Atheists, I pose you this question [Archive]

Surak

2007-09-04, 04:27

How can you so blindly believe in science?

I don't. Science seems to get things accomplished, so I figure it probably works.

"There is a soul. People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident."

There is no proof that a soul exists. That people are better or worse at some things than others is a product of our genetics and upbringing, nothing more.

"The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes."

There is absolutely nothing solid to suggest that is true.

"I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings. The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you."

You're just asserting random shit without doing *anything* whatsoever to back it up. You're full of shit, bub.

"Now you may ask, why are there so many people on death row, where is their destiny?"

Actually, I'm asking myself why you aren't required by law to wear a big sign that says "Walking Logical Fallacy".

"The universe isn't guaranteed to force you into your set path."

What "path"? Can you back any of this shit up with something tangible?

"Humans make mistakes out of emotions, and there will always be consequences."

This is the only thing you've said so far that makes any sense.

"I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world,"

Given the rest of your post, I doubt you have any idea of how any atheists see the world.

"but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake."

I don't know of any atheists that regard their existence as a "mistake." Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I go cry in my room because there's no invisible continuity error talking at me.

"There is an unseen force,"

You assert this again, and again you fail to present any evidence or proof to back it up. Just repeating yourself doesn't somehow validate your argument.

"a third person view if you will."

The universe is not a video game; do you even know how to make sense?

"Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology."

If you knew anything about religion, you would know that isn't true. I suggest you either educate yourself, or just stop talking about shit you have no knowledge of.

"I am not here to criticize, but rather to just get you thinking."

You have gotten me thinking. Right now, I'm thinking about how many people around the world would see such hollow, meaningless rants such as your post as some kind of "deep" understanding of life and the universe. I'm thinking about how pathetic it is that you ask such idiotic questions as "how can you blindly believe in science?" when you're sitting at a fucking computer, typing in the words. I'm thinking about how many future generations will have to deal with inane fools such as yourself before they finally (if ever) rid humanity of such worthless nonsense.

Uranium238

2007-09-04, 05:10

Surak, I wish I could articulate myself like you can. Great post.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-04, 05:18

My question is how, and i know we obviously dont know, would science describe the universe? The Big Bang basically says that everything in the universe including us was at some point, infinitly dense and infinitly small. What is this source? what is that where everything derives from? Its the source of our universe as you know it. Religions have silly ideas about this source, but your still looking at the same basic thing.

Obbe

2007-09-04, 11:45

I agree that the 'soul'...Aham Brahmasmi...has always been and will always be, as time and space are illusions.

Beyond that, I think this is a troll-thread.

2007-09-04, 12:00

I have yet to see any evidence for the existence of a soul and I refuse to believe in any god/s or supernatural power. Not that I wholly place my faith in science, I just think the concept of an omnipotent being that transcends normal physical laws is ridiculous and only children should have imaginary friends.

I think belief in a god is just an easy way to escape any proper thinking. People don't seem to like paradoxes and contradictions, I on the other hand love 'em. :)

Runaway_Stapler

2007-09-04, 15:53

How can you so blindly believe in science?
There is a soul.
You ask us why we follow blindly, then go right ahead and say something with no proof. Hypocrite.

People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.

As 23 said, people with skills survive, stupid people die. You can't deny that survival of the fittest is real, it's blatantly obvious.

The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes.

Hey look, another sentence based on absolutely nothing! Speaking of blindly following something...
I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings.
No, we can not agree on that. That is the point of atheism, that there is no omni potent being controlling the outcome of our lives.
Saying what you just said is like walking into an AA meeting and saying
"Well I think we can all agree being drunk is a blast, we should all get wasted".

Seriously, I think you need to take a look at yourself before claiming stuff. Not saying you should be atheist, but at least follow some sort of logic instead of saying one thing and doing another.

CatharticWeek

2007-09-04, 16:04

I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world, but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake. There is an unseen force, a third person view if you will. Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology.

Atheists look at the world and see the universe itself as this 'force' with themselves a part of it.
I have a mystical, spiritual life as an atheist (well, pantheist, close enough) without trying to rationalize my mortality by creating fictional planes of existence or a sentient universal father.
Why can't the universe BE god, why can't science be HOLY?

among_the_living

2007-09-04, 16:10

It is hard for me to call someone 'stupid' because i believe we all have an intelligence in some field or another, but when people come out with the words "science" and "blind" right next to each other.....it really does test me.

Science is the force which lets us rip away our primative blindfolded look on the world and delve into the wonders of everything.

Science is interesting and if you dont think so you can fuck off.

yoyobek

2007-09-04, 16:30

How can you so blindly believe in science?

Why do you assume that all atheists beleive in science either?

I dont give a damn about evolution. I dont give a damn if there's a god or not.

But...why should I care either way if there's a god or not? he/she/it has done nothing to affect my life, either good or bad.
Why should I be arrogant enough to assume that my little life is important enough for some giant entity to want to watch over me?

Why would anyone be that arrogant?

2007-09-04, 16:35

Why do you assume that all atheists beleive in science either?

I dont give a damn about evolution. I dont give a damn if there's a god or not.

But...why should I care either way if there's a god or not? he/she/it has done nothing to affect my life, either good or bad.
Why should I be arrogant enough to assume that my little life is important enough for some giant entity to want to watch over me?

Why would anyone be that arrogant?

I fucking love you.

JesuitArtiste

2007-09-04, 16:36

I agree that the 'soul'...Aham Brahmasmi...has always been and will always be, as time and space are illusions.

Beyond that, I think this is a troll-thread.

Out of interest, how do you define the soul?

AnalBeeds

2007-09-04, 16:48

How can you so blindly believe in science?

I don't blindly believe in anything. That's contradictory to the scientific process. Science is based on getting a general picture and improving on it through experimentation. Science is based on evidence, not what people think happened and wrote in books 2000 years ago.

You know, its pretty funny actually... People have made sooo many scientific/technological advancements in the past few decades, but some of us still cling to the old way of thinking. You would think people would also make social and cultural advancements, but nope. People are the same idiots they were when we first created civilization... I don't think many people realize how quickly we could revert back. If and when we do, I guarantee religion will be the culprit. Fighting over what fairy tale is the "correct" one.

If you don't try to find out the real reason for our existence and just believe in what you were told you can never be sure what is really out there.

I'm agnostic. I don't believe in god because I never saw any evidence for one. Sure, "faith" is based on believing in something just for the hell of it, but I think we can all agree that's stupid and illogical. I'm open to the possibility of some old dude out there in the clouds just like I'm open to the possibility of a flying spaghetti monster or Raptor Jesus.

Actually think. Don't believe what people told you just because it sounds cool or some tradition bullshit. Try and figure out the answer for yourself and then ask your questions.

Obbe

2007-09-04, 22:25

Out of interest, how do you define the soul?

The soul is that which experiences. The soul is I AM, its the only truth, it is God. Aware of nothing, the void, 'being', etc...

Aham Brahmasmi....I am the Absolute Truth.

Obbe

2007-09-04, 22:42

I don't blindly believe in anything....I guarantee...the real reason...I'm agnostic...I don't believe in god...we can all agree...Don't believe what people told you.

I'm sorry, but you seem a little mixed up on some things.

Digital_Savior

2007-09-05, 01:06

Surak

2007-09-05, 03:21

^So? This place is an interesting diversion for many people.

socratic

2007-09-05, 03:22

I'd like to think I don't 'blindly believe' in anything, but I'm sure I have the little negligable beliefs. Like, you know, work hard and things tend to go well for you. I don't chalk this up to God, nor any supernatural force, however.

valo567

2007-09-05, 03:42

Watch Zeitgeist and get back to me later.

ganjaninja

2007-09-05, 03:56

religion = chips

KikoSanchez

2007-09-05, 04:28

The soul is that which experiences. The soul is I AM, its the only truth, it is God. Aware of nothing, the void, 'being', etc...

Aham Brahmasmi....I am the Absolute Truth.

While this is beautifully poetic, it seems to be completely meaningless.

1) Soul is that which experiences
2) Soul is I am
3) Soul is the only truth
4) Soul is god

1) So...you are saying what you call a soul is your experential process? It is your brain and eyes and all of your sensory gear working? Nothing metaphysical need be incited to experience.

2) Soul is...I am? I am not sure what this means.

3) Hmm...so your experiencing self is the only truth? Then what of your experience of a grey glass, when a whole room of people are telling you its green. Oh yeah, you are color blind. Is your experience the truth?

4) Soul is god. This statement seems rampant with equivocations.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-05, 05:26

1) So...you are saying what you call a soul is your experential process? It is your brain and eyes and all of your sensory gear working? Nothing metaphysical need be incited to experience.
Brain, eyes, and all your senses are physical properties

2) Soul is...I am? I am not sure what this means

3) Hmm...so your experiencing self is the only truth? Then what of your experience of a grey glass, when a whole room of people are telling you its green. Oh yeah, you are color blind. Is your experience the truth?
You must not have caught "the only truth" thread than. To all the other people in the room you would be percieved as being color blind. But you see it as grey. How can this not be the truth? Truth is only relative to the given situation, it is "true" to you that the glass is grey, and others may tell you that its green. Its up to you whether you decide that you are color blind or their lying to you, but that doesnt at all change the fact that you see a grey glass.

4) Soul is god. This statement seems rampant with equivocations.
I love how people misunderstand when someone says god, although i guess its a simple problem we have. Even if you dont believe in a soul, your body is part of the universe which at one point was an inifintly small and dense point, and you come out of that like everything else. Its the source of everything, and people generally call this source god.

Obbe

2007-09-05, 05:44

Everything I (and you) say are lies.

So...you are saying what you call a soul is your experential process? It is your brain and eyes and all of your sensory gear working? Nothing metaphysical need be incited to experience.

All of that is illusion. All you can experience is illusions. The truth is simply I AM.

Soul is...I am? I am not sure what this means.

I AM, while expressed is a lie, represents the only truth. Existence.

Hmm...so your experiencing self is the only truth? Then what of your experience of a grey glass, when a whole room of people are telling you its green. Oh yeah, you are color blind. Is your experience the truth?

The only truth is I AM, that which experiences. The experiences themselves are illusions.

Soul is god. This statement seems rampant with equivocations.

Aham Brahmasmi. God is all, all is God. The only truth is I AM. I am God. I am the absolute truth.

Surak

2007-09-05, 06:31

"Everything I (and you) say are lies."

Then why the hell do you keep talking?

KikoSanchez

2007-09-05, 07:11

Then why the hell do you keep talking?

He is saying something analagous to "This sentence is false"

I won't even reply to him b/c I'm thinking he is just trying to make people laugh or a complete troll...I'm not sure.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-05, 07:21

Brain, eyes, and all your senses are physical properties

You must not have caught "the only truth" thread than. To all the other people in the room you would be percieved as being color blind. But you see it as grey. How can this not be the truth? Truth is only relative to the given situation, it is "true" to you that the glass is grey, and others may tell you that its green. Its up to you whether you decide that you are color blind or their lying to you, but that doesnt at all change the fact that you see a grey glass.

I love how people misunderstand when someone says god, although i guess its a simple problem we have. Even if you dont believe in a soul, your body is part of the universe which at one point was an inifintly small and dense point, and you come out of that like everything else. Its the source of everything, and people generally call this source god.

