A question to an honest (= Materialist) Atheist

Chamber of Debate Challenges
501

You assumed my saying ‘they never are’ had to do with my expectation that you would present your irrefutable facts and proofs here. But that phrase had to do with your double standard.

Yeah, again, nearly incoherent.

Again, one statement is about ‘what you are here to do’ and the other is focused on the double standard.

They are two different things: your intent around your participation here, what it is for AND what you do here. As far as I know, yes, they align. You do realize that people don’t always do what they say. But further they are part of two issues, that however much related are different. The double standard (what you think others should do and what you do) and then your motive for being here, which is really rather toxic.

Not necessarily??? You stated it outright.

Once more, I am not here in philosophy forums to justify my claims and assertions.

Why do you add ‘not necessarily’? it just comes off as yet another attempt to obfuscate.

502

I’m aware that people can see things here. Did you think I thought this thread was hidden from people? Did you really consider it possible I didn’t know other people can see what we write here?

As for the rest: Use the feedback about your communication or don’t use. Rephrase it or don’t rephrase it. Up to you, or course. If you think that was a coherent sentence, then perhaps you won’t do anything about it.

503

This really sums up so much of the dynamics:

anew1: Once more, I am not here in philosophy forums to justify my claims and assertions.

age: Have you SERIOUSLY FORGOTTEN ALREADY that I USE ‘you’, peoples, in the days of when this is being written, to PROVE my CLAIMS are True to ‘future generations’?

We have someone who uses people to prove his claims. He not here to justify his claims and assertions. He’s not here to do that in a philosophy forum. Jeez, he seems incredulous that I would use metaphorical language - even though he does - in a philosophy forum. But he’s not here to justify his claims…in a philosophy forum.

So, a user of people with one heck of a double standard.

It really might have saved time if he’d made it clear he wasn’t here to do this. Then when we pointed out he wasn’t doing these things, we’d all know why. Gosh, it seemed like he disagreed.

504

I know very well that Age isn’t here to justify her claims and assertions. She isn’t here to convince us, she’s here to demonstrate our inferiority to the other voices in her solipsistic-schizophrenic-autistic-conscienceless head, voices of beings whom she believes are also from the future. From the outside, Age is a human who is almost always talking to herself essentially.

505

I noticed here he had trouble seeing things from another’s perspective.

meaning: they never are substantiated.

He can’t seem to see that these can be part of two different, if related, discussions. The ridiculousness of coming to a philosophy forum with no intentions of justifying things is one, and the double standard he has is the other. Add in the ridiculousness of being shocked when other people don’t do things ‘in a philosophy forum of all places’ he thinks they should do, when he isn’t here to justify claims.

But on the perspective issue. He’s saying he didn’t come here to do that, so it’s redundant to mention that he never does. Like we should assume he does what he says. He couldn’t quite get another person’s perspective there. He said it and he knows that what he says about himself is True and Real. So, we should know that also.

Rationalization
Rationalization
506

Yeah, being incapable of self-reflection probably comes with the schizophrenia, as does hearing voices/experiencing other beings who aren’t actually there.

The solipsism and lack of conscience (lack of humanity) probably comes from the lack of theory of mind, which comes with the strong autism.

507

We are still waiting for Age to reveal more about these other beings she experiences. I guess Age has learned not to do that because of the negative consequences (being seen as crazy), the dissimulation is strong. Other than that imo the case is more or less solved.

508

Discussing with anew1

Getting asked again and again: could you be wrong? When anew is the only absolutist in the discussion. He is infallible, for example, in knowing what is True and Real, according to anew. Atla and I have said we are fallible.

Being told you believe absolutely or think you are God by the only person here who an absolutist, anew1 - someone who also, albeit not in the traditional sense, thinks he is God.

Being told to prove things by someone who is not here to prove anything to us.

Being responded to with incredulity that one is doing X in a philosophy forum by someone who in a philosophy forum is not here to substantiate claims but rather is using us to prove claims to people in future generations.

Being chastised for not asking clarifying questions, by someone who rarely does this, especially before judging individuals here. Someone who will also tell you what you mean, completely contradicting the whole point of asking clarifying questions.

I understand that some people have a very poor ability to self-reflect, but I have never seen such and extreme example of projecting oneself onto others.

It’s this fascinating set of attempts to get people to be defensive about what anew1 himself is doing and they are not.

509

Why do you lie like this anew1? Both of us have said we are fallible. You’re the only person in this discussion who has asserted infallibility, for example in knowing what is True and Real. And yet again and again you interpret us as meaning that we know absolutely. This goes radically against your suggestion to ask clarifying questions and no assume one understands how other people use words. But again and again you assert and to not assume that we mean absolute knowledge or absolute believing, despite what we have told you. It is truly hypocritical and/or thick.

