Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


View Poll Results: If you are a INTJ of a INTP what do you think about God's existence?
God is real... 2 33.33%
There is no God... 2 33.33%
Who Knows? Im still trying to understand the question! 0 0%
God is an abstract tought! There is no way to find the answer... 2 33.33%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 31/10/2008, 06:47 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Darkspirit, any chance you could post a picture of yourself?
It took some time but I did it...

What type do I look like?

The enneagram describes type 5 as observant, perceptive , intelectual and eclectic...

He selects from various styles, ideas and sources...

Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of ideas systems and places...

What do you think? Could the enneagram theory be easier to grasp and to understand than socionics and Myer Briggs and easier to apply to identify type prsonalities?
__________________
INTj or INTp (eneagram - type 5) :

Please, don't hit me...I'm not worthy...
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04/11/2008, 11:42 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Start with SG's Turbo Test: http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo.html

Don't let yourself be confused by the longer tests that are out there. Focus instead very closely and thoroughly on the four dichotomies. Try to understand them in depth, and then determine which behaviour and which attitudes are yours according to the four dichotomies. All good tests are ultimately based on those four dichotomies anyway, so there is no need to take a longer route than necessary to reach your result. Some tests are trying to determine your functions, but they are much less reliable and should not be trusted, since they are basically crap.
You are ENTp. A crystallized reptile Ayn Rand philosophical ENTp. Everything thought out no big news in your particular field of interest anymore. Only the spinal reptile TeNi working in you.

Final.

Ahh... it feels so absurd looking back at all our old fights in retrospect. It was one all the time wasn't it? One all the time. Just different information input and nothing else was different. I understood you too good all the time. That understanding never made sense according to the model.

Gotcha by the balls now.

This calls for a celebration!

Whooooo Hoooooooooo!

Last edited by Vibration; 04/11/2008 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05/11/2008, 12:02 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
You are ENTp.
Yes, you are an ENTp. We already know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
A crystallized reptile Ayn Rand philosophical ENTp.
Ayn Rand is not an ENTp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Ahh... it feels so absurd looking back at all our old fights in retrospect. It was one all the time wasn't it? One all the time. Just different information input and nothing else was different. I understood you too good all the time. That understanding never made sense according to the model.

Gotcha by the balls now.

This calls for a celebration!

Whooooo Hoooooooooo!
You have never really understood the differences between Alpha and Gamma. And you don't understand yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05/11/2008, 12:10 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Yes, you are an ENTp. We already know that.


Ayn Rand is not an ENTp.


You have never really understood the differences between Alpha and Gamma. And you don't understand yourself.
I think Ayn Rand was ENTp. Her concept fulfills the ENTp requirements. Her exercise and implementation of her concept fulfills the requirements.

When you think of something long enough it boils down to your essence and becomes reptile, spinal. She tought about her theory all her life and her answers to all other peoples questions became more and more automatic.

The crystall in the back of your head can only contain so much information and when it's full it's full.

Will Obama win? Ohh yes!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05/11/2008, 10:38 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
I think Ayn Rand was ENTp.
No, you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Her concept fulfills the ENTp requirements.
Definitely not. You don't know the nature of your own type -- the ENTp. Rand is not an ENTp. You just have to accept that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Her exercise and implementation of her concept fulfills the requirements.
No. She contradicts ENTp on almost everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
When you think of something long enough it boils down to your essence and becomes reptile, spinal. She tought about her theory all her life and her answers to all other peoples questions became more and more automatic.
Stop believing. Begin studying. Or accept that I am telling you the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05/11/2008, 08:13 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
No, you don't.


Definitely not. You don't know the nature of your own type -- the ENTp. Rand is not an ENTp. You just have to accept that.


No. She contradicts ENTp on almost everything.


Stop believing. Begin studying. Or accept that I am telling you the truth.

What type is she then?

Rand quote:
"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments. An artist recreates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man's nature."



High information density, Gulenko style maybe? Lots of Ti.

Sounds like me when I'm focused and want to boil down something, make it as short and information dense as possible without loosing precision.

How to distinguish creative Ti from leading? Rand's Ti looks creative I think she defines complex relations rather than defining each little detail in the complex relationship, like a laser would do.