1) Yes, they are all physical, that was my point. Maybe I'm missing yours, unless you're just agreeing with a materialist account of experience.

2) Incorrect, the property that is true of the glass is that it has certain and factual pigments within the glass. This person holds a justified UNTRUE belief.

3) I believe this is an equivocation of term 'god', as it is often used as something that is conscious, but if you are simply defining it as the existence of the universe then it is quite meaningless. What value does the sentence "the clock hand is watchmaker" have? I tell someone "pissing in the alley is god" and they would look at me like I'm crazy, because I'm making an equivocation of the term 'god'.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-05, 07:24

Btw, I'm interested in this 'the only truth' thread, but I don't see it around. Link? Thx

i poop in your cereal

2007-09-05, 07:59

How can you so blindly believe in science?

There is no such thing as believing blindly in science.
Science proves stuff, therefore it is real.

So believing in something that can actually be proven, something that is 100% undeniable is blind?

FreedomHippie

2007-09-05, 18:49

1) Yes, they are all physical, that was my point. Maybe I'm missing yours, unless you're just agreeing with a materialist account of experience.

2) Incorrect, the property that is true of the glass is that it has certain and factual pigments within the glass. This person holds a justified UNTRUE belief.

3) I believe this is an equivocation of term 'god', as it is often used as something that is conscious, but if you are simply defining it as the existence of the universe then it is quite meaningless. What value does the sentence "the clock hand is watchmaker" have? I tell someone "pissing in the alley is god" and they would look at me like I'm crazy, because I'm making an equivocation of the term 'god'.

Color is percieved by different wavelengths of light, and how the eyes collect these wavelengths and the brain interprets them. Why is it an "untrue belief" that someone sees something as a different color than? It would be selfish to say their wrong, because their just as right as you are. What you see is what you get, and someone can tell you what you see as the color grey is actually the color green, but that doesnt suddenly make you see it as green, its still grey as you see it.

vazilizaitsev89

2007-09-05, 23:41

AnalBeeds

2007-09-05, 23:58

I'm sorry, but you seem a little mixed up on some things.

I'm sorry, but you're fucking stupid. Blindly believing in something just for the fuck of it is fucking retarded.

My being agnostic has nothing to do with the fact of this. So, what are you saying? We can't have truth if we believe in gathering evidence? Next time think before you speak.

What is the law of gravity then you fucktard? I think we can all agree that gravity pulls us down. Just like we can all agree that believing in something "just because" is stupid and illogical.

And fuck you for *t*rolling your eyes, asstwat.

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-06, 01:00

The soul is that which experiences. The soul is I AM, its the only truth, it is God. Aware of nothing, the void, 'being', etc...

Aham Brahmasmi....I am the Absolute Truth.

The thing we are aware of is the present moment, everything else is just ways to experience the present moment. And your getting a little inconsistent here saying everything is bullshit but truth is I AM, if everything is bullshit, so is I AM.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 01:05

The thing we are aware of is the present moment, everything else is just ways to experience the present moment. And your getting a little inconsistent here saying everything is bullshit but truth is I AM, if everything is bullshit, so is I AM.

The thing is that we dont see reality as it truly is though. What we percieve as reality is not only what we see, but its based off of previous experiences.

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-06, 01:56

The thing is that we dont see reality as it truly is though. What we percieve as reality is not only what we see, but its based off of previous experiences.

No, because the previous experience was dependent on the present moment in that now. Reality is the present moment, reality is right now and always will be, how could it possibly be anything else?

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 02:08

No, because the previous experience was dependent on the present moment in that now. Reality is the present moment, reality is right now and always will be, how could it possibly be anything else?

How is the previous experience dependant on the present moment? Its the other way around, the present moment is dependant on what is previously experienced. If i'm reading it the wrong way please tell me, but it seems to me that your telling me the previous depends on the present, meaning that without the present the previous wouldn't exist. If you were to say the the present depends on the previous, meaning without the past, the present wouldnt exist would make much more sense.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-06, 02:12

Color is percieved by different wavelengths of light, and how the eyes collect these wavelengths and the brain interprets them. Why is it an "untrue belief" that someone sees something as a different color than? .

B/c those wavelengths are objective and not open to interpretation. If someone states that a green cup and grey cup are emitting the same waves, they are incorrect. Thus, their belief, while justified, is untrue.

It would be selfish to say their wrong, because their just as right as you are.

See: Circular Reasoning

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 02:31

B/c those wavelengths are objective and not open to interpretation. If someone states that a green cup and grey cup are emitting the same waves, they are incorrect. Thus, their belief, while justified, is untrue.

See: Circular Reasoning

Colorblindness doesn't cause colors to swap in though, colorblind is only a condition of the resolution your eyes see it at. I'm talking about what if colors really were switched for people though. You wouldnt say that 2 colors emit the same waves because you could obviously test them and see the difference, but that still doesnt mean that what you see as green is what i see as green, although i may call the color green because of what everyone else says it is. If i saw green as grey , but everyone called the same color green, i would call it green aswell. Do you see what im saying?

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-06, 02:37

How is the previous experience dependant on the present moment? Its the other way around, the present moment is dependant on what is previously experienced. If i'm reading it the wrong way please tell me, but it seems to me that your telling me the previous depends on the present, meaning that without the present the previous wouldn't exist. If you were to say the the present depends on the previous, meaning without the past, the present wouldnt exist would make much more sense.

No your misreading, or more likely, misunderstanding. Past experiences were once former nows, so the previous experience was once a now like the now were in right now. Everything in reality is happining right now, nothing escapes the present moment, we only remember past nows right now in the present moment with our storage device (the brain). These are just memorys, they are not reality, since reality only exists right now.

Past experiences create the false self, or help bring out the true self, but reality still remains with the moment we are presently in.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 02:39

No your misreading, or more likely, misunderstanding. Past experiences were once former nows, so the previous experience was once a now like the now were in right now. Everything in reality is happining right now, nothing escapes the present moment, we only remember past nows right now in the present moment with our storage device (the brain). These are just memorys, they are not reality, since reality only exists right now.

Past experiences create the false self, or helped bring out the true self, but reality still remains with the moment we are presently in.

hmm that is very interesting. So if all reality that i ever will experience is in the present moment, there really is no past, only my memories of it. So does that mean time doesnt exist?

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-06, 02:50

hmm that is very interesting. So if all reality that i ever will experience is in the present moment, there really is no past, only my memories of it. So does that mean time doesnt exist?

This is correct, time is a concept created by man for organization, as far as evidence for an actual dimension that time exists in well, there is none.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 02:53

This is correct, time is a concept created by man for organization, as far as evidence for an actual dimension that time exists in well, there is none.

haha yea thats quite true i agree with you there. Thats very interesting cause i think about it all the time like that. When i wake up in the morning i think wow maybe the universe just started today and everything i conisider the past is only preprogrammed in my mind. I guess every and any moment could be like this though.

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-06, 03:11

haha yea thats quite true i agree with you there. Thats very interesting cause i think about it all the time like that. When i wake up in the morning i think wow maybe the universe just started today and everything i conisider the past is only preprogrammed in my mind. I guess every and any moment could be like this though.

I wouldn't really look at it like that, its more like a constant progression. Everything you remember did happen, its just not whats happining now, and is stored in your sub-conscious mind for practical or recreational use in the now. As for things that happened before you existed, you can only take the word of passed on nows, and as far as things that happened when noone existed, like the creation of the universe, you can take on the random calculations from modern science which really is still in early development, but the most likely case would be a unending progression that would only confuse the young logic of mankind.

Obbe

2007-09-06, 11:53

Then why the hell do you keep talking?

Why do you perceive that as a reason not to? Did knowing you were 'hallucinating' on shrooms make you want to stop??

Although, your question shouldn't be why the hell I keep talking...you should be asking yourself why you perceive my existence.

He is saying something analagous to "This sentence is false"

I won't even reply to him b/c I'm thinking he is just trying to make people laugh or a complete troll...I'm not sure.

Neither. 'The only truth' thread should be around here somewhere, although I am able to answer what you want answered here.

I'm sorry, but you're fucking stupid. Blindly believing in something just for the fuck of it is fucking retarded.

My being agnostic has nothing to do with the fact of this. So, what are you saying? We can't have truth if we believe in gathering evidence? Next time think before you speak.

What is the law of gravity then you fucktard? I think we can all agree that gravity pulls us down. Just like we can all agree that believing in something "just because" is stupid and illogical.

And fuck you for *t*rolling your eyes, asstwat.

You blindly believe in the world around you. You believe an Obbe is replying to you.

You say you are agnostic, which means you do not know if there is God or not, and then choose to say you do not believe in God in the very next sentence, implying atheism.

You assume we can all agree on things like gravity and the 'stupidity' of faith, when you have no fucking idea. Thats just as bad as many of the things the OP claimed, idiot. BTW, your entire perception of reality is faith-based, its all belief. The only thing you know, is 'I AM'.

The thing we are aware of is the present moment, everything else is just ways to experience the present moment. And your getting a little inconsistent here saying everything is bullshit but truth is I AM, if everything is bullshit, so is I AM.

Moment? Time is an illusion.

The truth is I AM, but all forms of acknowledging this or expressing this are themselves false. The 'truth' is what the idea represents.

AnalBeeds

2007-09-06, 12:49

How the fuck do you back up a claim that everything is an illusion? Sure, we can only see in the wavelength of visible light, but we have sensors and other devices that can measure what we cannot see.

One day if we continue the scientific process and not revert to fairy tales we will have a full picture of the universe and that is our reality. Stop with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Our reality is what is around us. Its real. It's just not the complete picture. That's why you die when you fall off a cliff or get stabbed in the throat. If the only thing that is "real" is you then I would have to assume things that can kill you are "real" too.

I didn't say there ISN'T a God. I said there is as much a possibility for him as there is for any other God or made up monster. Eg. Wolfman, Vampires, Flying spaghetti monster, etc...

Hey, if there are universes out there other than our own there's a good probability that anything you can think up has happened some time way out there.

By the way, I said Blind faith is retarded. My evidence for my faith that I'm seeing the world around me are my eyes, ears, sense of touch and smell. Yes, I do have an idea what I'm talking about. You're just spouting pure bullshit.

The only reason I said the phrase "We can all agree..." in the first place was that I was reusing the OP's own words, but it still stands... At least we all should agree that blind faith is retarded because believing in anything without reason makes no sense whatsoever.

Stop putting words in my mouth and taking my speech out of context. It seems that's the only way "spiritual" people can debate. And next time back up your bullshit claims.

Surak

2007-09-06, 19:16

"Why do you perceive that as a reason not to? Did knowing you were 'hallucinating' on shrooms make you want to stop??"

If I knew everything I ever said was a lie, no matter what I did about it, I just wouldn't talk anymore since nothing I would say would really matter. I'm not tripping on shrooms for my entire life, genius.

"Although, your question shouldn't be why the hell I keep talking...you should be asking yourself why you perceive my existence."

I perceive your existence because YOU EXIST. You dumb motherfucker.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-06, 19:26

Colorblindness doesn't cause colors to swap in though, colorblind is only a condition of the resolution your eyes see it at. I'm talking about what if colors really were switched for people though. You wouldnt say that 2 colors emit the same waves because you could obviously test them and see the difference, but that still doesnt mean that what you see as green is what i see as green, although i may call the color green because of what everyone else says it is. If i saw green as grey , but everyone called the same color green, i would call it green aswell. Do you see what im saying?

