--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The only thing that is deficient in your atheism (...) is > that it leaves out the truth that: At one time God *did* > indeed exist,
Ain't that just something? (I have removed the lengthy stuff between the parentheses to restore clarity to the form of this assertion). Try the opposite: "The only thing that is deficient in your belief in God is that it leaves out the truth that: At no time did God indeed exist" A meeting of minds? Not! > and the experience ontologically of existing in the > world before you and I were born, did, up until one > chronological point, ideally required one to know that > God exists. That is not, according to my own original > perspective, the case anymore. So, then, Curtis, if you > were not an atheist, you would somewhere be soft in the > head, and incapable of objectively actinghere comes > Maharishi"in the benefit of the truth" of the metaphysics > of the universe in this very moment. Somehow you, personally > and intellectually, embodybeneficentlythe truth of the > universe at this timewithout knowing it. > > And I am exploiting this extraordinary truth. These are required: "". i.e. "truth". An "IMHO" would not be amiss. (But then good on you Robin for challenging the naivety of the brain reductionist viewpoint!) And can we not reserve "ontologically" for some proper use? Words were given to us by God, no? Did She want us to abuse them and debase their currency? Is such abuse sufficient grounds to be sentenced to hell in the Final Reckoning? What is the difference between: 1) "the experience ontologically of existing in the world" and 2) "the experience of existing in the world"?
