Meditation vs Prayer - Page 15

To know someone is to stand before them eye to eye...this is all illusion and why my opinion of the media (internet) is what it is.
It is an addicting thing though, quite subtle in it's method, this thing.

Something we all do share in common sadly enough, wouldn't you agree?

It's hard to say.  I think it's different things to different people.  Even online, where there are only words, there is still this difference between what people do, and people say.  You can pick up a lot by paying attention to that type of thing.  The net works for me, because I have always been able to articulate myself well in words.  Depending on where I am or with whom, I can and will speak the way I write, but I generally converse much more casually.  Yes, this is very limiting in some ways, because I think there are a whole host of things you learn by, as you said, looking someone in the eyes, or body language.  I think people who read what I write and how I write it have a certain impression of me that is misleading in many ways. 

To someone who pays attention yes there are tells..... but there is also illusion and misinterpretation.
The eyes don't lie, it's not body language or the spoken word.

But do you agree?
Addicting?

Addictive, sure.  Anything can be addictive, but the word usual has a negative connotation.  The effects here may be negative for some, and positive for others.  Also, the acid test may be whether or not one can put something down.  I can only speak for myself on that.  For me, there is purpose, so that what I do and how I do it is largely out of this purpose, rather than the habit function of addiction. 

LOL.......ok.

Unlike you, Carlin, I don't claim anything to be more than my opinion;
I just question everything.  It's a way to get people to reveal their
beliefs, whether I can agree with them or not,  and to maybe pick
up something that may prove either useful - or even revelatory -
along the way.

I'm glad you think you 'proved Plato right';  you must know, surely,
that due partly to his not leaving anything in writing in which he either
listed himself as a participant in the debates, or referred to himself in
the first person, there has been a tendency by many to query his
philosophies, for decades and more ?  I'm in good company - Nietsche,
Heidigger, Popper et al have all argued in their own ways that Plato
was wrong about one thing or another  (& no, I'm not claiming I'm at their
scholastic levels, just that "its not black & white that Plato was right".)

It would take a very long and personal dialogue to sort out the truth of
your claim that in your personal history there has been a period of
atheism, and therefore you can 'see the world through my eyes'.  Not really
for the forum, is it ?   But I just knew you would eventually say that you had !

It would take a very long and personal dialogue to sort out the truth of
your claim that in your personal history there has been a period of
atheism,

If you question my integrity to that extent, there really is no point in conversing further is there? Plato is gravy; the argument stands without him; valid.   Nietsche; SMH. 
 

I just question everything.  It's a way to get people to reveal their
beliefs, whether I can agree with them or not,  and to maybe pick
up something that may prove either useful - or even revelatory -
along the way.

Lol. Shall we back up a bit and see if this follows given the substance and nature of your inquiries here.  The vacillation between sharp and not so sharp is convenient, though it betrays you. 

I don't think I am questioning your integrity, so much as your
perception.  Of course this is based on my generalising, here,
but its very much my experience that people who are truly
well-thought out, long term, convinced atheists  (as distinct
from dilitante agnostics and rebels against their parents' faith)
NEVER suddenly 'get it' and become religious or 'born again';
there is always much more to their stories than that.  Hence
my feeling if we were to go into discussing your particular past
and conversion, it would be a long debate.  And not really for
this thred or this forum.  We can go on through PMs if you like.

my bad if i am mixing up two different threads, have been a bit distracted lately;


carlin's style imo is sophistry and obfuscation, his genre is Christian apologetics.


how he went from morality to serial killers to abortion is revealing.
 

VK - I can totally see where you'd be confused. Sophist, lol. That would involve fallacy, and so would be against my constitution. Try again, or at least try a little harder to keep up. My advice, consider that your own background represents a pointedly limited view of the Christian faith. In fact, your offerings here demonstrate the extent to to which your religious experiences continue to affect your processes.