that is all I am entitled to require of it.

Fair enough for you, of course. But not useful to anybody else, apparently.

It seems obvious that a person's morality is mainly conditioned by the culture he is born and raised in, so others don't have to rely on me to give them their moral values, they acquire them from their cultural environment.

Here's the problem: the values of somebody "conditioned by" the culture of Somalia are not the values of somebody conditioned by being raised by Wall Street bankers. The values of somebody raised in Sweden are not those of somebody raised in the favelas of Brazil or the shantytowns of the Philippines. The values of an Englishman are not those of a Chinese dictator. Sure, they all have "values:" but how does your view give information a Russian or Cuban or can use to negotiate a common law, a common penal system, or any common institution at all with the Ghanaian and the Honduran, let alone how the Nihilist or Pragmatist can speak and act in common with the Humanist or the Muslim?

In fact, some theorists, like the Feminists and Developmentalists, have proposed that even women can have their own kinds of "morality," such as Ethics of Care, which are essentially different from male-generated views. So it looks like "cultural conditioning" isn't even going to get half the population to be informed of what "moral" means, or ground a single institution or common project anywhere.

Your approach doesn't offer any wisdom for deciding policy, or shaping a social ethos, or managing the laws of a nation, or structuring a penal code, or managing the ethics of a technology, or preserving rights, or any of the other essential social functions morality is supposed to serve.

I don't have an approach.

Fair enough. But that means that your way of deciding morals has no utility to anybody but you.

I assume, therefore, that you also can't recommend it to anyone. There is, apparently, no particular reason to do so. It doesn't offer anybody any moral guidance. It just says, "X is what Harbal uses to shape his conduct, but there's no special reason you should use X at all."

Okay, if you are going to assume that about me, I will also assume it about you.

Sorry -- I'm not trying to insult you, and I'm not just assuming it, Harbal...I'm just trying to deduce your view from the statements you are making about it. No personal insult is intended. I'm just trying to do some moral philosophy with your view. That's all. If I misspoke and implied an insult, I retract it.

Now, let me fully admit that you may be a perfectly wonderful fellow -- you certainly entertain me, sometimes -- but we can both see, I'm sure, that being a perfectly wonderful fellow can happen by nothing more than what you've identified yourself as the root of your chosen morality: "cultural conditioning." It can happen because of nothing more philosophical or profound than a memory that one's current society doesn't do such things, or that mama once told me not to steal, cheat or lie. In other words, it can happen to somebody who totally lacks any rational grounds for insisting that his moralizing should be informative to others, or that it should be capable of informing any democratic or common action at all.

But not everybody has the same mama, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know who I am, do you?

In some ways, no: of course not. All I've seen is your picture, which you posted, and I've had conversations with you for quite some time now.

All you see is a "godless heathen" or whatever.

Sorry, Gary...that's a rather naive and stereotypical assumption on your part, I have to say. If that were the case, why would I always be polite to you, or sympathize with your situation at all? And why would I bother to suggest any road of hope to somebody I was simply dismissing, if you were right?

May I suggest that you might want to get to know some real Christians? Whatever you think you know about them, it's pretty clearly wrong.

[Age]

AND WHERE WAS and IS 'your' IMAGINATION 'drawn upon FROM', EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

Where ever you are/is...which is everywhere and nowhere.

So, If 'it' is FROM the EXACT SAME 'place', then WHY are 'they' SO DIFFERENT?

Or, is 'it' ACTUALLY THE EXACT SAME, BUT 'we' could just be USING DIFFERENT WORDS, to EXPRESS and/or EXPLAIN 'that', which IS JUST, and the EXACT SAME?

Source is only known, it is not seen by the way.

BUT LOL 'I' have ALREADY SEEN, and thus ALREADY UNDERSTAND, 'THE SOURCE', EXACTLY, and FULLY.

Yes, source is known, and seeing is another form of knowing.

Seen implies an object seen.

ONLY IF, and WHEN, the word 'seen' is being EXPRESSED 'that way' or WITH 'that definition'.

But, the word 'seen' like MANY OTHER WORDS can have AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT meanings and definitions.

And, WHICH, EXACTLY, 'meaning' or 'definition' is being USED, on EACH and EVERY can ONLY BE FULLY ASCERTAINED and KNOWN through CLARIFYING QUESTIONING, and Truly OPEN and Honest ANSWERING/CLARIFYING.

Objects seen, cannot see,

Unless, of course, the 'object', seen, is an animal, or object, which has 'eyes' with the ability to 'see', or, is an object that has the ability to UNDERSTAND, which is another word for 'SEEING'.

See, human bodies WITHOUT working eyes STILL have the ability to UNDERSTAND, and/or SEE, 'things', from a certain or particular perspective. Do 'you' SEE, and UNDERSTAND, what 'I' am SAYING, and MEANING, here?

they are only being looked upon and known by seeing which is another word for knowing.