Last edited by Vibration; 05/11/2008 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05/11/2008, 09:41 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
What type is she then?
We know for certain that she is a T type. It's impossible to doubt that if you are serious about the types. Her T is so extremely obvious that only the light in the minds of the most deluded can overshine it. We also know (with only slightly less certainty) that she is an N type. So she is one of the four NT types. And we know that she is not an ENTp, because nothing fits ENTp. She just can't be an ENTp. So she is most likely INTj, ENTj, or INTp.

Rand stands in opposition to Kant, and also in quadra values she is clearly anti-Alpha, so INTj is a highly problematic bet. That leaves us with one of the two Gamma NTs as the most likely type for Rand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Rand quote:
"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments. An artist recreates those aspects of reality which represent his fundamental view of man's nature."

High information density, Gulenko style maybe? Lots of Ti.
No. Not a high information density. Not much Ti. Where do you see the Ti?

In Gulenko's thinking style outline Rand's philosophy represents the algorithmic-dialectical style, which Gulenko associates with the types INTp, ESTj, ENFj, and ISFp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
Sounds like me when I'm focused and want to boil down something, make it as short and information dense as possible without loosing precision.
No, it doesn't. There is a rather clear difference between how you boil down the information and how Rand does it. It sounds more like me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration
How to distinguish creative Ti from leading? Rand's Ti looks creative I think she defines complex relations rather than defining each little detail in the complex relationship, like a laser would do.
I haven't seen any clear signs of leading Ti in Rand's writings.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05/11/2008, 09:52 PM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
This is taken from your profile. This strikes me as a very subjective goal to have in life, more likely to be had by an F type rather than a T type. I think in particular introverted F. A more objective T statement may be something like this....
Couldn't it just as easily be Ni?
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05/11/2008, 10:06 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
Couldn't it just as easily be Ni?
Yeah now that I know more about Ni. Just me showing my ignorance. Still ignorant, I doubt it will stop me putting in my thoroughly unwarranted opinions though.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07/11/2008, 09:25 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Talking counterargument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
But you don't know what you are talking about here. You haven't studied the evidence, and you haven't evaluated it correctly...

And you don't seem to understand that the concept of God is logically incoherent as it is most often used, and neithe do you seem to understand that all the arguments used by theists to "prove" that God probably exists in fact are proving the contrary. The Boeing 747 argument from Richard Dawkins's book is actually totally devastating for any theist arguing like you do about evolution. You have no choice but to admit defeat if you understand the argument. That means of course that you don't understand it yet.
It's an interesting argument...

still...I'm not convinced...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Nonsense. To insist on that has nothing to do with science, and here you reveal that you don't undestand the scientific method. Evolution is the only hypothesis we have that can explain what we can observe. Creation is an immensely inferior hypothesis that actually explains nothing, since it presupposes an extremely more complex and unlikely entity to have occurred than the evolution it was supposed to explain. You cannot explain something rather simple with something much more complex like you theists are always trying but always failing to do.
To explain something simple with something much more complex doesn't always contradict logic...

I tought about Dawkins argument...

(After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . .)"

I agree...it makes sense...

But we must ask: was God complex in the first place?

(He calls this "postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation.")

Hmmm...I think I have found one!

(In its preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence.)

I think the argument could be discussed...

Is God simple or complex?

Well...to design and create a clock it's necessary an inteligent designer, an intelect. But was this intelect always complex and capable of constructing a clock?

An evolution of the mind was necessary to arrive at the present state...the state of being able to construct a clock!

If God is the first living thing he would have to be simple respecting his structure, his form...

If He is made of energy then he was, he is and he always will be...

Probably He already was, in an unconscious state and gradualy became conscious o himself, conscious of his own existence.

To explain His complexity we would have to accept an evolution of his mind, an intellectual change.

A process of steps and evolution of his own understanding...an improvement and a change of his intellect...

We could compare it with constructing a clock! At first no one can do it, an unconscious mind can't do it, neither a simple one but time and experience can change it!

What was simple became complex...and now you have a watch to show to everybody! Isn't that great?

