How to test a miracle.

[cleanhippie]

Debora Moscogiuri was a mystical seer living in Manduria (Taranto) in southern Italy. During ecstatic periods, she could supposedly see and receive messages from the Madonna, which she would then deliver to worshippers. Other phenomena were said to take place in and around the seer's home, including religious icons (pictures and statues) allegedly weeping blood. As is usually the case, none of these phenomena had been carefully investigated or documented, nor were DNA tests performed to ascertain the origin of the blood.

In 1995 one of Moscogiuri's statues of the Virgin Mary allegedly began to drip olive oil. Sealed containers, such as small bottles or jars, left in the proximity of the statue were later found to be partially filled with oil. These had been tied with ribbons, taped, sealed with wax, and placed inside plastic bags. At Moscogiuri's request, some olive leaves were placed inside the bottles before they were sealed.
--snip---

A comparison with the photographs of the originals showed that the tips had been melted and resealed. The shapes of the tips were clearly different. One of the tubes had been tampered with on the side, and the glass was deformed, leaving a large bubble. One tip was also slightly cracked. All three of these phials contained traces of a black substance, and the leaf was partially or completely carbonized.

It was quite apparent that some crude tampering had occurred, which was indicative not of a miracle but, on the contrary, of some sort of fraud carried out by somebody in Moscogiuri's group. However, Civerra did not accept our suggestion of fraud, claiming that he placed more trust in his own external wax seals and that any deformity in the tubes was due to the "Holy Ghost's flame" in Moscogiuri's vision.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/how_to_test_a_miracle/




Funny how oil is no longer to be found as part of the "miracle" that happens there. What fraudsters. I'm sure their god is proud.

[RandomThoughts]

1. LOL, So are you claiming to be speaking for God then with your last statement?

I personally don't claim to do that. I think every person should decide that. Since it would require total knowledge to know that.

And Are you being fraudulent or real?

Or are you defining who their God is? How do you know that?

[Goblinmonger]

3. No, not at all. Nice strawman.

The post said that the OP was sure their god was proud. His own opinion.

And I get the pomo attitude you put forth as a general "wouldn't it be cool" philosophy, but how do you possibly go around day-to-day never making a judgement? What if someone feels they need to rape a young child as part of what their god tells them to do? Far be it from you to tell them they are wrong.

[RandomThoughts]

5. He said he was sure.

And I already went through the same conversation on the topic you mentioned.

If you read the post on three tiered defense, you would know how people don't fall into the trap of thinking something is good just because it is said by something spiritual. The people that fall into that trap, a few cults, and some people in mainstream, think that the first defense is all there is, then get deceived, and do not also have the second defense to avoid terrible things, nor do they have the third defense.

I already explained that exact question.


You can tell someone there actions are wrong from your view of first defense, and your reason and feeling from second defense, and the thoughts of many people in society from third defense.

I only say don't judge them as worse and treat them with kindness as you stop them from doing those things. Because hating them does not help a person. So knowing it is because they are screwed up is better then hating them. It does not mean that society should ignore those actions, that is what an anarchist thinks. Don't let someones bad actions control your feelings to drive you to hate them, that may be part of the intent.

The second defense in most people shows things like that is wrong, and the third defense in many societies shows that is wrong, and for me it is wrong according to the first defense also, but some do get deceived on that issue.

[trotsky]

16. It's a freaking expression.

Koresh, you po-mo'ers can be more literal than the biggest ultra-fundies sometimes.

[cleanhippie]

7. Did I claim that? Nope.

But from my understanding of the christian faith, perpetrating fraud, especially in the name of god, is a no no. If that god is real, I'm sure that god is not impressed.

[GliderGuider]

2. Yay! We win!!!

[cleanhippie]

8. We do? What did we win?

[GliderGuider]

28. Victory is its own reward... /nt

[cleanhippie]

37. What victory are you talking about?

I didn't even know it was a contest. What are you talking about?

[GliderGuider]

39. That's kind of my point.

I get the feeling that there are people who see the unmasking of fraud in a religious context as an "us vs them" contest, as though the financial fraud is directly comparable (or even identical to) what is seen as spiritual fraud.