The only time I KNOW of when the 'seeing' word is another word for 'knowing' is when I say, for example, 'I know what you mean', which could also mean, 'I see what you mean'.

Do 'you' see, and know, what 'I' mean here?

[Harbal]

As A BELIEVER that God does NOT exist, then 'you' will OBVIOUSLY NOT RECOGNIZE if ANY ACTUAL communication between 'you' AND 'God' was taking place.

I don't have any beliefs about God's existence or none existence. If everyone here were to stop mentioning God, the thought of God would never enter my head.

[Age]

Fair enough for you, of course. But not useful to anybody else, apparently.

It seems obvious that a person's morality is mainly conditioned by the culture he is born and raised in, so others don't have to rely on me to give them their moral values, they acquire them from their cultural environment.

Here's the problem: the values of somebody "conditioned by" the culture of Somalia are not the values of somebody conditioned by being raised by Wall Street bankers. The values of somebody raised in Sweden are not those of somebody raised in the favelas of Brazil or the shantytowns of the Philippines. The values of an Englishman are not those of a Chinese dictator. Sure, they all have "values:" but how does your view give information a Russian or Cuban or can use to negotiate a common law, a common penal system, or any common institution at all with the Ghanaian and the Honduran, let alone how the Nihilist or Pragmatist can speak and act in common with the Humanist or the Muslim?

In fact, some theorists, like the Feminists and Developmentalists, have proposed that even women can have their own kinds of "morality," such as Ethics of Care, which are essentially different from male-generated views. So it looks like "cultural conditioning" isn't even going to get half the population to be informed of what "moral" means, or ground a single institution or common project anywhere.

OBVIOUSLY, 'those' conditioned through and by "christian societies" FAIL just as much as EVERY one ELSE.

And this is BECAUSE "christian teachings, societies, and cultures" are, OBVIOUSLY, NO 'better' than ANY other teachings, societies, NOR cultures. Although some OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise.

In Fact that some of the values that have been 'conditioned by' the "christian culture" are some of the WORST throughout human history, which PROVES that 'that culture' is one that one should NOT necessarily be FOLLOWED, NOR be LED BY.

Your approach doesn't offer any wisdom for deciding policy, or shaping a social ethos, or managing the laws of a nation, or structuring a penal code, or managing the ethics of a technology, or preserving rights, or any of the other essential social functions morality is supposed to serve.

I don't have an approach.

Fair enough. But that means that your way of deciding morals has no utility to anybody but you.

And 'your way of deciding morals' "immanuel can" has ALREADY PROVEN TO BE the ABSOLUTELY Wrong WAY to go, in Life.

'your' OWN ATTITUDE and self-IMPORTANCE SHOWN here PROVES 'this' to be True.

I assume, therefore, that you also can't recommend it to anyone. There is, apparently, no particular reason to do so. It doesn't offer anybody any moral guidance. It just says, "X is what Harbal uses to shape his conduct, but there's no special reason you should use X at all."

Okay, if you are going to assume that about me, I will also assume it about you.

Sorry -- I'm not trying to insult you, and I'm not just assuming it, Harbal...I'm just trying to deduce your view from the statements you are making about it.

If you are JUST trying to deduce 'things' and are NOT JUST assuming 'things', then WHY start 'your' sentence WITH: 'I assume, therefore, ...'?

No personal insult is intended.

Was ANY even ACTUALLY 'taken'?

I'm just trying to do some moral philosophy with your view. That's all. If I misspoke and implied an insult, I retract it.

THREE times you have brought up the 'insult' word here, WHY?

Now, let me fully admit that you may be a perfectly wonderful fellow -- you certainly entertain me, sometimes -- but we can both see, I'm sure, that being a perfectly wonderful fellow can happen by nothing more than what you've identified yourself as the root of your chosen morality: "cultural conditioning."

'Now' it is REALLY starting to sound like 'you' are 'trying to' infer that BECAUSE "harbal" is NOT one OF 'the group' that 'you' are IN "immanuel can", then "harbal" is, REALLY, NOT that much of a 'wonderful person', after all.

And, thus WHY the persistent USE of the 'insult' word above here.

It can happen because of nothing more philosophical or profound than a memory that one's current society doesn't do such things, or that mama once told me not to steal, cheat or lie. In other words, it can happen to somebody who totally lacks any rational grounds for insisting that his moralizing should be informative to others, or that it should be capable of informing any democratic or common action at all.

But not everybody has the same mama, of course.

LOL Coming from a RELIGION that has SO MANY DIFFERENT MISINTERPRETATIONS and MISCONCEPTIONS.

And, what makes this MORE HYPOCRITICAL is that what is written here comes from one who bases their WHOLE 'moral values' 'by the CONDITIONING' RECEIVED from just one 'religious teaching and culture', ONLY.