This is the possible explanation that I found and a possible counterargument to Dawkins...
__________________
INTj or INTp (eneagram - type 5) :

Please, don't hit me...I'm not worthy...
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07/11/2008, 11:33 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit1978 View Post
still...I'm not convinced...
That's irrelevant. I haven't made any effort to convince you. I have only told you the truth. Because I shouldn't have to convince you. You should be familiar with the classical arguments and why all the arguments for the existence of God are flawed from your own studies. It is not my job to teach people the basics. We have philosophy courses and lots, lots of books and articles for that. You should read them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
To explain something simple with something much more complex doesn't always contradict logic...
I haven't said that it contradicts logic. But it is a huge mistake because it is irrational and doesn't explain anything. It's totally useless and wrong. If you understand scientific thinking and rational thinking in general, you also understand what I am saying here and why I am right. If you don't agree with that, you should study more philosophy of science and science in general, because then you are just uneducated. You still have time to correct your faulty world view, but you will probably have to spend at least a couple of years in order to really realize why you are wrong now. You will need to unbrainwash yourself a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
I tought about Dawkins argument...

(After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . .)"

I agree...it makes sense...
Good. Maybe you can make it in less time if you really work hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
But we must ask: was God complex in the first place?
Yes, necessarily so -- if we are talking about the kind of god that you have in mind when you refer to it as an explanation of the kind of things you want to explain. If "God" wasn't complex he would be God but something totally unrelated to the Christian God. And in that case it is totally incorrect to call that thing "God". It would be unethical to mislead people by using language in that way, that is changing the meaning of a common word in order to persuade people to accept an argument for something totally different.

You are not a theist if you start to think like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
Is God simple or complex?
The Christian God (and that is what you mean by the word "God". If you don't, you don't believe in God.) is necessarily extremely complex, more complex than anything else in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
If God is the first living thing he would have to be simple respecting his structure, his form...
But then he would be God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
If He is made of energy then he was, he is and he always will be...
... made of matter. If God is made of energy, then he is just a part of time-space like the rest of us and everything else, exept abstract entities like sets, algoriths, concepts, numbers, etc. And if God is like that, then he is not a god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
Probably He already was, in an unconscious state and gradualy became conscious o himself, conscious of his own existence.
No. That is just mumbo jumbo nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
To explain His complexity we would have to accept an evolution of his mind, an intellectual change.

A process of steps and evolution of his own understanding...an improvement and a change of his intellect...
More Hegelian mumbo jumbo. You will never be a good philosopher if you let yourself be brainwashed by such incorrect thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkspirit
We could compare it with constructing a clock! At first no one can do it, an unconscious mind can't do it, neither a simple one but time and experience can change it!

What was simple became complex...and now you have a watch to show to everybody! Isn't that great?

This is the possible explanation that I found and a possible counterargument to Dawkins...
It is in no way a counterargument to Dawkins. You probably have to read and contemplate Dawkins's argument many times before you understand it correctly. You have to find a way to realize that you are brainwashed with mumbo jumbo religious bullshit. I can't help you to realize that you are thinking incorrectly. You have to start reading yourself. As I said, it may take a couple of years or so, but that is no objection to actually doing it. It usually takes some years for people to get over their religious prejudices. In your case it might be easier if you are telling the truth about not being a theist before. Why did you depart from the correct path? Big mistake ...
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06/12/2008, 01:53 AM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Talking counterargument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You should be familiar with the classical arguments and why all the arguments for the existence of God are flawed from your own studies.

I haven't said that it contradicts logic. But it is a huge mistake because it is irrational and doesn't explain anything. It's totally useless and wrong. If you understand scientific thinking and rational thinking in general, you also understand what I am saying here and why I am right.

Good. Maybe you can make it in less time if you really work hard.

Yes, necessarily so -- if we are talking about the kind of god that you have in mind when you refer to it as an explanation of the kind of things you want to explain. If "God" wasn't complex he would be God but something totally unrelated to the Christian God. And in that case it is totally incorrect to call that thing "God".

You are not a theist if you start to think like that.

The Christian God (and that is what you mean by the word "God". If you don't, you don't believe in God.) is necessarily extremely complex, more complex than anything else in the world.