I don't see it that way, so although I'm very glad to see deliberate fraud unmasked, I don't take quite the degree of messianic glee in it that others do (yes James Randi, I'm talking about you).

[cleanhippie]

42. I see spiritual fraud as more felonious than financial fraud.

So that would be a valid comparison.

[GliderGuider]

45. And I don't.

So we have a difference of opinion. No big deal.

[trotsky]

17. Do you think it's OK to deceive people and take their money?

I'd say that a win for honesty and backing up one's claims is a good thing. YMMV.

[GliderGuider]

27. No, that's why I think it's a win. Did you think I meant something else? nt

[cleanhippie]

38. No, thats not begging the question at all.......

[GliderGuider]

41. My reply above is a little less obtuse. nt

[trotsky]

62. Yeah because clearly you did, as evidenced by your post #39.

I feel happy when a swindler and crook is nabbed no matter what vehicle they're using to take people's money. But when that fraud is also preying upon people's emotions and beliefs, all the better.

I'm so sorry this upsets you. Perhaps we should leave these criminals be.

[GliderGuider]

72. What part of "I'm very glad to see deliberate fraud unmasked" didn't you read?

This is clearly a win for the Forces Of Justice. I'm fully in favour of Justice. Yay for Justice.

OK now?

[trotsky]

82. So we should still try to find these people...

but then just tell them in private not to do it, rather than publicizing the fact they were busted so that others can be warned.

I'm sure the thieves will comply and quit stealing money from people if we ask really nicely and then be quiet about it and never tell anyone.

[GliderGuider]

85. No. If someone is committing financial fraud they should be arrested and charged.

What's with putting all those words in my mouth?

Unless those are actually your opinions, but somehow I don't think they are.

[trotsky]

87. You are guilty of dualism.

You non-dualist wannabe. Why are you making an arbitrary distinction?

[GliderGuider]

88. Hey, I'm human.

O8)

[RandomThoughts]

4. And here is a funny thing you may not have thought of.

There are people that alter things to try to make some proof. So they can say something was altered to say something is not real. In reverse parlance, that was the idea of sand covering oil on the beach. Although that spin is backwards.

What if an altered thing was needed to be part of a story, different then the person altering thought.


For instance, the Dire Straits songs were altered, but then they were predicted to be altered by another one of their songs.

Brothers in arms, Money for nothing, Both were altered.

And then 'The Man's to strong', explains and predicts that.

So if that altering was a test, did it show using an altered thing, or did it show that the person altering it was the one being altered to prove that they are part of the same point, or not above that point being made.



Another funny thing, if the song Holding Out For A Hero was not altered, I probably would not listen to it or post it, so does the altering it prove something or facilitate something?

Holding Out For A Hero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f_HsjpSVaI

[rrneck]

6. It's called lying.

That's it. They lied and got busted.

The remark about what their god may think about their actions was snark, but snark using one of the most basic components of the human psyche - a theory of mind. The OP was using the idea of god the way the idea of god was originally intended. S/he was wondering what their god would think of their hypocrisy.

There are a lot of things in the world that are real and have to correspond to what actually happens around us as well as what happens in our heads. Language is one of them. The fact that language can be used to describe what can only be experienced by the person using it is not license to turn everything around us into some subjective utopia of rationalization.

Debora Moscogiuri is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat making money off the faith of the credulous. I see no reason to make excuses for her.

[RandomThoughts]

10. Well in the Bonnie Tyler song.

She says, 'he has to be sure' :shrug: And I posted that before the OP post. But anyways, claiming being sure is wanting other people to think as you do, knowing you are sure is a personal thing anyways.

So just thought it was a bit ironic.


I am not making excuses for anyone, not even sure who the OP is talking about.


Also talks about the Sweep, and the heat rising, and a few other things. So there is always that.


dew dew dew, dew dew dew.
due due due, due due due.
do do do, do do do.

Ahhhhh Ahhhh!

Racing on the thunder

dew dew dew, dew dew dew.
due due due, due due due.
do do do, do do do.

[RandomThoughts]

11. I also think people should not lie.

And try to mention it when I see changed video clips.

[trotsky]

14. But how can you be sure if they're lying?

Maybe they just have a different view of reality. How dare you insist you know better than them. There sure were WMDs in Iraq, because Bush and Cheney said so, and you can't call them liars.