510

So, the blatant contradiction, this one obviously still cannot yet see, this one also believes absolutely that I cannot prove.

Which is another prime example of what i have been addressing and talking about.

This one claims not to believe things absolutely, but then uses words like ‘of course’. LOL it then goes on to claim that I could not produce the proof.

This one still has not yet recognised that it is that one who is producing the proofs and thus the irrefutable facts for my claims.

And, once more, it is me who is not the “normal” one here.

511

Considering where and when you used those words, that is directly under the quote of mine you used, what else were they be in relation to exactly?

Also, I have already informed you that if you want to communicate better, if the words you use are not in relation to the quote that they directly follow, then it would help communication if you said what they were in relation to exactly.

So, it was not in relation to the actual words you were replying to, but instead were in relation to something that you were thinking about, and which you had not disclosed. Thank you for clarifying now.

The rest of what you wrote was an attempt to deceive and detract from what I directly pointed out.

512

No. Why would you ask such a question?

Were you assuming I did?

Once again, I speak and write here for very specific reasons. Use this as feedback in regards to the way you communicate.

But I don’t think this.

513

LOL Once again it missed the point entirely.

If you had been reading and listening, then you would have realised this a long time ago.

Again, this here is further proof of what happens when people look at things and listen from their pre-existing beliefs and assumptions.

And again, this is what I have been pointing out from the outset, and how and why I have been using these human beings here.

If only they just sought out clarity before they assumed and jumped to conclusions, then, as I keep saying, that would not be as wrong as they are, as often as they are.

514

And, this one knows ‘this’ very well.

It is presented in a way that there is no doubt and that “atla” knows, absolutely.

515

You keep assuming that I claim to know things absolutely, and you’re always wrong. Even after you were corrected a hundred times. So of course it is you who is not the “normal” one here.

You assume that I don’t know that that’s what you think, but you’re wrong. You assume that I’m producing proofs but of course you can’t prove that either, your assumption just rests on more weird assumptions you make.

Let’s see if this one can actually prove that I’m producing proof for its claims, if it won’t just handwave about the ‘I’. It still hasn’t shown that we belong to the same ‘One Mind’ and frankly who would want to share their mind with Age? But if it’s true then of course we’ll have to accept it (accompanied by some projectile vomiting). A little hint: just because Age’s mind is fractured and some of the ‘beings’ Age perceives ARE from the same mind, doesn’t mean that the other humans belong to the same mind too.

516

Really poor interpretation, jumping to a conclusion that is pleasing to you.

517

Oh, perhaps I could have cut through the contradictions in your messages earlier, yes. It does clear things up to see you participating consciously and openly in one of the most pernicious patterns, at the time this is being written, the using of other people, treating them like things or experimental objects. A lot is now explained more clearly, yes. Out of your thirty thousand + messages at PN and those here, whatever their number, finding the key ones helped immensely to see what a toxic attitude you have and even say without, it seems, even realizing it.

518

LOL If only they knew.

Of course it meant that.

The very fact that I am not necessarily here to substantiate my claims means they will not be. Unless of course what I said is needed is provided, then they will always be substantiated.

When will these here come to comprehend and understand?

Just maybe I saw this long ago, have been writing about it in the specific way I have been writing, and that it has been you who has not seen what has actually been happening and occuring here.

Why are you assuming such a ridiculous thing as this?

Your beliefs and presumptions have, once more, led you completely astray.

LOL it now uses the ‘shock’ word, as though that actually exists.

LOL I knew why you and others would not do before I even put the questions and challenges to you, and the others. LOL There was no ‘shock’ at all here from me.

Why use the word ‘perspective’, and that there is some perceived ‘issue’, and then claim that I didn’t come here to ‘that’?

What are you even talking about and referring to here now?

Again, this one appears to be attempting to deceive and deflect.

What I did not come here to do is to necessarily substantiate my claims. What has this got to do with some made up ‘perspective issue’, exactly?

Again, this one has made an assumption, jumped to conclusion, based upon nothing but its own made up assumption, and then believed that its conclusion is true and right.

LOL What perspective do you believe, absolutely, I could not quite get?

If this is what you really want to believe is true, then okay. But clearly I have never said this.

519

Facile.

As if people cannot feel when they are being used. All this knowledge he claims to have about humans and their problems, and he hasn’t clue that his attitude underlies the most toxic behavior humans have ever exibited.

But of course, when this attitude is felt and responded to for what it is, coming through in his condescension, judgments and inability to take responsibility for anything significant, he blames everyone else, completing the circle of a toxic pattern.

520

Yeah, “probably”.