... made of matter. If God is made of energy, then he is just a part of time-space like the rest of us and everything else, exept abstract entities like sets, algoriths, concepts, numbers, etc. And if God is like that, then he is not a god.

More Hegelian mumbo jumbo. You will never be a good philosopher if you let yourself be brainwashed by such incorrect thinking.

It is in no way a counterargument to Dawkins. You probably have to read and contemplate Dawkins's argument many times before you understand it correctly.
I think the apparent flaw in the arguments is a result of the way we interpret the arguments. And is the argument complete or incomplete? Are all the pieces in our hands? or is there something missing?

To explain something simple with something much more complex doesn't always contradict logic. You haven't said that it contradicts logic but that it is a huge mistake because it is irrational and doesn't explain anything and It's totally useless and wrong.

To expain the existence of a clock, using the existence of an inteligent designer or a complex intelect, is to explain something simple with something much more complex. It doesn't contradict logic. Why would it be "a huge mistake" and considered "irrational" and why it is that "doesn't explain anything"? In the way I see it, it explains the existence of the clock. To say it doesn't this is what would be a mistake and irrational. Why do you consider to explain something simple with something much more complex to be "useless and wrong"?

To explain the existence of the clock...something simple...we use the existence of something much more complex...an inteligent designer or an intelect. Naturally we will have to explain the existence of the constructor of the clock. How do we explain it? Can we explain something complex with something extremely more complex? Or can we use something simple? I think both options could be possible. But I could be wrong and only one of them apply. Why couldn't God be the explanation for the existence of the constructor of the clock? Why couldn't He be the complex or the simple thing that explains it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
To insist on that has nothing to do with science, and here you reveal that you don't undestand the scientific method
On the contrary, it has everything to do with science and the scientific method. It is a very valid hipothesis and if we consider it carefully with an open mind we will accept it as valid for it could explain our existence. There are flaws in evolution theory and things that are left unexplained and to consider it as a proved fact instead of an hypothesis is not scientifically correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Evolution is the only hypothesis we have that can explain what we can observe
I would say that the contrary is true. What we can observe is better explained by the existence of an inteligent cause. A great intelect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Creation is an immensely inferior hypothesis that actually explains nothing, since it presupposes an extremely more complex and unlikely entity to have occurred than the evolution it was supposed to explain.
Creation is not an inferior hypothesis and it could explain our existence. Can we explain something complex with something extremely more complex? Yes we can! The clock...something complex...and the existence of an intelligent intellect who constructed it...something extremely more complex, is an example and proves that we can do it. Is God an unlikely entity? Not at all. He is unlikely to exist as much as we are...still...we exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You cannot explain something rather simple with something much more complex like you theists are always trying but allways failing to do.
On the contrary, we can do it, it is proved, and we can explain it! And we are not failing...we are succeeding!

The question is not if God exists...the question is: how do we explain his existence?

Was He always complex? Or was He simple? Did He always exist? This are all questions we could naturally ask...

Well...to design and create a clock it's necessary an intelligent designer, an intellect. But was this intellect always complex and capable of constructing a clock?

An evolution of the mind was necessary to arrive at the present state...the state of being able to construct a clock!

I think that God's intellect wasn't always complex and that his intellect evolved. I think He experienced an intellectual evolution and an awakening. He is consciousness, thinking feeling and experiencing his own existence. Why couldn't evolution start with God? Intellectual evolution?

If He is made of energy then he was, he is and he always will be...

Probably He already was, in an unconscious state and gradualy became conscious o himself, conscious of his own existence.

To explain His complexity we would have to accept an evolution of his mind, an intellectual change.

A process of steps and evolution of his own understanding...an improvement and a change of his intellect...

We could compare it with constructing a clock! At first no one can do it, an unconscious mind can't do it, neither a simple one but time and experience can change it!

If God is the first living thing he would have to be simple at first respecting his intellect, gradually becoming complex and He probably would have to be simple respecting his nature, his structure, his form...

On other hand he could be simple at first but in a complex way...simple respecting his intellect and complex in the sense that he had in him all the necessary elements necessary to create other things. Water could be an example of this. It's simple in a complex way: it has in itsef the elements necessary to create Hydrogen and Oxygen.