[RandomThoughts]

29. My point is that if I saw a changed video, and did not mentiion it

That would be me lying. I was not calling people liars, I was trying to give an example of something around the topic of dishonesty and how I try to handle that situation.

For instance, if I made some assertion that something was not changed when I believed it was, I think that could be wrong. So mentioning that I noticed changes in videos starting a few months ago, is trying to be honest.

Although I am not perfect, and can miss some of that stuff.


I was not saying anyone was lying, but many times people do lie.

[trotsky]

30. Maybe it was just in your reality that the video changed.

You can't be sure, you know.

You have no grounds to call anyone a liar.

[RandomThoughts]

33. Did you even read what I posted?

And there are sometimes where you can call something a liar, when they lie. Although sometimes it is not with intent.

I was not calling people a liar in that post. Or are you referencing some other statement, and if so which one?

[trotsky]

(double post)

(delete)

[trotsky]

47. You, personally, are not allowed to accuse anyone of lying.

You don't know - perhaps their reality is the true one, and you are mistaken. You can never, EVER be sure.

[RandomThoughts]

52. I could accuse anyone I wanted, as could you. I chose not to when I do not.

However the point is, why do you make that post?

What is the reason you think I have accused someone of lying.


Clarify your statement.

Who do you speak for, who do you serve.

[trotsky]

54. No you can't.

You don't have some kind of monopoly on reality.

I have already clarified my statement, and only when you join me on this enlightened plane of existence will you understand.

[RandomThoughts]

56. Shrug And maybe I do have that monopoly on reality,

It would take a monopoly by you to make a statement that I don't. Basically I am guessing you are discussing mutable reality.

I don't consider your position to be more enlightened, nor do I claim to always be correct, nor do I believe that people can not make best guesses.

If your plane was more enlightened, you would not have to say it, it would be shown by your comment. However I would guess you are in anarchy mode, lots of them around lately. No need to move to some 'other plane' considering even by your argument it may not even exist. You may even have a touch of secret doctrine, but that is just a guess.

I think people should be nice, but I don't need a monopoly to believe something, nor to have an opinion on something.

I also think Karl Rove lies, that does not mean he does, nor does it mean everyone thinks he does. It means I think he does, and I can think that based on my best guess of reality. And I can call him a liar, although knowing I am not perfect that does not make him a liar, it only shows that I think he is.

I actually do understand your argument I just don't agree with it, most likely you are making the doctrine of multiple realities based on an individual, therefore nothing can be known for sure, and to say someone lies is making an evaluation of what is truth to them, since lying requires intent. Or you could even go as far as to say two people could be in different realities where he could tell the truth while lying in a separate persons reality. Sort of information dilation effect, where the perception and thoughts define a reality literally so he would then be able to say the truth that is also a lie after crossing a boundary between someone in a different reality. Those realities can be thought different by something simple like perception, or complex by actual modification of space time between communicating individuals. I know all those doctrines and found flaws in them long ago. If you were to assume everyone creates there own reality, then Rove could tell the truth by his creation of his reality, while I see him lie by my creation of reality, and any interaction is changed during process of observation. Many variations on those thoughts.

I am well aware of multiple reality concepts, perceptions, and even modifications that can create different views of existence. However the Karl Rove that lies is the one based on the reality from my information set. As is any statement made by anyone, or any other thought is based on the reality of their experiences.

My point is I choose to see reality based on the one I experience, since that is the one that is real for me, if there is a different reality that changes his lie to truth, he has to be able to explain that, until then he lies. And that is his choice and I don't hate him for it, I just think he has a different set of values on many issues. And if he can not form a way to explain that, either you have to say I completely claim control over my reality, and do not allow him to explain that, or he would not want to. Been through most of those variations.

You could be making the basic statement nobody knows anything for sure, and then making the leap to not being able to think anything about anyone from that. However that ignores best guess, which is what everything is, and in the argument of nobody knows anything, you don't know if when I read the word lie I don't see wuffy duffy waffle cone. and I may be saying he is a wuffy duffy waffle cone, and you see that as me saying he lies. At some point there has to be some standards of reality that can be discussed, or there is no communication, and it seems your argument is that there can not be any transfer of thought since people would have to agree on something for someone to say it.

