GENIUS FORUMS

"Motion granted due to irreconcilable differences."

Well Dan, much as it might surprise you, I'm not a complete moron, and I am open to arguments. If you have a point to make, then all that you have to do is make it. I accepted DaveH's point that Ryan was talking about attacking the contents of one's mind, rather than attacking the person him/herself...

Dan Rowden wrote:Fuckit - can someone else tell him why he's being stupid. I don't think he'll accept it from me.

What I think is that you're in a particularly belligerent mood, probably drunk, but feel free to enlighten me. You're not normally this harsh with me - drunkenness is my best guess.

OK, Dave, so Sher should have said that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack the contents of each other's minds" rather than that according to Ryan, the purpose of GF is to "attack people". If that's all that this disagreement is about, then fine: I have nothing mor...

Please list the word/terms we re define. Here are two that come to me off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are many more: 1. "cause": you define it as not only the traditional understanding of "that which precedes (in time) an effect" but also "that which is required...

Make your case if you have one to make. I really don't have a case to make, Dan. I was simply answering the question that you asked Sher, knowing that right now she's probably incapable of doing so given that she's most likely asleep: "Is that what Ryan said? Show me." As far as this thre...

Make your case if you have one to make. I really don't have a case to make, Dan. I was simply answering the question that you asked Sher, knowing that right now she's probaly incapable of doing so given that she's most likely asleep: "Is that what Ryan said? Show me." As far as this threa...

Dan: Desire must, of necessity , means absence. earnest: Have you never heard or read of someone whispering "I want you so badly [i.e. in a sexual sense]" whilst simultaneously "having" (i.e. in a sexual sense) that person? Dan: You think that remark is relevant? Yes, it proves ...

there are no rules as to when we should stop attacking someone’s ego. Dictionary.com defines the "ego" as "the “I” or self of any person". In that context, when Ryan talks about attacking people's "ego", he could just as well be talking about attacking the people thems...

Desire must, of necessity , means absence. Have you never heard or read of someone whispering "I want you so badly [i.e. in a sexual sense]" whilst simultaneously "having" (i.e. in a sexual sense) that person? Clearly desire need not mean absence. Desires can be fulfilled. The d...

Perhaps Sher will jump in and let us know whether she was thinking of the same excerpt. Perhaps she had something different in mind. I think that she's probably asleep right now though. We might have to wait.

And I can't help that it's obvious that you're oblivious.

I wonder how much more disparaging we could get of one another? We're having fun, right?

The GF ethos sucks us in once again...

You can't refute it, can you? She's loving her sex life. Not a trace of suffering (except for that of the paddling that hubby gives her when she's been a bad girl). So much for your argument that sex universally leads to suffering... Anyways, you provide me with a few trivially refutable trite sente...

Leyla's a wild one, but her heart is in the right place. Oh, I know, she's really very sweet, it's just hard to remember that when she's got you tied up over the bull-ant heap smothered in honey, swearing that she'll never release you until you disavow your belief in a deity. Empirical phenomena ar...

Brian and Dan, Do you reckon that Holly and her husband suffer much due to sex? It doesn't look like it to me. The description of her blog reads: I'm happily married and in a committed, monogamous relationship. Mind blowing, soul searing, I-can-feel-it-in-my-feet sex is one of my favorite activities...

Philo, a conversation similar to this has been had already, in a thread from late last year, started by Jason: Fundamental Assumptions.

I have had at least vaguely similar experiences. Nothing that I'm going to share publicly, but please know that you are not alone in experiencing extreme strangeness. You might like to contemplate this as a possibility: there are only three of us alive: you/me, her, and him. Please tell me how that ...

Hello David, I'm pleased to have your moderate input as opposed to Leyla's vitriol. I don't see how your conception of God has any relevance to the core spiritual task of opening one's mind to the nature of Reality. Indeed, the way you regard the whole matter as an empirical one only serves to trivi...

The flawed reasoning is deciding to change "god" to "being" to make yourself sound rational in hindsight. I don't even know what your point is. A being to me is a conscious entity. You are a being, animals are beings, angels and demons are beings, God and the Devil are beings. I...

Can't you see man you're anthropomorphising God. I've already explained the inherent bias in this argument. The implicit claim in it is that - because we learnt of ourselves first - it is impossible for another being with similar characteristics to exist: that that being must be a figment of our im...

I see no evidence, nor have you provided any (and I don't care!), for your anthropomorphised god. Apparently not. That doesn't mean that it can't exist. (Besides, you can't even be sure it wasn't satan playing tricks on you, now can you....). And you can't be sure that your mental processes aren't ...

I'm being real, but you don't have to believe me.

It might not have been light after all: it might have been a new form of radiation that affects the eyes in the same way, yet you still believe in it as light because that's the most rational explanation.

earnest: Let me explain the dishonesty in simple terms for you then, Leyla. You started off by claiming (and later failing to justify that claim, but that's another story) the impossibility of the God that I described. Clearly then, you found it well-defined enough to "know" that it was i...

earnest: That's quite dishonest. Leyla: It’s not dishonest at all. It’s perfectly true. Let me explain the dishonesty in simple terms for you then, Leyla. You started off by claiming (and later failing to justify that claim, but that's another story) the impossibility of the God that I described. C...