Yes, you are confusing reality with perception, or misperception in this case.

If i saw green as grey , but everyone called the same color green, i would call it green aswell. Do you see what im saying?

No. Let's take me for example, as I am actually colorblind on an acute level. I say US dollar bills are grey. Take someone else who sees it correctly as green. We have 2 objects, one emits wavelengths equivalent to green(a dollar bill), another emits wavelengths equivalent to grey(I don't know, a piece of concrete). I will say, they are both grey. They will say, no the money is green and the concrete is grey. Science says that reality is that they are, in fact, very different colors. My perception, though true to me, is incompatible to reality, therefore I hold a misperception.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-06, 22:01

Yes, you are confusing reality with perception, or misperception in this case.

No. Let's take me for example, as I am actually colorblind on an acute level. I say US dollar bills are grey. Take someone else who sees it correctly as green. We have 2 objects, one emits wavelengths equivalent to green(a dollar bill), another emits wavelengths equivalent to grey(I don't know, a piece of concrete). I will say, they are both grey. They will say, no the money is green and the concrete is grey. Science says that reality is that they are, in fact, very different colors. My perception, though true to me, is incompatible to reality, therefore I hold a misperception.

Why would you say they are both grey? Im talking about colors being switched and your saying not being able to visually tell the difference between two colors.

Obbe

2007-09-06, 23:02

If I knew everything I ever said was a lie, no matter what I did about it, I just wouldn't talk anymore since nothing I would say would really matter.

So its your need for socialization that you refuse to accept this?

YOU EXIST

Do you know that?

Obbe

2007-09-06, 23:05

:mad:....Its real....:mad:

Sure, sure....:rolleyes:

And next time back up your bullshit claims.

Impossible.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-07, 00:32

How can you so blindly believe in science?

There is a soul. People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.
The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes.

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings. The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you.

Now you may ask, why are there so many people on death row, where is their destiny?

The universe isn't guaranteed to force you into your set path. Humans make mistakes out of emotions, and there will always be consequences.

I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world, but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake. There is an unseen force, a third person view if you will. Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology.

I am not here to criticize, but rather to just get you thinking.

Thank you for your time, and comments are welcome.

You dare say that those who respect and believe science are doing so blindly?

Are you fucking serious? Science is what can be figured out and what is known. Science is a tool for the complilation of evidence, of truth. Unlike the soul SOME TYPE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is required.

Time for your education to begin....

If you have tangible evidence for something's existence then you are NOT believing in something blindly...HOW-FUCKING-EVER, if you have no evidence for something (soul, magic, god, the magic schoolbus) and still believe in it then you ARE doing so blindly.

I hope you understand the foolishness of your statement and if you wish to recant now would be the time.

As far as everything else you suppose i.e. the human soul, prove it. Without proof you have speculation. My argument that I am the one true god and the existence you believe you posses is no more than my all powerful waking dream is EVERY BIT as feasible and provable as any theist argument such as the soul, creationism, christ etc. We both have an equal amount of evidence in that regard. That is to say we are both equally full of shit.

Praise to the almighty...the light of the world...the king of kings...that magnificent creation on high...the alpha...the omega...the one...the only...Science.

Digital_Savior

2007-09-07, 00:44

^So? This place is an interesting diversion for many people.

Then I suggest he not feign indifference. It is kind of moot, when participating in discussions involving topics for which he claims to care nothing about.

Kadafi

2007-09-07, 02:39

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason.

Nope, nothing happens for any reason other than the laws of physics.

eXo5

2007-09-07, 02:44

i don't know if it's been said, but here goes: LOOK DICKWEED WE KNOW WE HAVE A SOUL, we just don't necessarily believed it's governed by god. and quite honestly, it's not always science that has the answers. and honestly, i don't see god coughin up any hints or clues to any such answers we've been striving for... so stfu, no one cares. have a great day ;) from an atheist to a monotheist. can't say i'm not a nice guy for being such a 'nonbeliever'...

eXo5

2007-09-07, 02:46

lol surak...
originally posted by Surak:
Originally Posted by Surak View Post
^So? This place is an interesting diversion for many people.

ummm nice way to allude to killing time...

Standout

2007-09-07, 02:49

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason.

That is something I have thought about for a while. Not necessarily for or against the existance of some higher power, but just to toy with the idea in my head. I was born with a gender, race, physical attributes. I was born into a position on the social ladder, into a geographical location and certain culture, parents etc. the list could really go on and on. All of these things are out of my control, but all of them influence my life and thought patterns so much.

I dont mean some dumbass that watches britney spears singing on tv and says 'lol i liek dat dress'...I mean decisions we make based on genetic and enviornmental factors out of our control. The next time you do something, it doesn't even have to be a major decision just anything stop and think "why am I doing this". Really break it down as much as you can, there may be thousands of more subtle influences out of ones control that cause them to do what they do. Influences much less obvious then gender or culture. I DO have the ability to think I can do anything, but cultural norms, physical limitations, fears and etc. all brought upon me by things out of my control limit my ability to actual do everything that I think of.

Ah, sorry to kind of take that off-topic, it's just something thats been flowing in and out of my train of thought for a while now and I didn't want to post a new topic.

genericwittyusername

2007-09-07, 03:59

I blindly believe in nothing. Or rather, do not blindly believe in anything. What has become evident to me (whether through science, through personal experience, through spiritual experience) is the same as what has become evident to you. My experience has supported that there is no enduring being, or essential being, besides the way our minds (which seems to be related to biochemical brain states, citing my own experience in changes in perception through both illicit and prescribed medications) have come to understand the world around you. I've neither felt nor understood any soul, nor comprehended how it would be attached to me. But perhaps I'm ignorant, perhaps your delusional. In the end, there's no way of changing either of our minds. You would be equally successful and unsuccessful in proving the point of atheism to me. Any atheist is just a reactionary; agnostics acknowledge the pervasiveness of possibility but not truth.

AnalBeeds

2007-09-07, 18:48

Impossible.

WTF???

Don't profess things as fact if you don't know for sure they are one.

And you didn't answer my question. If things around you aren't real how come they can kill you? Is this the matrix, where the body cannot live without the mind? lol.

I think I'm done proving my point.

You may be right, in some way. No one knows for sure. But, don't feed bullshit theories without any evidence. Especially, when there's mounds of evidence to the contrary.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-07, 19:14

WTF???

Don't profess things as fact if you don't know for sure they are one.

And you didn't answer my question. If things around you aren't real how come they can kill you? Is this the matrix, where the body cannot live without the mind? lol.

I think I'm done proving my point.

You may be right, in some way. No one knows for sure. But, don't feed bullshit theories without any evidence. Especially, when there's mounds of evidence to the contrary.

I dont think there is any evidence that disproves or is contrary to any of those theories. If there is i sure would like some "proof".

arx

2007-09-07, 20:18

i blindly believe what i believe for the same reason that you blindly believe what you believe.

Your post made me want to be a mod again so I could quote it in my sig; for that matter it also made me wish we had rep again so I could rep you up.

:)

arx_

AnalBeeds

2007-09-07, 20:38

I dont think there is any evidence that disproves or is contrary to any of those theories. If there is i sure would like some "proof".

Ummm..... There's lots and lots and lots and lots. Proof is different than evidence.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-07, 20:54

If you believe in science you believe in something with eyes wide mother fucking open.

If you belive in the supernatural mystical and mythical realms of gods and demons then you are believing in something without anyfucking proof whatsoever and thus are believing blindly in it. PERIOD.

Science = Proven Truth

Religion = Blind Faith, Fantasy, Myth, Fairytale, The magic schoolbus, Easter bunny.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-07, 21:26

Ummm..... There's lots and lots and lots and lots. Proof is different than evidence.

some proof than please?

Obbe

2007-09-07, 22:41

If things around you aren't real how come they can kill you?

How do you know they can kill you? Because you've seen this happen to other people?

Ha ha, and you're sure thats evidence of something real?

Experience is not evidence of reality, and unless you consider it to be, then there can be no evidence that experience is illusion...because that evidence, itself, would be part of the illusion.

However, if you choose to believe that experience is evidence of reality, then all experiences would be real. There would be no illusions.

All that an illusion is, is something which doesn't fit with what you think you know to be true. But all the things you think you know, you really don't, except for 'I AM'.

So. Aham Brahmasmi. And death is only an illusion.

...there's mounds of evidence to the contrary.

Is there really? Then provide some.

Prove to me that you are real, and not an illusion which I happen to be experiencing.

midnight rider

2007-09-08, 00:12

How can you so blindly believe in science?

There is a soul. People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.
The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes.

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings. The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you.

Now you may ask, why are there so many people on death row, where is their destiny?

The universe isn't guaranteed to force you into your set path. Humans make mistakes out of emotions, and there will always be consequences.

I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world, but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake. There is an unseen force, a third person view if you will. Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology.

I am not here to criticize, but rather to just get you thinking.

Thank you for your time, and comments are welcome.

We know people are not made with skills,we have to work and perfect them.
How do you know the soul is universal?Where have you happend upon this knowlage?
You automaticly assume that we all agree that things happen for a reason,This is not true.Why would there be a plan for you to stub your toe when you wake up,why is it planned that CDs wont work?
You know nothing of athiesm,yet you codem us....You say all religons have the same ideology.Why is that,maby because it sprang from the same people.And that is not true,take chrisianty and scientology.....complete opposites.
Why do we "blindly" follow science?Because we mold the answers to fit our questions, if somthing doesnt work we figure out why, we dont just chalk it up to 'divine intervention'.
How do you know I exist,If I was to put my hand in front of your face and ask if It were really there would you say yes?How do you know its real,because its there?Maby your mind is only creating the hand that you see before you, maby it is creating your whole existance.....

AngryFemme

2007-09-08, 04:37

I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world

That would have been appropriate as your thread title.

Atheists don't adhere to science in the same way a religious person practices their faith. They "believe" in science insofar as it applies to giving them a better understanding of themselves and their world. They use it as a tool for discovery - not as a force or power that is greater than them that will demand a day of reckoning when it's time to expire as a living organism.

Science is ever-changing, old ideas are tossed out when new ones are presented, it's theories are constantly up for debate and improvement and the very nature of the scientific discipline is to constantly challenge existing methods in hopes of finding more advanced techniques at exploring the natural world.

"Believers" of science aren't interested in tradition and aren't satisfied accepting an overall view of "because it was meant to be". They won't take canned responses to their questions and insist instead on the tried and true method of observing empirical evidence with a good healthy dose of doubt and steady reasoning.

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings. The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you.

I don't think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. Some of us believe we live in a world made up of a great deal of blind processes we have little control over. And us atheists are okay with that. Some of us are joyous to be alive, even! We can often find peace and solace knowing that we are a part of a very large, very complex universe - one that we all personally impact. Just by being alive, we are able to experience all it has to offer. All the while, never musing on the idea that we are somehow slaves to our destinies.

Obbe

2007-09-08, 18:24

Science = Proven Truth

...mind explaining? I seem a little slow. :(

dopeboy23

2007-09-09, 00:53

FreedomHippie

2007-09-09, 01:03

Ok guys. After reading through pages of members flaming eachother, I have a confession.

I didn't post this to assert my beliefs. There would be no point in that.
They aren't even mine actually.

I put this thread here solely for the reason of seeing how people react.