[trotsky]

60. No, you would be claiming the monopoly by claiming that I have a monopoly...

by telling you that you think you have a monopoly. You are totally without any ground to stand on when you try to challenge anyone else's reality, and again it is a riot to see you squirm when your philosophy locks you in a box.

You can never tell someone they are lying. Period.

[RandomThoughts]

63. Why would you think I am squirming.

If people live in different realities that's fine, I have said many times people live in different worlds. People live in different realities, many times based on perception, sometimes delusion, sometimes thoughts of what should be.

And I know why you say squirm, it contains symbolism in it. I do not squirm, nor let you create that situation. I enjoy these conversations, even thought they do not have any reward except fun for me.

And note, your use of that statement, your use of a claim of some enlightenment, is you trying to define my reality based on your claim of what reality is. As is your claim of what I can say or not say.


Think about it, as you try to say I can not define someones reality you try to define my reality.

I do not say what Karl Roves reality is, I say what it is based on my views, although I agree people can think what they want, part of my reality is thinking about other peoples thoughts and expressing my views on them, without hating the person.

And for society to exist in any form, there has to be interconnectivity between people and part of that is assumed rules of behavior in society, making reality the same between people

You are in the anarchist trap.

By your definitions, your comments are not possible. You say I can not call someone a liar, but your definition of why, makes that statement about me not possible for you. You can not say I can not comment on someone elses reality without you commenting on my reality.

You can't make a rule for me about what I can do, while saying your rule is that I can not make a rule based on what someone else does.

The anarchist trap is really easy to show as flawed, your only position is to say nothing or be a hypocrite.

Do you see why it is really hypocrisy.

[trotsky]

65. Oh you absolutely are.

Word salad, going on and on and on. You can't escape. Your reality is not reality. You can never say someone is lying.

Do you see why it is really hypocrisy.

The problem here is that YOU don't.

[RandomThoughts]

68. Make an argument for that.

Where is there squirming, or what does that mean to you?

Why do you think that is what I do? and what gives you a right to try and define that as something I do?

Every comment you make is to try to define some situation I am in. Why would you do that?

Why not worry about your own reality if you think that people can not define other peoples realities.


I have said someone is lying, what you are saying is you personally do not believe it when I say it. That does not mean I can't say it.


It seems your only intent is to try and define rules for me, while saying I can't do the same thing. What is your argument for that?

Are you in superiority complex also? That is a common trap also.

[trotsky]

69. I don't need to.

When you are enlightened enough, you will understand. You are not yet there.

[RandomThoughts]

73. If you want to convince me you need to

I understand you believe as you do. If we discuss why, we could better reach understanding on what is best and who may have something to learn or teach the other.

If you can not explain your position, is that a choice, or a limitation?

If you do not want to convince me, why would you make a type of superiority claim in so many of your posts.


It seems like you are hanging onto 'enlightened' label as your argument, what is in that label for you, what does it mean to you that allows you to believe what you believe.

[trotsky]

74. I don't "need" to do anything.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

76. Yes, so show me your pieces, as I have shown many I have found.

Or make the arugement I make, where people can think differently, yet people can still think on other peoples actions.

[trotsky]

80. I already have. But you choose not to see them.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

53. The real problem with your statement is I rarely call people liars.

So to prove your point wrong, I would have to call someone a liar, and you would be influencing my action by getting me to call someone a liar.

Doing the opposite or what someone says is still giving them some influence, you have none.


However, I think Karl Rove is a liar, that one is easy, and I have no problem with saying that. And have said it before.

[trotsky]

55. Rarely is not the same as never.

And you are NEVER allowed to do it. Your reality does not apply to anyone else. You have absolutely no grounds by which to judge whether anyone else is a liar.

Someday when you are enlightened like me you will understand.

[RandomThoughts]

57. I am allowed to do what I want to, however I try to choose to do what I think is better.

And you are a liar if you say I am never allowed to say someone lies :)

You are transferring what I say, to having to be correct, and I never made that claim, I make mistakes, so I am not bound by having to be correct all the time. So even if it was wrong I could still do it. Although I also don't give you the ability to tell me what is right or wrong.

