Quote Originally Posted by thisAngelBites View Post
Sounds like you disagree with my view, Roman, which is cool, of course. But notice it only took one sentence to make it all clear. There is also a difference between conveying some factual information, and googling to find someone to make an argument you can't make on your own, but leaving out the fact that you're just regurgitating someone else's capacity to reason.

I've seen lots of other posts on this forum about people ripping off other people's write-ups about supplements, or medical advice. What honest reason would anyone have for posting other people's thinking verbatim as their own? Too lazy to type one sentence?


edited----> Hey Roman, I should read the comments all the way to the end before I reply, eh? Sorry.
I'm not so sure where we are disagreeing, other than I'm trying to finesse the idea of factual vs. emotional beliefs in a non judgmental way. I think we are dancing around the definition of atheist. I'm trying to say that being an atheist is cool, but one cannot say from a factual position that there is not a metaphysical entity I refer to as a prime mover. I don't know how one could prove it. And it's a very fine detail. But the reason I continue to hammer on this fine point is to illustrate that no one can know with absolute 100% certainty that one belief is right and the other wrong. THIS I feel strongly about. And you know I'm not referring to the KJ version of the metaphysical being. To be utterly frank, I'm pretty certain King James got it wrong on most of it.

I'm really trying to see if anyone that is passionate in their beliefs, if they are enlightened and willing to admit they could be wrong.

Anyone that is truly enlightened will always entertain the idea that the possibility of being wrong certainly exists.

And apparently, very few here seemed to have crossed that threshold yet.