You have entertained me.
You should all take a minute to laugh at yourselves.

NOTE: There will never be a way to prove your beliefs. Who knows, perhaps religion and beliefs are just by-products of the human mind. More importantly, It is true that science can prove alot of things. But It did not create itself.

I really appreciate this post. Its true no matter what you believe, even if you trust in what science has to say. You can prove it "without a doubt", there will always be that what if and I think thats the beauty of it, our want to understand, but yet we always press further. How many people have "proven it" only for their findings to be added to something else, or proven wrong by someone else and having their own idea replace it. Science is only as good as the humans that study and find, and although its much more resonable than religion its far from perfect itself.

Obbe

2007-09-09, 02:18

this is a troll-thread.

yay! :)

KikoSanchez

2007-09-09, 15:45

How do you know they can kill you? Because you've seen this happen to other people?

Ha ha, and you're sure thats evidence of something real?

Experience is not evidence of reality, and unless you consider it to be, then there can be no evidence that experience is illusion...because that evidence, itself, would be part of the illusion.

However, if you choose to believe that experience is evidence of reality, then all experiences would be real. There would be no illusions.

All that an illusion is, is something which doesn't fit with what you think you know to be true. But all the things you think you know, you really don't, except for 'I AM'.

So. Aham Brahmasmi. And death is only an illusion.

Is there really? Then provide some.

Prove to me that you are real, and not an illusion which I happen to be experiencing.

What is your definition of an illusion?

Obbe

2007-09-09, 17:49

What is your definition of an illusion?

Words have many meanings.

By illusion, I mean a false representation of reality, something which is believed to be untrue, which does not correlate with what is already believed to be true.

What is truth? Everything you think you know about reality, you do not actually know. You only believe you know it. The only 'truth', the only thing you can 'know' (even though these kind of recognitions of the truth are false) is 'I AM'. 'I AM' apparently experiencing a truth or an illusion.

For example, if you are in a room with a 'crazy person', and they are 'hallucinating' 20 other people in the room, you would consider that experience they are having to be an illusion. You 'know' their aren't 20 other people in the room.

But do you really? No. You yourself don't even know if the crazy person and the room are real. If we continue to define illusion in this way, then every experience (reality) should be considered an illusion given that 'I AM' is the only thing that can be considered to represent truth.

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-09, 20:34

Words have many meanings.

By illusion, I mean a false representation of reality, something which is believed to be untrue, which does not correlate with what is already believed to be true.

What is truth? Everything you think you know about reality, you do not actually know. You only believe you know it. The only 'truth', the only thing you can 'know' (even though these kind of recognitions of the truth are false) is 'I AM'. 'I AM' apparently experiencing a truth or an illusion.

For example, if you are in a room with a 'crazy person', and they are 'hallucinating' 20 other people in the room, you would consider that experience they are having to be an illusion. You 'know' their aren't 20 other people in the room.

But do you really? No. You yourself don't even know if the crazy person and the room are real. If we continue to define illusion in this way, then every experience (reality) should be considered an illusion given that 'I AM' is the only thing that can be considered to represent truth.

Everything shares the same now, thats why "I am", and "you are". I don't 'know' this in the sense that I know "I am", but theres nothing that can be done to change the fact that "you are" as far as I'm concerned, it just "is".

Truth is concepts slapped onto things that "are", things that share this now with us. This is where empirical evidence and consistency come in to play, to determine the properties of the matter that shares the same now as us. And yes I only 'believe' that this here rock sits in front of me, but that doesn't change the fact that it shares my same now.

For something to be considered 'real' it must be in this present moment right now. So considering this, the example you made can go both ways. Yes the crazy person can have some sort of change in brain chemistry that lets him see dark matter or some other element or material that the normal person can not see, meaning these 20 entity's that he is seeing experience the same now as us, there just composed of different matter or w/e. Or his brain can be pumping out massive amounts of DMT since hes schizophrenic, causing him to hallucinate.

Of coarse we don't know anything about alien entity's made of dark matter or w/e, but one thing we do know is that we are experiencing the now, and the now consists of other beings besides us, whether we believe it or not, it just is. Honestly though how can you think everything you experience is an illusion?

Obbe

2007-09-09, 22:25

Everything shares the same now, thats why "I am", and "you are". I don't 'know' this in the sense that I know "I am", but theres nothing that can be done to change the fact that "you are" as far as I'm concerned, it just "is".

You don't know that Obbe exists. All you know is 'I AM' (your own perspective), even though you perceive me as existing in the 'now', doesn't mean I really do.

This is where empirical evidence and consistency come in to play

Consistency with what? That 'past', which you don't know exists? 'Other perceptions'? How do you know they can accurately communicate their experience? How do you know they even exist?

Evidence and consistency only prove things within an illusion, because they are part of the illusion themselves.

And yes I only 'believe' that this here rock sits in front of me, but that doesn't change the fact that it shares my same now.

No, you perceive it as sharing the 'same now'. You are the rock.

So considering this, the example you made can go both ways.

Which demonstrates my point that reality, in its simplest form, is awareness of nothing. Everything else is a matter of perspective, and requires faith.

Yes the crazy person can have some sort of change in brain chemistry that lets him see dark matter or some other element or material that the normal person can not see, meaning these 20 entity's that he is seeing experience the same now as us, there just composed of different matter or w/e. Or his brain can be pumping out massive amounts of DMT since hes schizophrenic, causing him to hallucinate.

You'll never be able to know either way. The point is that without faith and belief, reality is simply 'being'.

'I AM'

Honestly though how can you think everything you experience is an illusion?

Why do you think anything you experience may be true?

Its just a matter of perspective. The enlightened individual would not consider reality as illusion or as truth. He would not experience it.

Edit- similar response from another thread:

Reality is, obviously, what you make it. 'Truth' and 'illusion' are no more then perspectives, no more solid and definite then 'good' and 'evil'.

My point, is that without faith and in its simplest, truest form reality is awareness of nothing, 'being', the void...the only truth which the untrue recognition of thoughts like 'I AM' and 'Aham Brahmasmi' represent.

Existence.

Uranium238

2007-09-10, 21:18

You don't know that Obbe exists. All you know is 'I AM' (your own perspective), even though you perceive me as existing in the 'now', doesn't mean I really do.

Consistency with what? That 'past', which you don't know exists? 'Other perceptions'? How do you know they can accurately communicate their experience? How do you know they even exist?

Evidence and consistency only prove things within an illusion, because they are part of the illusion themselves.

No, you perceive it as sharing the 'same now'. You are the rock.

Which demonstrates my point that reality, in its simplest form, is awareness of nothing. Everything else is a matter of perspective, and requires faith.

You'll never be able to know either way. The point is that without faith and belief, reality is simply 'being'.

'I AM'

Why do you think anything you experience may be true?

Its just a matter of perspective. The enlightened individual would not consider reality as illusion or as truth. He would not experience it.

Edit- similar response from another thread:

Shut the fuck up. You are spewing nonsensical bullshit.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-10, 21:27

...mind explaining? I seem a little slow. :(

Science = proven truth.

Explanation....science is a tool for finding the truth. It is a self correcting process of thought designed to used by anyone who learns its method.

In short, it has excellent bullshit detecting capabilities. For example, if you logged onto a science website and published some findings of your in an experiment you are subject to peer review. Everyone who wants to can try to disprove your claims and try they fucking will. If they are unable to refute the claims you made and the claims you make are gathered in a scientific fashion you have just discovered truth.

Truth is a strong word. Someone can still disprove it.

Science is as true as it can be. It is the pursuit of truth. You have to prove it and when you do it is accepted as proven truth.

Science = proven truth.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-10, 22:15

Obbe

2007-09-11, 02:02

Shut the fuck up. You are spewing nonsensical bullshit.

Again, matter of perspective.

Obbe

2007-09-11, 02:06

For example, if you logged onto a science website and published some findings of your in an experiment you are subject to peer review. Everyone who wants to can try to disprove your claims and try they fucking will. If they are unable to refute the claims you made and the claims you make are gathered in a scientific fashion you have just discovered truth.

Have you? How do you know these people exist, that the experiments you observe are real?

Science is as true as it can be.

Science is good for 'proving truth' within an illusion, but that truth is still based on the perspectives within that illusion.

Obbe

2007-09-11, 02:18

...to understand if either of those 3 were illusions or reality, since there is no comparable reality to test them against.

No, but theres still the existence which is trying to understand. Existence, awareness of nothing, is the comparable truth.

I already stated perceiving your experiences as true reality or illusion all matters on your perspective. You can choose to perceive experience as truth, or decide that the only thing that can be known to be true is 'being', or some mixed up combination of the two and decide some things are true but not others.

I believe all I 'know' is 'I AM', and all other things are an illusion to this truth. I also understand that recognition of this is not actually real or true, because knowing 'I AM' is more then the the the simple truth represented by 'I AM'.

The enlightened individual would not perceive truths or illusions. They are aware of nothing.

Aham Brahmasmi.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-11, 02:27

No, but theres still the existence which is trying to understand. Existence, awareness of nothing, is the comparable truth.

I already stated perceiving your experiences as true reality or illusion all matters on your perspective. You can choose to perceive experience as truth, or decide that the only that can be known to be true is 'being', or some mixed up combination of the two and decided some things are true but not others.

I believe all I 'know' is 'I AM', and all other things are an illusion to this truth. I also understand that recognition of this is not actually real or true, because knowing 'I AM' is more then the the the simple truth represented by 'I AM'.

The enlightened individual would not perceive truths or illusions. They are aware of nothing.

Aham Brahmasmi.

Wow now that would be sumthin to perceive neither truth nor illusion. This awareness of nothing would be an awareness of everything as well though, wouldn't it?

Obbe

2007-09-11, 02:37

Wow now that would be sumthin to perceive neither truth nor illusion. This awareness of nothing would be an awareness of everything as well though, wouldn't it?

What do you think?

Check out those meditations I posted in the magic mushroom thread.

Surak

2007-09-11, 05:41

Kill yourself, Obbe. You offer nothing of any substance to anyone.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-11, 06:12

I believe he is what we would call an Obscurantist. Also, it seems he is taking stuff from eastern philosophy, which rejects logic as paramount.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-11, 06:32

I believe he is what we would call an Obscurantist. Also, it seems he is taking stuff from eastern philosophy, which rejects logic as paramount.

How does eastern philosophy reject logic? Also, Obscurantism is with holding information, you know like our government does? I don't think Obbe has "withheld" information, unless your implying he knows something we don't. It can also mean the opposition of the spreading of knowledge. Well wouldn't opposing the spread of christianity make you an obscurantist? Why, than it mearly means what you define as "knowledge".

Obbe

2007-09-11, 11:54

Kill yourself, Obbe. You offer nothing of any substance to anyone.

Ah hahahaha :D

You are the one who still thinks anything has substance. Clearly i have offered nothing which you are willing to see.

So be it. I care not. Continue on chasing after momentary happiness while striving to seem witty and intellectual, arguing how stupid other people are with their silly little beliefs while on a religious forum. Thats meaningful.

Obbe

2007-09-11, 11:58

I believe he is what we would call an Obscurantist. Also, it seems he is taking stuff from eastern philosophy, which rejects logic as paramount.

I am trying to be as clear as possible. If something is vague, quote it, and I will be happy to help clear things up.