Or if you read my previous post, I was already at that level and made it through those delusions.


Everyone has the right to judge if someone is lying, however saying they are a liar is a comment on action not on the person. The term liar is not about the person but what they do. You can comment on what someone does, and if you think it is best or not, without judging the person as bad or good.

In other words you can love a person even if you know they are flawed, knowing yourself flawed, but that does not mean you let something you think is wrong be ignored. If within a framework of accepted rules of what makes up society it is wrong, then it should be handled within that context.


The no rules anarchist rarely exist, the only real ones say nothing to anyone, since once they say anything, they usually make a rule by any assertion, the truth about a anarchist is they really just want rules for other people and not them, and usually don't admit it or know it. So the anarchist fits into hypocrite most of the time, and just use anarchy as an excuse to claim to be above the law.

With your few sentences you may not be a 'no rules' type, but it is an interesting topic, and there are some no rules types around.

[trotsky]

61. Oh you can write those words, or say them IRL, but the point is..

that you have absolutely no grounds to base them on. Your reality is only your own, and you cannot make any comments/judgments/rulings on ANYONE ELSE'S REALITY. Period.

[RandomThoughts]

64. Because I believe in rules also.

I can set rules for those with none, because saying I can not would be a rule, so you can not say I can't do that.

And I can even play music, because I know worlds are connected, in part by things like rules, but also by many other great things.

So listen to some music, I do.

Dragging the Line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=784m9_bcVBE

law law law law... law law law law...

[trotsky]

66. Your rules do not apply.

Your reality is not reality. Your music is not music. When you are enlightened enough, you will understand.

[RandomThoughts]

67. Saying that is making a rule.

So you are really saying that you can make rules for me, while saying someone can not for you.

However you make that argument by saying no rules exist, I make that argument by saying rules exist.

So while you are hypocritical, I set rules for you. Saying I don't make rules for you, would be against your rules, as you say people can not make rules.

So you have just joined me in making rules, so why not admit that people do make rules all the time, and stop being hypocritical.

Then once you admit that realities are connected, and people do make rules for other people, then we can discuss if my rules for you, or your rules for me make more sense.

Until you accept that there are rules and interconnectivity between peoples realities, what you say, by your definition, means nothing.

For instance, if you believed what you say you do, you would not post to me, since as you say I can't say someone is a liar, you want me to think, or even agree you are enlightened. So why would you care about telling me you are enlightened if I can not define what you are?


And claiming you are enlightened seems a bit of a desperate argument, since you wanting me to think that is why you say it, which would be denying that peoples realities are there own. Why would you want me to believe you are enlightened if nobody can define another reality.

As you say that, you hope for me to define you as enlightened in my thoughts. Why would it matter if I could not define what you are? Why tell me what you think you are if not to try and get me to think that, while you say I can not think that.

See how messed up your doctrine versus actions are.

[trotsky]

70. No it's not.

Prove me wrong. When you are enlightened enough, you will understand.

[trotsky]

71. Oh, can't let this little gem go uncovered:

And claiming you are enlightened seems a bit of a desperate argument, since you wanting me to think that is why you say it, which would be denying that peoples realities are there own.

See if you can find the person on the thread who said this:

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[RandomThoughts]

75. I also said that was not enlightened by some superiority claim

Saying it does not mean better or worse, so without superiority claims.

And I also posted the pieces I have seen :)

your use of enlightened has a superiority claim in it.




You also started by saying what I could and could not do, Offensive. I state what I can do, defensive.

[trotsky]

81. You do not see all the pieces. I can't blame you; you clearly aren't ready.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

83. I agree I do not see all the pieces, since I have said that would

require complete knowledge.

I agree you can not blame me. As I also try not to blame people. I am happy we agree on that.

I do not agree that you can decide if I am ready, or what I should be ready for.

[trotsky]

86. So therefore you can never tell someone they are a liar.

Since you don't see all the pieces, as you have now admitted.

Thank you. I am happy we agree too.

[RandomThoughts]

89. Sure I can, I can call someone a liar.

I just can't claim that it is guaranteed accurate. It is a statement from best guess based on best information from my experiences.

And yes, I don't see all the pieces, and I have said that many times, I don't need to see all the pieces, as I said when someone else asked for proof.

