And how, specifically, did “The Universal” answer?
(Jeez, it’s like pulling teeth to get any information at all about this evidence for higher intelligence that the deluded atheists are ignoring!)
I have to say, the more I learn about your spiritual beliefs, the more self-absorbed and incoherent they sound. The only consistent thread seems to be “The universe thinks I’m special!”
What’s wrong with believe you are special and unique? What terrifying truth are you attempting to avoid? I’m no Great American Hero (at least, not to some) but my final advice to you is this: Merely believing you have some purpose within the Universal Grand Design is the best non-medical ways to lower stress, keep active, and maintain your daily self-esteem, even in the darkest possible times of your life.
Think I’m done talking to you, Mr. King…may you someday seek the peace and serenity you desperately desire, instead of petulantly demanding that the rest of the world lead you by the hand, like a mother leading a toddler who can barely take two steps on their own. Seriously…peace be with you, fellow avatar.
[Ignore Mode ON]
By buying Dreamworks, apparently.
I’m perfectly at peace as I am, thank you. You keep trying to frame my questions as a quest for guidance. But I’m not interested in your guidance, since it’s clear from your posts that your “enlightenment” is shallow and empty.
No, all I’m trying to do is to get you to admit that your original description of atheists as “deluded” was baseless. It’s pretty obvious that it was just a bit of ill-thought-through snark that you were neither prepared nor able to defend. But, it’s also pretty obvious that you will never admit that.
It sounds like some of my questions have struck a nerve. It seems that you’re uncomfortable about having to defend the inconsistent mass of beliefs that you’ve taken on board. Allow me to point out that your refusal to engage directly contradicts your position that enlightenment comes from opening one’s mind. I submit to you that if you were really interested in *truth *and enlightenment you would *welcome *criticism of your beliefs. Understanding often emerges through dialectic. Any belief that you can’t defend (or aren’t willing to defend) should be viewed with suspicion. It’s so very easy to fall into comfortable self-delusion. We need the sharp criticism of those who disagree with us to keep us honest.
In any case, you may be ignoring me, but I won’t be ignoring you. I’ll keep poking holes in your arguments where I see them. Perhaps, say day, like Cyningblod, you’ll dedicate a thread to me … . 
Meant to say “Universal Mind” (as theorized by Carl Jung) but didn’t notice until it was T.L.T.E. – so fuckin’ sue me. :rolleyes:
I’d started to ask what T.L.T.E. meant but my “what’s the point?” override circuits kicked in.
Oh, Universal Mind, that certainly sounds less stupid.
You’re still not gonna retract the assertion, that atheists are ignoring evidence for God, even though you have time and again failed to even try to defend it?
Too late to edit 
Ah. There’s nothing like a made-up abbreviation to make communication more efficient.
ORLY?
I never made that assertion, so how can I retract it? Never did I mean to say that you are ignoring the evidence of God’s true, omnipresent nature – the evidence is ignoring YOU, because you’re not interested in knowing God. Ain’t nothing wrong with that, so there’s no need to attack the messenger…srsly.
Your tone here is unacceptably obnoxious, and this reference to your ignore list is against the rules. This is a formal warning: don’t do this again.
And now he’s gone…
I’m stealing this.
Hmm … I wonder if he ran afoul of the “don’t announce you’re ignoring someone” rule.
In any case, fuzzypickles, if my posts inadvertently led you into bannable behavior I apologize. I’m interested in more discussion of opposing viewpoints, not less.
No thread – I’m guessing he was a sock. (For the homeless guy?)
…but only in Soviet Russia.
Oh wow. Just…wow.
The bullshit piles up so fast with this guy that you need wings to stay above it.
(Ten points to whomever guesses the above movie reference. )
Apocalypse Now. What do my points get me, and does it matter that I just googled it?
Points either way. Googling is a skill, too. 
And your points get you love, respect, and enlightenment from fuzzypickles’ “Universal Mind” or whatever the fuck it was. :rolleyes:
No, no, no and just no. To exert a bit of hubris, I really do feel that I’m speaking well over your head here. To begin with, I have no idea what you mean by physical substrate. Taking that at face value (kind of), then we could take that physical substrate to be the universe in which we live. If, tomorrow, the universe came to an end then, yes, you’d be correct in asserting that thoughts and ideas would have no existence beyond that. However, that wasn’t the question posed to you. When I asked you whether or not thoughts and ideas existed, I meant do they exist even without people thinking and/or knowing about them. For example, even if no one knew what a car was yet there was a car in the middle of the Pacific, that car would still be considered to exist. But how does it work for an idea? Do they not exist until someone comes up with them, or are they just kind of free floating waiting for people to pick up on them (think inspiration)? And when I asked if they cease to exist if the world they stem from cease to exist, I meant that if, say, a boulder rolling down a hill was the inspiration, or within itself contained the idea, for the idea of the wheel, if the idea of the wheel would have ceased to exist had the boulder ceased to exist?
(Yeah, that’s probably clumsy, but I’m not so sure how else to ask it without being overly verbose.)
As it is, to say that thoughts and ideas, provided they exist, only exist within a physical substrate is a “Maybe. I don’t know”, on-the-fence kind of answer.
Number one, if thoughts, as you say, have a material form in that they are part of the brain, then every time one comes up with a new thought or idea, they would also generate new matter, something which we should be able to observe or, at the very least, measure. Number two, the paterns of vibrations in the air does not constitute thoughts or ideas having a material form; it constitutes giving that thought or idea a material form, though I’m not so sure talking would constitute giving them form as would writing them down or drawing a picture would. But before that you’d be hard pressed to argue they have a material form.
This is simply untrue. You are introduced to new ideas every day (well, maybe not every day as the older you get the more ideas you’ve heard, but you get the point) that you instantly forget about and never give a second thought to.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you trying to say but what?
I’ll bite. Show me a prediction made by Christianity that has been proven to be false. And, no, the rantings of some guy in the 19th century do not speak to Christianity as a whole. Preferably, I’d like you to point to some specific Christian text which says that X will happen at Y, where Y has passed and X not happened.