Also, I 'take' nothing from eastern philosophy except terminology which I apply to very similar concepts I came about on my own, before even knowing of the eastern terminology itself.

This says more about eastern philosophy then it does about the creation of my concepts.

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-13, 03:39

You don't know that Obbe exists. All you know is 'I AM' (your own perspective), even though you perceive me as existing in the 'now', doesn't mean I really do.

It dosn't matter if I know you exist or not, it dosn't change the fact that you do.

Consistency with what? That 'past', which you don't know exists? 'Other perceptions'? How do you know they can accurately communicate their experience? How do you know they even exist?

Consistency as in consistency with other perceptions, which is relatively the same with everyone when your talking about empiricism. How do I know? Well it comes down to obvious instinct really, if we all perceived empirical matter differently, then most communication would be impossible. If you and I both perceived our keyboards differently, how could we accurately type in the same language and accurately read each others ideas?

Evidence and consistency only prove things within an illusion, because they are part of the illusion themselves.

Well, I'll ask the same question you've been asking me, how do you "know" this. There really is no way to find out if our whole life experience is an illusion, but its completely irrelevent to think about since you can't compare this "illusion" were supposedly living in with anything else.

No, you perceive it as sharing the 'same now'. You are the rock.

I'd rather perceive it as both the rock and I are the now.

Which demonstrates my point that reality, in its simplest form, is awareness of nothing. Everything else is a matter of perspective, and requires faith.

Wow, realize that awareness of nothing is a contradictory statement please.

Reality is awareness of the now.

You'll never be able to know either way. The point is that without faith and belief, reality is simply 'being'

Mhmm, thats why we developed the 5 senses right, to experience a complete illusion?

Everyone has senses so we can compare them with each other to distinguish value in certain peices of matter. With further use of the senses language and thought came along(in the same package since you can't think without language), which in turn lead to agreeable terms for empirical matter, which in term lead to idiots trying to change already universally agreeable terms into there own terms, which in turn, lead to bullshit.

Why do you think anything you experience may be true?

Its just a matter of perspective. The enlightened individual would not consider reality as illusion or as truth. He would not experience it.

Edit- similar response from another thread:

I experience things as true because I can compare things my senses perceive consistently with the same thing that someone else is perceiving. You on the other hand, have nothing to compare your "illusions" to.

The "enlightened" individual would be experiencing the now to its fullest, regardless of his emotions or thoughts. But maybe I can throw the perspective argument out there on this proposition and ask: how the fuck do you know?

Obbe

2007-09-13, 04:09

It dosn't matter if I know you exist or not, it dosn't change the fact that you do.

How is it fact if its not known?

Consistency as in consistency with other perceptions, which is relatively the same with everyone when your talking about empiricism. How do I know? Well it comes down to obvious instinct really, if we all perceived empirical matter differently, then most communication would be impossible. If you and I both perceived our keyboards differently, how could we accurately type in the same language and accurately read each others ideas?

You seem to fail realizing that other people are part of your perception. Nothing that you find consistent with another persons perception proves anything about your perception, because they and their testimony are a part of your perception.

Well, I'll ask the same question you've been asking me, how do you "know" this.

I don't.

There really is no way to find out if our whole life experience is an illusion, but its completely irrelevent to think about since you can't compare this "illusion" were supposedly living in with anything else.

Irrelevant to what?

Sure you can. The state of awareness of nothing.

realize that awareness of nothing is a contradictory statement please.

Realize that does not matter.

Reality is awareness of the now.

Thats illusion. Reality is 'being'.

Mhmm, thats why we developed the 5 senses right, to experience a complete illusion?

Developed eh? And you know senses developed how?

Everyone has senses so we can compare them with each other to distinguish value in certain peices of matter. With further use of the senses language and thought came along(in the same package since you can't think without language), which in turn lead to agreeable terms for empirical matter, which in term lead to idiots trying to change already universally agreeable terms into there own terms, which in turn, lead to bullshit.

This already is bullshit. Your entire perception of the above progression is already bullshit.

I experience things as true because I can compare things my senses perceive consistently with the same thing that someone else is perceiving.

DO YOU KNOW THE OTHER EXISTS?

You on the other hand, have nothing to compare your "illusions" to.

The only thing any illusion can be compared to is awareness of nothing, 'being', the only thing known.

The "enlightened" individual would be experiencing the now to its fullest, regardless of his emotions or thoughts.

Depending on your definition of enlightened.

But maybe I can throw the perspective argument out there on this proposition and ask: how the fuck do you know?

I don't.

:)

FreedomHippie

2007-09-13, 04:26

It dosn't matter if I know you exist or not, it dosn't change the fact that you do.

How do you come to this logic? Why don't I say "it doesnt matter if i know there's a god or not, it doesn't change the fact that there is." Thats basically what your saying there.

Well, I'll ask the same question you've been asking me, how do you "know" this. There really is no way to find out if our whole life experience is an illusion, but its completely irrelevent to think about since you can't compare this "illusion" were supposedly living in with anything else.

Its obvious we can't prove that everything we experience is an illusion anymore than we can prove that the only thing that exists in this now that you speak of. Are you saying something is irrelevant solely because it has nothing to be compared to? Why would you want to compare one illusion to another? That would be irrelevant.

I'd rather perceive it as both the rock and I are the now.
Which is what it comes down to anyway, your individual choices in what you believe, whether it agrees with someone elses or not.

I experience things as true because I can compare things my senses perceive consistently with the same thing that someone else is perceiving. You on the other hand, have nothing to compare your "illusions" to.

So whatever fits in with your senses and what other people tell you they see, is true? Your comparing illusions yourself without being aware of it, or maybe you are aware of it. Say your in a room with the infamous crazy person who sees 20 people in the room, while another person in the room sees only you, and the other crazy person. By this logic, the "truth" (atleast to you) would be that there are only 3 people in the room because that is consistant with what you believe. How do you know there really aren't 20 people in the room? How do you know the person who says there are only 3 people in the room is lieing, and really sees 20?

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-13, 20:58

How is it fact if its not known?

I Slightly mis worded that statement, but I don't see how I could be arguing with myself since none of your ideas share anything with mine, and if I was arguing with some sort of "illusion" I would never have anything to compare it to anyways, which would make it reality.

You seem to fail realizing that other people are part of your perception. Nothing that you find consistent with another persons perception proves anything about your perception, because they and their testimony are a part of your perception.

Yes and me and my testimony are part of there perception, so when we agree that a certain perception is similar for everyone who views it, its called empiricism. A good and easy example is this site totse, you do agree that the words spell out totse correctly right?

I don't.

Then why the hell are you debating with me?

Irrelevant to what?

Sure you can. The state of awareness of nothing.

It's irrelevant to the now, our life experience.

And I don't understand how you can compare an illusion to being aware of nothing(which is ceasing to exist). Thats just complete nonsense. If your comparing this big "illusion" to awareness of nothing(which is nothing at all) then really theres nothing to compare this "illusion" to, which would make the illusion reality.

Realize that does not matter.

I guess it doesn't matter if your an idiot.

Thats illusion. Reality is 'being'.

If the now was an illusion you would not be able to type this reply to me cause you would not exist, and you would not "be" because you would have no now to "be" in.

Developed eh? And you know senses developed how?

I'm assuming they just didn't pop out of thin air one day, but I can agree with you here, I don't know because there is no way to verify it, its just the most plausible explanation.

This already is bullshit. Your entire perception of the above progression is already bullshit.

No its not, you couldn't think without language, you can't breathe without oxygen, you can't see without eyes. Trees are made of wood, you can make paper out of wood, and the sky is blue. This is all empirical information on certain pieces of matter. This is obvious information for most 5 year olds, and yet you can't see that this is our reality because your so trapped in a hippie hole. You where taught this information by some adult figure, who hopefully you realize exists in reality, cause I don't really see how a brain that can't think could develop such idiotic ideas as your own without communication with other objective beings.

DO YOU KNOW THE OTHER EXISTS?

Do you know he doesn't?

Should we also take in mind that the individual effects our life in some way, shape, or form that we cannot? So wouldn't the most plausible (and sane) conclusion be that this individual does indeed exist as an objective being?

The only thing any illusion can be compared to is awareness of nothing, 'being', the only thing known.

This is another one of your dumb ass statements. Awareness of nothing is being unaware, if your unaware you cannot experience reality or illusion, you would not be conscious. If you are a conscious being (like you and I) you are always aware of something, even if it is just this present moment, then you can distinguish illusion from reality if you please, that is, if the illusion can compare to something other than nothing.

Depending on your definition of enlightened.

All definitions of enlightenment are somewhat related to peace of mind and self.

I don't.

:)

Again, why are you making yourself look like a jackass and arguing about something that you think is pointless, with someone who you think doesn't exist then?

Syphon

2007-09-13, 21:07

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-13, 21:07

How do you come to this logic? Why don't I say "it doesnt matter if i know there's a god or not, it doesn't change the fact that there is." Thats basically what your saying there.

Because I'm comparing it with something that I can communicate to, I'm not comparing it with ghosts or demons or gods, ya dig? Reality vs. Fiction.

Its obvious we can't prove that everything we experience is an illusion anymore than we can prove that the only thing that exists in this now that you speak of. Are you saying something is irrelevant solely because it has nothing to be compared to? Why would you want to compare one illusion to another? That would be irrelevant.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Which is what it comes down to anyway, your individual choices in what you believe, whether it agrees with someone elses or not.

Well on things besides empiricism yes, I think we can both agree that women have vagina's right? Or is that an illusion to?

So whatever fits in with your senses and what other people tell you they see, is true? Your comparing illusions yourself without being aware of it, or maybe you are aware of it. Say your in a room with the infamous crazy person who sees 20 people in the room, while another person in the room sees only you, and the other crazy person. By this logic, the "truth" (atleast to you) would be that there are only 3 people in the room because that is consistant with what you believe. How do you know there really aren't 20 people in the room? How do you know the person who says there are only 3 people in the room is lieing, and really sees 20?

You are the definition of retarded, please stay out of this argument.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-13, 22:12

Because I'm comparing it with something that I can communicate to, I'm not comparing it with ghosts or demons or gods, ya dig? Reality vs. Fiction.

This is your reality and your fiction. I could agree with what you say is reality, and what you say is fiction. That would be something you could communicate too and other people would agree on the same ideas and that would be your reality. What about someone who has had a spiritual experience? That would be reality to them, and how do you prove them wrong that it wasn't? You could either say its bullshit, or agree with them and than it becomes part of your "reality".

What the fuck are you talking about?
well...you could try and read it again...

Well on things besides empiricism yes, I think we can both agree that women have vagina's right? Or is that an illusion to?
Let me ask you this, when you were a child did you know women had vagina's? How did you gain this knowledge? You learned it, whether it be from experience or someone telling you about it or whatever.

You are the definition of retarded, please stay out of this argument.
Why?

Dragon Slayer

2007-09-13, 22:37

This is your reality and your fiction. I could agree with what you say is reality, and what you say is fiction. That would be something you could communicate too and other people would agree on the same ideas and that would be your reality. What about someone who has had a spiritual experience? That would be reality to them, and how do you prove them wrong that it wasn't? You could either say its bullshit, or agree with them and than it becomes part of your "reality".

Well give me an example of a "spiritual experience". Most, if not all, have psychological explanations. But even if this person actually did have one without having some sort of hallucination, I and the other person could still agree with empirical reality, we would just have a disagreement in ghosts and demons, which is at least a little more acceptable then the guy saying those ghosts and demons and everything else are just illusions.

well...you could try and read it again...

If your trying to say we don't know if the now is an illusion or not, thats absurd. Your in the now right now, and you wouldn't exist without it, you can compare the now to yourself since you depend on it, both are quite the opposite of irrelevant illusions. And yes for something to have value it has to be comparable to something else of value. Like food has value because your life has value and you need to eat to live.

Let me ask you this, when you were a child did you know women had vagina's? How did you gain this knowledge? You learned it, whether it be from experience or someone telling you about it or whatever.

No, Because I couldn't think since I didn't know language. When the years passed I was taught the basic concepts of the English language and learned each word that represented each piece of matter in reality. So me not knowing the concept of a vagina did not change the fact that my sole existence relied on one.

Why?

Sorry about the random aggressive response there, definitely was uncalled for. But the illusion argument is really just an easy way out of thinking. You can use it for anything and its just as meaningless in every argument, because if you truly believed this you wouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Obbe

2007-09-13, 23:15

I don't see how I could be arguing with myself since none of your ideas share anything with mine

Why would they have to? A 'crazy person' can have arguments with themselves an not realize theres nobody else there.

You're crazy!!

if I was arguing with some sort of "illusion" I would never have anything to compare it to anyways, which would make it reality.

Yes, you do. You have the only truth.

Yes and me and my testimony are part of there perception, so when we agree that a certain perception is similar for everyone who views it, its called empiricism.

If they are real, you don't know that what you hear them say is what they are actually trying to communicate!!

How do you know 'they' know you exist in the first fucking place? You don't even know they are real!

Their entire testimony that they exist, that they can perceive you, and that they perceive reality in the same way as you, is all part of your perception!!

A good and easy example is this site totse, you do agree that the words spell out totse correctly right?

How is this an example of anything?

'Totse' is only considered 'right', because I perceive it as being right. It is correct in relation to what I beleiev is correct. I believe its correct because I perceive other people perceiving it as totse, and that they believe totse is right too. But I do not know any of that.

I do not know if what you are trying to communicate is what I am receiving.

I do not know if what I am receiving is correct...correct in relation to what?

I do not know that this other person actually exists, and that totse is a word.

Then why the hell are you debating with me?

Because I can.

It's irrelevant to the now, our life experience.

So, experiences being illusions is irrelevant to someone experiencing the illusion?

Or...do you only consider it so?

And I don't understand how you can compare an illusion to being aware of nothing(which is ceasing to exist). Thats just complete nonsense. If your comparing this big "illusion" to awareness of nothing(which is nothing at all) then really theres nothing to compare this "illusion" to, which would make the illusion reality.

Awareness of nothing certainly is something. It means the same as 'being', the void, I AM, God etc...

Its the only truth. Reality, being truth, being what you know. I AM is all you can know. Everything you experience, when compared with the only truth, becomes illusion. Because these experiences cannot be known.

Reality is 'being'.

I guess it doesn't matter if your an idiot.

Insulting me does nothing to help your case.

Awareness of nothing represents balance and simplicity and singularity.

If the now was an illusion you would not be able to type this reply to me cause you would not exist, and you would not "be" because you would have no now to "be" in.

And, amazingly enough, you have no idea if I do exist, if I am replying you, or that I am.

Also amazingly, and as I have been saying, you do know that you exist (or, 'I AM' in other words), and that being the only thing you do know your experience of reality is considered an illusion.

Reality, as far as you know, is 'being'. The only truth, is 'being'.

Understand?

I'm assuming they just didn't pop out of thin air one day, but I can agree with you here, I don't know because there is no way to verify it, its just the most plausible explanation.

Plausible how? Because of everything you think you know?

Or every thing you know? Which is more plausible based on knowledge?

No its not, you couldn't think without language, you can't breathe without oxygen, you can't see without eyes. Trees are made of wood, you can make paper out of wood, and the sky is blue. This is all empirical information on certain pieces of matter. This is obvious information for most 5 year olds, and yet you can't see that this is our reality because your so trapped in a hippie hole. You where taught this information by some adult figure, who hopefully you realize exists in reality, cause I don't really see how a brain that can't think could develop such idiotic ideas as your own without communication with other objective beings.

Who says you are even a lonely brain?

All of thats bullshit, because you cannot know it. Its all a perception, and in comparison to what you know to be reality, an illusion.

Do you know he doesn't?

No, all I know is 'I AM', and based on that his existence is an illusion.

Should we also take in mind that the individual effects our life in some way, shape, or form that we cannot?

No, because you have no idea if you've experienced life or just think you have, no idea if he exists. Or anything about life.

So wouldn't the most plausible (and sane) conclusion be that this individual does indeed exist as an objective being?

Not at all.

Sanity is nothing more then a consensual perspective, and even then, you only believe its consensual, because you have no idea if others exist.

This is another one of your dumb ass statements.

No, you just do not understand it.

All definitions of enlightenment are somewhat related to peace of mind and self.

Which is contradictory to what I said how?

Again, why are you making yourself look like a jackass and arguing about something that you think is pointless, with someone who you think doesn't exist then?

Because I can. Its really fun.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-14, 00:29

If your trying to say we don't know if the now is an illusion or not, thats absurd. Your in the now right now, and you wouldn't exist without it, you can compare the now to yourself since you depend on it, both are quite the opposite of irrelevant illusions.

This is the part that just doesn't make sense to me. Your saying that without "now" that I experience I wouldn't even exist. Your saying the experiences create the experiencer. I can compare the now to myself? Well i could compare myself to anything, whether it be illusion or not. That doesn't mean that I depend on it, it depends on me. It just seems to me that your saying consciousness, life, whatever you want to call it, is created out of this now. And how do you know the "now" that i experience is the same as your "now"? How do i know that you really exist, or your just part of my "now" that I experience?

And yes for something to have value it has to be comparable to something else of value. Like food has value because your life has value and you need to eat to live

gold has value... is it because my life has value?
oil has value.... is it because my life has value?
money has value... is it because my life has value?

That would all depend on your individual view of what is valuable. But to any extent, yes we need food to survive.

Is reality valuable? what do you compare reality to that makes it valuable?

Xerxes35

2007-09-14, 06:27

Xerxes35

2007-09-14, 06:28

Is reality valuable? what do you compare reality to that makes it valuable?

You are also a dumbfuck.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-14, 06:33

You are also a dumbfuck.

Why???

Xerxes35

2007-09-14, 06:37

You asked is reality valuable, and for this you are fucking stupid.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-14, 06:38

You asked is reality valuable, and for this you are fucking stupid.

do you even know what the discussion is about? Do you have anything of any value to add? :p

Xerxes35

2007-09-14, 06:39

do you even know what the discussion is about?

Yes, religious views.

Xerxes35

2007-09-14, 06:41

Nice editing job on your post after i answer. Yes I have something to contribute. Go learn about nature and science and learn what is really happening. don't believe your bullshit religious views.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-14, 06:44

Nice editing job on your post after i answer. Yes I have something to contribute. Go learn about nature and science and learn what is really happening. don't believe your bullshit religious views.

Actually I edited before I even saw your post. I am well aware of nature and science. Discussion of something doesn't automatically mean I live by it and accept it as my own belief. If you think religious views are all bullshit, why are you even here?

Surak

2007-09-14, 19:00

"You asked is reality valuable, and for this you are fucking stupid."

He's been listening to that stupid dipshit, Obbe. Don't bother even trying to communicate with either of them. They'll just keep asking your worthless questions like "But is air REALLY meaningful?" or saying shit like "This is all an illusion and we are all liars."

Massive idiots, both of them.

Obbe

2007-09-14, 22:14

Massive idiots, both of them.

I'm sure I seem that way to pretty much everyone.

I don't care.

BTW, you never replied regarding this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8869730&postcount=55)...and more importantly this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8877066&postcount=62)...

:(

BrokeProphet

2007-09-15, 00:16

I'm sure I seem that way to pretty much everyone.

I don't care.

BTW, you never replied regarding this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8869730&postcount=55)...and more importantly this (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8877066&postcount=62)...

:(

Your a funny cunt and as always a total waste of anyone's time.

Obbe

2007-09-15, 00:24

Your a funny cunt and as always a total waste of anyone's time.

Everything is a waste of time.

...oh wait...theres time???

BrokeProphet

2007-09-15, 00:49

Everything is a waste of time.

...oh wait...theres time???

Yes there is such a thing as time. There is such a thing as space time. It is proven mathematically and explains things such as gravity and many other proven concepts.

Unless you have something other than baby talk and nonsense to dispute this with then you are a cunt whose mother should have killed with a coat hanger, thus tidying up the gene pool a bit.

Obbe

2007-09-15, 01:11

Nope. Time is maya.

There was never a before, and there will never be an after.

Oh, and I find your habit of insulting me ironic, considering your position...

I was SHOCKED to find a pointless ad hominem attack instead of a deep and thought provoking post. Seriously, are you at all capable of arguing your beliefs?

BrokeProphet

2007-09-15, 01:19

Nope. Time is maya.

There was never a before, and there will never be an after.

Oh, and I find your habit of insulting me ironic, considering your position...

Why not insult you. You beg to be insulted. I insult.

I was saying to myenemy that, that is all he does is insult people without making a point. That was my position.

By the way you digging up a quote and pointing that out makes me proud. You can actually think without resorting to bullshit and senseless beliefs you have yet to define to anyone in any type of order. Good work.

And again you cannot say there is no time when mathmatics say otherwise. Unless you can refute the equations that relate time and space YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. You do NOT have a point and as I mentioned earlier are a total cunt and a waste of TIME.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-15, 01:34

He's been listening to that stupid dipshit, Obbe. Don't bother even trying to communicate with either of them. They'll just keep asking your worthless questions like "But is air REALLY meaningful?" or saying shit like "This is all an illusion and we are all liars."

Massive idiots, both of them.

If discussing something automatically titles me as listening to someone else's argument, than so be it. And i said is reality valuable in the sense of the word "value", that something needs to be compared to something else to have value as someone else had said.

Obbe

2007-09-15, 01:41

And again you cannot say there is no time when mathmatics say otherwise. Unless you can refute the equations that relate time and space YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Sure I do. Time, space, the equations, and your recognition of them are all illusions.

Whats an illusion? It is something which is not true to our perception of reality. However, what you perceive as being truth is not necessarily true. Truth is what you know to be true. And you cannot know anything about reality to be true.

There is only one truth.

This is represented by 'I AM', 'being', 'aware of nothing' and so forth. You cannot actually know this, because even the recognition of these words or thoughts or concepts is an illusion to the truth they represent.

If we are to continue saying that an illusion is something which is not true to reality, and the only thing you know to be true is whats represented by 'I AM' (and that even that recognition is an illusion), then true reality is whats represented by 'I AM'.

All other perceptions are considered illusions to this truth, in the same way a person who considers their perception to be reality would consider another person using hallucinogenic drugs to be experiencing illusions.

Note that the person who considers their perception to be reality is actually experiencing illusion, in the same manner that one who solely recognizes 'I AM' is still experiencing an illusion to the truth represented by that thought.

Obbe

2007-09-15, 02:09

I was saying to myenemy that, that is all he does is insult people without making a point. That was my position.

And all you did was the exact same thing after not being able to make your point.

Its how you started our discussion today in this thread.

You can actually think! :eek:

I do not believe we have discussed anything outside of this forum.

l33t-haX0r

2007-09-15, 04:09

Sure I do. Time, space, the equations, and your recognition of them are all illusions.

Whats an illusion? It is something which is not true to our perception of reality. However, what you perceive as being truth is not necessarily true. Truth is what you know to be true. And you cannot know anything about reality to be true.

There is only one truth.

This is represented by 'I AM', 'being', 'aware of nothing' and so forth. You cannot actually know this, because even the recognition of these words or thoughts or concepts is an illusion to the truth they represent.

If we are to continue saying that an illusion is something which is not true to reality, and the only thing you know to be true is whats represented by 'I AM' (and that even that recognition is an illusion), then true reality is whats represented by 'I AM'.

All other perceptions are considered illusions to this truth, in the same way a person who considers their perception to be reality would consider another person using hallucinogenic drugs to be experiencing illusions.

Note that the person who considers their perception to be reality is actually experiencing illusion, in the same manner that one who solely recognizes 'I AM' is still experiencing an illusion to the truth represented by that thought.

What the fuck is this shit? Cut out all the illusion crap, there's no need for it. It doesn't come in to it one way or another.

Obbe

2007-09-15, 05:24

What the fuck is this shit? Cut out all the illusion crap, there's no need for it. It doesn't come in to it one way or another.

Would you mind explaining yourself?

Would you mind explaining how you know your experiences are reality?

BrokeProphet

2007-09-15, 20:49

Would you mind explaining yourself?

Would you mind explaining how you know your experiences are reality?

Let me explain something to you: I am a realist. Here is the definition of a realist.

The world is a set of definite facts, which obtain independently of humans, and these facts are the final arbiter of truth.

"The world is all that is the case" — Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

You are an anti-realsit. The dispute between the realist and anti-realist conception of truth hinges on reactions to the epistemic accessibility (knowability, graspability) of facts.

In short, You believe in shit that is and cannot be proven. This gives you enough bullshit to think you are debating or that you know anything. You do not KNOW anything b/c to know something, as I see it you need proof.

Or to debate something you need more proof than the other person. I have more proof to your inane questions than you do for the legitimacy of the god damned question itself.

An example of your stupid line of questioning:

Q: How do you know you exist?

A: Because I am typing you with fingers, this message; the contents of which are based on thoughts from my brain which in turn is fed blood, oxygen and nutrients from my myraid of bodily systems.

The answer is provable. It is proven. It is real.

What have you in the way of ANY kind of proof for your anti-realist argument? That is to say, what justification behind your inane questions have you?

Obbe

2007-09-15, 21:04

The answer is provable. It is proven. It is real.

What have you in the way of ANY kind of proof for your anti-realist argument? That is to say, what justification behind your inane questions have you?

That you cannot actually know what you experience is real.

Your answers are not provable, except within their own illusion.

The infamous crazy man trapped in the room with 20 people you and I don't see, knows those people exist, in the exact same sense you know I am real. He can talk to them, see them, feel them and is affected by them. They are real.

Or, at least he believes they are. And your perception of reality is no different. You cannot know that Obbe, or any of it to be real, except for the truth represented by the recognition of 'I AM', awareness of nothing, and the like.

And like I said in the larger argument you, conveniently, chose to ignore, one who solely recognizes 'I AM' is still experiencing an illusion to the truth represented by that thought.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-15, 21:13

That you cannot actually know what you experience is real.

Your answers are not provable, except within their own illusion.

The infamous crazy man trapped in the room with 20 people you and I don't see, knows those people exist, in the exact same sense you know I am real. He can talk to them, see them, feel them and is affected by them. They are real.

Or, at least he believes they are. And your perception of reality is no different. You cannot know that Obbe, or any of it to be real, except for the truth represented by the recognition of 'I AM', awareness of nothing, and the like.

And like I said in the larger argument you, conveniently, chose to ignore, one who solely recognizes 'I AM' is still experiencing an illusion to the truth represented by that thought.

You still lack more proof than I. Your crazy man theory is flawed. Show me another crazy fuck who sees and can describe the exact same individual people. YOU CANNOT.

Proven false.

On the contratry to show that my existence is real as any number of other humans who are in the room with if they can see, touch, or cup my balls. If they can I AM MORE REAL.

More proof.

Without these principles all of humantity would be lost. Is it possible their exists other creatures within another dimension who can peer into ours? Is it possible that everthing I "see" is in fact, an illusion? Is it possible that the universe is actually an apple I am about to eat?

Yes those are all "possiblities". They COULD be true. They cannot be considered truth or fact without proof. I have STILL presented more proof to my existence than you CAN to my non-existence. Game Over.

Until then we live in a shared reality where groups of people agree on what is true based on

P R O O F

You have NO proof. You are a possibility man.

"This COULD be true" So what? Not helpful? Not even very philosphical the very abstract way you put it and without proof a total waste of your own time on this earth.

Obbe

2007-09-16, 01:20

Yes those are all "possiblities". They COULD be true. They cannot be considered truth or fact without proof. I have STILL presented more proof to my existence than you CAN to my non-existence. Game Over.

What proves your existance to me?

Nothing! Nothing at all!

Please, if you think I'm wrong (and you do), prove to me you exist.

I have already stated, numerous times, that nothing can prove everything is an illusion, too. The proof itself would be an illusion!

Its not that I know everything is an illusion.

I don't.

All I know, all that is true, is the idea behind 'I AM'.

Based on that being the only truth, then everything else is considered illusion. Including thoughts of everything being illusions, and thoughts recognizing 'I AM'.

Surak

2007-09-16, 01:39

This stupid bastard doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-16, 01:51

This stupid bastard doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself.

What has he contradicted himself with?

Surak

2007-09-16, 02:30

"What has he contradicted himself with?"

His last post is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. Fuck's sakes... are some people just born stupid, or did you have to work at it?

FreedomHippie

2007-09-16, 02:33

His last post is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. Fuck's sakes... are some people just born stupid, or did you have to work at it?

Yea...and i'v read it quite carefully, just for you... I still fail to see where there is any contradiction...

Surak

2007-09-16, 02:43

"I still fail to see where there is any contradiction..."

Incredible, you're actually serious. I hope you kill yourself, because you're obviously too stupid to contribute anything meaningful to the world.

Obbe

2007-09-16, 02:51

This stupid bastard doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself.

No, I realize it.

However, can you think of any way I could communicate this without sounding contradictory?

dopeboy23

2007-09-16, 02:52

You have all failed to acknowledge the purpose of this thread.

I can not stop you from bickering, but realize there is no way anyone can prove their point. There are so many theories and concepts that can not be proven physically.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-16, 03:01

Incredible, you're actually serious. I hope you kill yourself, because you're obviously too stupid to contribute anything meaningful to the world.

Well thats helpful, and awfully meaningful...

Are you talking about thoughts of I AM being illusions? How is that contradictory?

You can't prove its an illusion anymore than you can that its not.

Obbe

2007-09-16, 18:17

Are you talking about thoughts of I AM being illusions?

Hes talking about how I said everything is illusion, and then said I know 'I AM'.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-16, 22:12

This stupid bastard doesn't even realize it when he contradicts himself.

At all.

Obbe you contradict yourself by your own admission b/c you are full of shit. When your balls drop you will realize this.

I typed the post you are currently reading. This is what is before you be it an illusion or not. If it is an illusion it is your burden of proof.

My evidence that something exists here is the apparant existence of it.

Do you understand that? That is to say I then have MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU HAVE due to the "illusion" you MAY be reading right now. Even you have to understand that by your OWN fucked up fucking logic.

MORE PROOF THAN YOU DUE TO THE "ILLUSION" YOU ARE WITNESSING RIGHT NOW.

YOU bear the burden of proof. Prove that this post is an illusion. I have by writing it proven it to be SOMETHING. Whether it be an illusion or real it is in fact SOMETHING.

Prove it is not. :)

Obbe

2007-09-16, 23:31

Whether it be an illusion or real it is in fact SOMETHING

Point out where I have said otherwise.

I haven't? Oh me, oh my.

Now tell me what you do, in fact, know.

Do you believe illusions are distortions from what you know to be true? Or do you believe experience is reality?

Do you believe I am implying some sort of worthlessness to reality due to it being an illusion?

I am not implying any sort of negativity, I am implying a balance.

wolfy_9005

2007-09-17, 10:05

Fuck religion, i've never been any worse off than a person in a religion, but so many people in religion's(jews, muslims) get killed because they beleive in something that doesnt exist. If the soul is real, then why do murderer's keep murdering. Isnt that supposed to destroy your soul or something?

Either way, their's more proof of science than of "god", and the bible's version of event's isnt plausible(like all the earth getting formed in 7 days)

Obbe

2007-09-17, 11:40

Isnt that supposed to destroy your soul or something?

Apparently not, since the soul is the foundation of your experience of reality.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-17, 19:15

How does eastern philosophy reject logic? Also, Obscurantism is with holding information, you know like our government does? I don't think Obbe has "withheld" information, unless your implying he knows something we don't. It can also mean the opposition of the spreading of knowledge. Well wouldn't opposing the spread of christianity make you an obscurantist? Why, than it mearly means what you define as "knowledge".

Maybe I should've been more specific, Hinduism has literature which does not accept logic as necessity.

"obscurantism" is a polemical term accusing authors of writing in a deliberately vague and abstruse style in order to hide their vacuousness: the writer's ignorance is obscured.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-17, 19:19

No, but theres still the existence which is trying to understand. Existence, awareness of nothing, is the comparable truth.

I already stated perceiving your experiences as true reality or illusion all matters on your perspective. You can choose to perceive experience as truth, or decide that the only thing that can be known to be true is 'being', or some mixed up combination of the two and decide some things are true but not others.

I believe all I 'know' is 'I AM', and all other things are an illusion to this truth. I also understand that recognition of this is not actually real or true, because knowing 'I AM' is more then the the the simple truth represented by 'I AM'.

Aham Brahmasmi.

But you say that you believe all experience or the outside world is illusory, so there can be no possible thing to compare it to, in order to call it an illusion. You should simply take illusion out of your vocabulary. Maybe something like, experience is fallible so we can never consider it as truth.

Obbe

2007-09-17, 22:41

But you say that you believe all experience or the outside world is illusory, so there can be no possible thing to compare it to, in order to call it an illusion.

There certainly is, while you still recognize your existance and experience.

The comparison is what you would know at that point. You know that 'I AM'. That 'you' are experiencing.

In addition to this, I add that even recognition is itself an illusion to what 'I AM', or 'awareness of nothing' and the like represent.

Being.

If 'I AM' is all thats true, then even knowledge of it, your recognition of it, has to be an illusion.

Maybe something like, experience is fallible so we can never consider it as truth.

Maybe. Is that not the same as an illusion?

Maybe one of the things I have been trying to communicate, is what is truth? Is it objective reality? Is it subjective perception? Can you know? What can you know?

BrokeProphet

2007-09-17, 23:21

Point out where I have said otherwise.

I haven't? Oh me, oh my.

Now tell me what you do, in fact, know.

Do you believe illusions are distortions from what you know to be true? Or do you believe experience is reality?

Do you believe I am implying some sort of worthlessness to reality due to it being an illusion?

I am not implying any sort of negativity, I am implying a balance.

My point was and is to show you that the burden of proving your illusion theory is on you. You did not comment on that.