Hence why it is about faith :hug:

[trotsky]

90. When the person you are accusing of being a liar asks for proof,

you have nothing.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

91. I have at least as much as they have when saying they are being truthful

Then from that people can discuss and find out from best thoughts from many people what is correct and wrong.

I have nothing you can take from me, and much that you owe me :)

You can't say the same :) Or maybe you can, but then we would have to discuss what is correct and wrong.

[trotsky]

94. You claimed they were a liar. You have to back up your claim.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

95. I actually said Karl Rove is a liar.

However you used the term them, so probably more of them.

But I do not have to prove it, because my statement is in rebuttal to their actions.

By saying they are lying, means they have to prove they are telling the truth.

If they had said nothing like a real anarchist should, then I would not have called them a liar would I?


The proof is on them, since my action is defensive against their actions of lying.


But honestly I understand your argument, you are saying nothing can be proven, in many contexts that is the argument that no spiritual idea can be better then any other, because nobody can know for sure. From that someone can choose to believe some or any spiritual with no different judgments.


That is people without the second or third defense. Since there is the argument that spiritual requires faith, you also have to know what is correct and wrong in your heart and mind. And need to find the best evaluations of many in society to find what is best also through learning and listening.


You are making the defense that is used in many cases, but to make it you have to include the heart and mind of the person choosing to do those things.

I don't have to be correct to make a best guess at things, although it does not mean I am wrong either. However I do not only make decisions based on spiritual, but also based on heart and mind as I have them, and also best learning from many people.



Basically you are using the argument nothing can be known so nothing matters, it is part of anarchy also, or maybe more chaos, but they converge anyways.

[trotsky]

97. You are asking someone to prove their innocence.

You are the one that should prove their guilt.

I am sorry you are not ready to understand this convergence. Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

98. It is not a comment about their guilt

It is a comment about there actions, and asking them to prove those actions correct.

As I said before it is the actions that I comment on without judging the person.


So I am not saying they are guilty, everyone is guilty of something, I am saying what they are doing is wrong and asking them to substantiate it.


You said I was wrong to say he was lying, but what I was doing was saying he was lying. So you are going after my statement without connectivity to his statements.

If you have an issue with my statement you have to address his statements since that is what they are rebutting.

Karl says something, I say he lies. what I say is pointing you where to look, unless you defend his statement you can not comment on mine, since mine is just pointing out the error in his statement.

In other words, my statement can not be examined without the context of his statements also, so my statement can not be commented on by you without first proving his statements.

[trotsky]

99. I am sorry you are not ready to see all the pieces.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

100. So you conceed the points.

Thanks, see you do have things to lose.

:)

[trotsky]

102. I "conceed" (sic) nothing.

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

[RandomThoughts]

103. LOL, read your title.

[trotsky]

104. Keep growing, grasshopper.

One day you may see all the pieces.

[cleanhippie]

9. You make no sense and only strawman arguments.

[RandomThoughts]

12. What does not make sense?

Honestly if you saw all the pieces you would understand.

It does not have to make sense to everyone I would guess.


Although the straw man fits the Oz narrative well.

[cleanhippie]

13. What pieces am I not seeing?

[trotsky]

15. Psst... don't bother.

Not worth the effort.

[cleanhippie]

18. I don't expect an answer.

Its been my experience that when I get told that "I am not seeing it correctly" or that "I am ignoring what is right there in front of me", I have gotten to the part of the believers beliefs that they themselves cannot justify. It would be interesting to see what this person has to say, but I don;t expect it to happen, as that would require proof, and they are in very short supply of that.

[RandomThoughts]

20. You have the right to think as you choose.

LOL, it is not that proof is not there, it is that you have not seen it.

Although that does not make you worse in any way, and could even make you better by some thoughts.

Basically it is multiple items across many places telling the same story, beyond coincidence or human construction.



Or for a yoda paraphrase, if you do not expect it, maybe that is why you don't see it. Faith first. :shrug: Although for you that would probably sound like circular logic.

[cleanhippie]

22. Then show it to me.

If the proof is there but I have not seen it, show it to me.

[RandomThoughts]

23. Why would you need to know? Why would anyone?

And I am not sure if it would be up to me to show you anyways.