The Holy scriptures say about Him:

"God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

"But to whom can you people liken me so that I should be made his equal?" says the Holy One. "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created this things? It is the One...Due to the dinamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:25, 26)

Here it tells us something about God's nature: He is spirit and He is full of dinamic energy. If God is the first living thing, his nature or his structure would have to be one highly energetic. Energy is the first and one of the essential elements present in all living things. Energy and matter are two different things. but they are related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
If God is made of energy, then he is just a part of time-space like the rest of us and everything else
It makes sense to me. If He acts in at a certain time He is part of time. He would have to be affected by time in the sense that He thinks, feels, acts and experiences certain things at certain times. Still He could be timeless in the sense that He is eternal. He was...He is...and He always will be. And respecting space He could be everywhere in the sense that his spirit is present everywhere...present in every living thing. The same way we are conscious of every living cell in our physical structure.

God is a supernatural being. Did He always exist? I don't know! Probably. I think He has.

The only thing we know about it, is wat the sriptures tells us:

"...understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed and after me there continued to be none." (Isaiah 43:10)

"Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth...the earth and the produtive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God." (Salms 90:2)

This time is unclear and uncertain, without exact limits...it can't be established and it is unknown...to us...and probably even to God.

Last edited by darkspirit1978; 06/12/2008 at 01:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06/12/2008, 01:55 AM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Talking counterargument...part 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
More Hegelian mumbo jumbo. You will never be a good philosopher if you let yourself be brainwashed by such incorrect thinking.
I never heard about hegel. Probably I should check it out to understand what you are talking about. I'm not brainwashed...I just interpret the arguments in a different way...if you think about it, you could be the one who was brainwashed.

I won't tell you that God exists, or for you to believe in His existence...but I will tell you that I believe in it! I didn't always believe in the existence of an inteligent creator...but after thinking seriously about things I arrived to the conclusion that the existence of an inteligent cause is real and necessary!

And according to the Holy scriptures God is greater than all the other living things, because He is the creator of them. And He is the most powerful living thing in the universe...

Because I believe it, I feel I should explain the reasons why I believe it and share the things I learnt here and there. At the moment I'm reading and studing the Holy scriptures...

If you would you like to know why, it's because there it says the following:

"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)

According to the scriptures He tells us what we should do, and that we should obey to his commandments.

He tells us what to do and to obey but ultimately it is our choice if we want to do it or not...

"And you people must take care to do just as Jehovah your God has commanded you. You must not turn to the right or to the left." (Deuteronomy 5:32)

The scriptures tells us since the beggining that the choice we make has consequences:

"I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and you must choose life in order that you may keep alive, you and your offspring..." (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
It is in no way a counterargument to Dawkins. You probably have to read and contemplate Dawkins's argument many times before you understand it correctly. "After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity, near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God."
Evolution can't be used to argue against the existence of God. It can't explain the complexity of living things. And this is scientifically proved. If Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God, then is argument is flawed and inadequate.

He uses evolution to argue against the existence of God. And I use it to argue in favor of God's existence. It is in every way a counterargument to Dawkins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You have to find a way to realize that you are brainwashed with mumbo jumbo religious ********. I can't help you to realize that you are thinking incorrectly.
IYou are wrong and you can't see it. I wish I could help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
You have to start reading yourself. As I said, it may take a couple of years or so, but that is no objection to actually doing it. It usually takes some years for people to get over their religious prejudices.
It's true...unfortunately evolution can be a prejudice as well.


Please...try to read it with an open mind...


May God spirit be with you...and bless you!




__________________
INTj or INTp (eneagram - type 5) :

Please, don't hit me...I'm not worthy...
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07/12/2008, 09:51 PM
darkspirit1978's Avatar
darkspirit1978 darkspirit1978 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Talking counterargument...ending.

You are wrong and you can't see it. I wish I could help you to understand why the existence of an intelligent cause is real and necessary and why it is a logical explanation to our existence and a highly valid possibility.


Please...try to read it with an open mind...


May God spirit be with you...and bless you!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM