--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" <anatol_zinc@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Deepak Chopra failed to prove existence of God to atheists > > > > > > > > > > I watched two videos of Deepak dialoging with atheists. > > > > > > > > So, just exploring here a bit; would it not be more impressive > > > > if Deepak could dialogue as follows: > > > > > > > > ATHEIST: Can you prove to me the existence of God? > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: Well, actually, no. But... > > > > [starts floating 3 feet above the ground] > > > > > > > > ATHEIST: OMG! That's some trick. > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: It's not a trick. > > > > > > > > ATHEIST: Yeah, right <snicker>. > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: Well, I've asked Mr James Randi by. > > > > > > > > RANDI: Here's that check I promised. > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: Thanks, just give it to the David Lynch Foundation. > > > > > > > > ATHEIST: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG... > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: Please note that this still doesn't prove the > > > > existence of God. I'm doing this so you might want to > > > > check things out for yourself, rather than get into > > > > intellectual arguments with me about it. > > > > > > > > ATHIEST: OMG OMG OMG OMG... > > > > > > > > AWAKENED: Can I get you a glass of water? > > > > > > > > > What IS it with TMers? > > > > > > Even their *fantasies* are about "winning" some > > > imaginary debate. > > > > > > I'm sorry, did you think that AWAKENED won the debate > > about "Is there a God?" > > > I found the very idea that there could be a meaningful > debate over the existence of God laughable, the pastime > of intellectual midgets. I found the idea that something > (anything) that one of the participants in such a "debate" > could say or do to leave a thinking atheist muttering OMG > to be a "win" fantasy unworthy of even the dumbest Christian evangelist. Does > that make my reaction clearer to you? >
Do you think that the atheist was saying "Oh my gawd" because he suddenly believed in God? I guess I could have had him say HFS (Holy FN Sh*t) instead. > I'm suggesting that one can learn a lot about someone > from the fantasies they come up with. On this forum, many > of those fantasies on the part of long-term TMers seem > to revolve around putting one of their "adversaries" in > some kind of discomfort or causing them actual distress > or pain, just because they said something. You do this > less than most these days, and I was just pointing out > that you were backsliding in this post. > > It's low vibe, Lawson. It was low vibe when Shankara did > it, it was low vibe when Maharishi did it, and it's low > vibe when you or other TMers do it. > > The need to debate or "defend" a position that can never > be proven one way or another is a demonstration of the > attachment the "defender" has for that position. If what > you want to "prove" is how attached you are to some idea, > concept, or person, fantasies and imaginary debates like > this are a good way to do so. IMO, of course. > Did I ever mention that I am a meta-agnostic? I don't that it is possible for *God* to be sure that He is God, leta lone for anyone else to be. Lawson