[cleanhippie]

25. Just as I thought, when its time to put up the proof, you have nothing.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

[RandomThoughts]

32. You also assume that I want to show you.

Or that I could if I wanted to.

And if I showed you, and you saw with proof that what I was saying was correct, then how could you ever have the choice to decide to believe? So then you would believe because you had to, not because you choose to, and would that mean anything?

[cleanhippie]

34. You do but you cant.

You cant even show it to yourself. You cant even be honest with yourself.

I'm done with you, have a nice day.

[RandomThoughts]

35. Have a nice day yourself :)

Thanks for the conversation.

[cleanhippie]

44. When you have that proof ready to go, I will be here.

[RandomThoughts]

58. When you have beer money I will be here.

That is actually pretty deep.


although not as an exchange, just as an example of different thoughts.

[cleanhippie]

78. This is bizarre

Your responses are indicative of delusional thinking.

[RandomThoughts]

84. Explain what you think the delusion is?

I can explain my thinking if you can define what you do not understand.

[cleanhippie]

92. It is self-evident

And your circular reasoning and questioning has become boring.

[RandomThoughts]

96. I have enjoyed the conversation also.

It is only circular dependent on what you are trying to achieve.

:hug:

[cleanhippie]

101. No, its just plain circular.

But hey, we ended without beating each other up.

[RandomThoughts]

19. Depends on what you don't understand.

[cleanhippie]

21. You are the one that stated that, so please, enlighten me.

[RandomThoughts]

24. Tough question.

basically, once you start to believe, you start to see things. So you have to do it. I can't show you what you do not believe since belief is a choice. Although if you want to, a way will happen for you. Or that is how I think of it.

[cleanhippie]

26. What reason would I have to beleieve in the first place?

I need a good reason to suspend reality and believe that which cannot be proven. Why should I do that?

[RandomThoughts]

31. You should if you want to.

It is a choice, in my belief it helps me think on many topics, and sometimes do a bit better, based on my views, but that is for me. It could also be seen as making things more difficult. So if you are asking for a risk reward analysis, that would depend on what you think is more important. There are many reasons for people to believe, but they are based on belief.


Why are you asking about it if you feel there is no reason to think that way. You asked for some proof, which says that there is a reason for you to believe.

although your reason to believe might be to prove you do not have to believe, or to try to believe I believe wrong. So actually it may be you are trying to get me to believe what you believe.

Why are you proselytizing?

[cleanhippie]

36. You imply things that are not true and engage in logical fallacy.

You are also projecting your insecurities.

Its been fun, but I am done with you, have a nice day.

[RandomThoughts]

40. Have a nice day. :)

[cleanhippie]

43. When you have that proof ready to go, I will be here.

[RandomThoughts]

46. If you had been here you would have seen it already.

Meanwhile I will be here when you have beer money ready :)


There is much humor and depth in that :rofl:


Have a great day :) Enjoyed the conversation.

[cleanhippie]

48. Been where for what?

you keep saying things like that but offer nothing of substance and a demonstration that you know how to use smileys.

Proof, where is it?

[RandomThoughts]

49. Are you asking me to offer something to you?

Why would I do that?

[cleanhippie]

50. AM I asking you to offer me something.

Why would I do that?

[RandomThoughts]

51. According to your last post.

You ask me to offer something to you. I was wondering your explanation for that.

[cleanhippie]

77. After your first post

I have been waiting for you to substantiate your claim.

[RandomThoughts]

79. What claim are you talking about?

Claim for beer financing? I think that is the only claim I have made. Well beer and travel financing actually.

And I should add, that claim is from a smear years ago, and not for anything I might have, or might not have done in the last few years.

[cleanhippie]

93. Your circular reasoning and questioning have become boring.

[dimbear]

59. Not too impressed by that miracle. There are some with more zing.

Wasn't it Mark Twain who pointed out that there are enough pieces of the True Cross that if they were assembled they would build a barn? Now that's a miracle. Another would be using a now 500 year old cloth to bury a man 2000 years ago. And isn't it true that a certain European church displays the skull of a certain saint as an adult and as a child? Not sure how real that is, but these are the sorts of miracles I like.

Unquestioned miracles.