You have the burden of proof b/c you lack any evidence. Even if everything is an illusion I have the evidence OF THAT ILLUSION.

You and your illusion theory have the burden of proof.

SO STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO PROVE THAT THEY EXIST OR THAT THE GOVERNMENT OR TOTSE OR EARTH EXISTS.

It is up to you to prove your shit b/c you do not have as much evidence as a realist.

GOT IT. No more Prove it bullshit. It is up to YOU to prove your shit. AT ALL.

Obbe

2007-09-17, 23:46

You have the burden of proof b/c you lack any evidence. Even if everything is an illusion I have the evidence OF THAT ILLUSION.

It is impossible to prove. I've lost count of the number of times I've said this.

That impossibility supports my conclusion.

I can not prove experience is illusion anymore the you can prove its reality. You cannot know.

However, it is evident that 'I AM' is known. I am experiencing illusion or true reality.

If illusions are are distortions from what you know to be true, and all you know to be true is 'I AM', then all experiences become illusions.

Recognition of 'I AM' is an experience. The truth, is what recognition of the thought represents. The recognition also becomes an illusion.

'Being'...'awareness of nothing'...becomes reality.

One_Armed_Scissor

2007-09-18, 05:44

How can you so blindly believe in science?

Because science is backed up by rigorous testing and empirical evidence in fact. Religion is not. Science gives us medicines that work. Science gives us computers that work. Science gives us the clean water we drink.

There is a soul. People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest a soul exists. As such, it is dubious, at best, to believe in one.

The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes.
No

I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason.
Now we're getting some where... But then you followed up this statement with this...

There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings.
No there isn't. Perhaps you are referring to gravity?
There are countless logical explanations for everything that happens, and yet you think an unseen hand has done something? Right... Pink elephants are taking a shit in your mouth right now and you don't even know it. Enjoy!

The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you.
Um... What?

Now you may ask, why are there so many people on death row, where is their destiny?
No, I am not asking that. Actually, they're there on death row because they were convicted of a felony and sentenced to death by a judge. Or was this that "unseen hand" you mentioned earlier?

The universe isn't guaranteed to force you into your set path.
No one is claiming it is.

Humans make mistakes out of emotions, and there will always be consequences.
Well yes. If I decide to shoot myself in the head, chances are one of the consequences will be that I will die. It's called cause and effect.

I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world, but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake.

Perhaps you should do some research before making another retarded post. Why would I think my existence is a mistake? It's not like I just randomly appeared and then I'm deemed some mistake.

There is an unseen force, a third person view if you will.

Again, there is no empirical evidence to suggest such and consequently, there is no need to believe in such superstition.

Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology.
Do some more research.

I am not here to criticize, but rather to just get you thinking.

The only thing I'm thinking is how dumb your post is.

Thank you for your time, and comments are welcome.[/QUOTE]

the_coup_d'etat

2007-09-18, 17:32

How can you so blindly believe in science?

There is a soul. People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.
The soul is an immortal entity that trancends time and planes. .

Correct We are not born with skills. They are learned and refined through practice. J

QUOTE=dopeboy23;8860456]I think we can all agree that everything happens for a reason. There is an unseen hand, that imposes upon our doings. The more you resist your destiny, the more the universe comes down on you..[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree but it is not unseen it is called greed. The more you try to get richer the unhppier you will be if something impedes you.

QUOTE=dopeboy23;8860456]Now you may ask, why are there so many people on death row, where is their destiny?
the universe isn't guaranteed to force you into your set path. Humans make mistakes out of emotions, and there will always be consequences..[/QUOTE]

Which all goes back to greed. We all consume and rarely produce. Most emotions relating to violence are fueled by greed.

QUOTE=dopeboy23;8860456]I am not completely aware of how most atheists see their world, but I think it is pretty naive to deny your existence as a mistake. There is an unseen force, a third person view if you will. Every religion is a different interpretation of the same ideology. .[/QUOTE]

Yet all religion seems to have one entry on greed. "God" and "Allah" Said not to have lust or covent thy neighbor. Buddha siad possesions are the source of all grief.

QUOTE=dopeboy23;8860456]I am not here to criticize, but rather to just get you thinking..[/QUOTE]

I appreciate that it beats the dickheads here in the bible belt.

QUOTE=dopeboy23;8860456]Thank you for your time, and comments are welcome.[/QUOTE]

And the same back to you.

wolfy_9005

2007-09-18, 19:00

seeing is beleiving. beleiving is blindness(or ignorance)

the G

2007-09-18, 19:02

ffs, why cant everyone grasp that you will never know if there is a god, a meaning to life, a right religion and start thinking about what is real and right infront of them.

To the op, i think religion is nothing more but a sense of security for you. And i can say this in a completely unbiased way; buddhism is the only religion that makes 'perfect' sense.

at the end of the day, the meaning of life is to just be happy, as far as anyone is concerned.

the G

2007-09-18, 19:03

seeing is beleiving. beleiving is blindness(or ignorance)

exactly

KikoSanchez

2007-09-18, 20:43

There certainly is, while you still recognize your existance and experience.

The comparison is what you would know at that point. You know that 'I AM'. That 'you' are experiencing.

In addition to this, I add that even recognition is itself an illusion to what 'I AM', or 'awareness of nothing' and the like represent.

Being.

If 'I AM' is all thats true, then even knowledge of it, your recognition of it, has to be an illusion.

Maybe. Is that not the same as an illusion?

Maybe one of the things I have been trying to communicate, is what is truth? Is it objective reality? Is it subjective perception? Can you know? What can you know?

As previously stated, per the definition of an illusion, there must be some reality to lay it up against to compare and contrast to realize what is part of objective reality and what is an illusion (which can still exist in reality, but often only as an image within one's own brain, not as something out in the material world). Stating that all our senses and rationality are completely fallible and we can't even test it with passes through intersubjectivity tests states that it is pointless to even talk about reality, b/c we can never know of it, therefore 'illusion' shouldn't even be part of our vocabulary. It's rather an agnostic/extreme skepticism, which is non-functional and devoid of analytic philosophy.

Knowledge is something like a justified true belief, as a functional definition. Take for example: seeing my monitor in front of me, which I will assert that I know. I am justified in believing it, I believe it and it is true there is a monitor in front of me. I say it is true on these premises, 1)the definition and recognition of what a monitor is, 2)the definition and recognition of what 'me' constitutes and 3) the definition and recognition of what 'in front of' means, thus realizing that (1) is (3) (2). You could argue that monitors or 'I' don't exist, but again we're working with concepts and functional defintion. This could also be intersubjectively verified, which constitutes some objectivity.
It seems you are taking 'know' and 'truth' to an unverifiable, non-functional level, almost to the Belief Analysis of knowledge, which is redundant. We have the word 'know' b/c we want something that is more substantive and solid than simply 'believe' (to be more confident than not that p). I don't see 'I am' as having anymore truth verification or protection against skepticism than anything else. You still have to rely on experience and beliefs at some point, so as to bar us from an infinite regress/circularity of systems relying upon systems.

Obbe

2007-09-18, 22:28

As previously stated, per the definition of an illusion, there must be some reality to lay it up against to compare and contrast to realize what is part of objective reality and what is an illusion (which can still exist in reality, but often only as an image within one's own brain, not as something out in the material world).

'I AM'

Stating that all our senses and rationality are completely fallible and we can't even test it with passes through intersubjectivity tests states that it is pointless to even talk about reality, b/c we can never know of it, therefore 'illusion' shouldn't even be part of our vocabulary. It's rather an agnostic/extreme skepticism, which is non-functional and devoid of analytic philosophy.

Non functional in what? The reality which becomes an illusion?

Thats the point. True, basic reality is 'awareness of nothing'.

Viewing it as pointless is choice...you choose to interact or not, you always have.

don't see 'I am' as having anymore truth verification or protection against skepticism than anything else.

Which is why the recognition of 'I AM' is an illusion.

Currently, you know you are...an observer...is observing illusion or reality. 'I AM' represents the truth, that there is a presence, but even recognition of this presence is still an illusion, if the presence is all that is truly true.

You still have to rely on experience and beliefs at some point, so as to bar us from an infinite regress/circularity of systems relying upon systems.

Thats all experience is.

Obbe

2007-09-18, 23:13

It is up to you to prove your shit b/c you do not have as much evidence as a realist.

No, we have the exact same amount.

Real.PUA

2007-09-19, 00:06

It is impossible to prove. I've lost count of the number of times I've said this.

That impossibility supports my conclusion.

Then it's cognitively irrelevant. It's impossible to prove the FSM, but that doesn't make it true.

ShouldTrip

2007-09-19, 00:58

One view of religious people I've always found amusing is the assumption that faith is required to "be a good person." And as a result, atheists must be bad people.

To which I usually respond: Not everyone needs the threat of eternal damnation and the bribe of heaven in order to behave decently towards their fellow man.

ViVe CUERVO

2007-09-19, 01:51

People are not born with skills and gifts just out of an accident.

Stopped reading here.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 02:47

Then it's cognitively irrelevant.

Cognition is irrelevant.

You know you're experiencing one or the other. You know 'I AM', the presence, is true. Because thats all you know is true, then all experience becomes illusion to this truth.

Recognizing 'I AM' is itself an experience. It is, itself, an illusion to the truth which it represents.

Awareness of nothing is true reality.

Real.PUA

2007-09-19, 02:59

Cognition is irrelevant.

To you, apparently.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 03:05

To you, apparently.

Everything you consider true, is a matter of perception.

Its all illusion when compared with the truth.

Real.PUA

2007-09-19, 03:44

Everything you consider true, is a matter of perception.

Its all illusion when compared with the truth.

No, 2+2=4. That's a fact. It's a matter of definition, not perception. But even when dealing with perception your point is irrelevant. Everyone knows it's a matter of perception, thus there is no point to state it. If I say "that grass is green" it's the same as saying "I perceive that grass to be green."

If it cannot ever be proven whether or not everything is an illusion then that matter is cognitively irrelevant. There is no point in thinking about it, ever. To bring it up is to waste everyone's time. Might as well consider the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 03:55

No, 2+2=4. That's a fact.

No, you only perceive it as so. You only believe 2 exists.

There is no point in thinking about it, ever. To bring it up is to waste everyone's time.

Hahahaha.

Its the only truth.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-19, 04:06

No, 2+2=4. That's a fact. It's a matter of definition, not perception. But even when dealing with perception your point is irrelevant. Everyone knows it's a matter of perception, thus there is no point to state it. If I say "that grass is green" it's the same as saying "I perceive that grass to be green."

If it cannot ever be proven whether or not everything is an illusion then that matter is cognitively irrelevant. There is no point in thinking about it, ever. To bring it up is to waste everyone's time. Might as well consider the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster.

2+2=4 is only a "fact" because thats what we say it is. If you really wanted to pick it apart, numbers are only symbols. Think about when we use variables in equations, all they are is a physical visible representation of a quantity.

How do we know what the symbol "2" means? Were taught that its a representation of a value. What if we lived in a world where the symbol "3" stands for the value that we connect 2 with?

Definitions are only what we say they are, symbols only mean what we make them mean. It comes down to perception and how well we all agree on those perceptions. If most people agree on it, it becomes fact.

Surak

2007-09-19, 04:24

"Cognition is irrelevant."

You speak like a retarded version of the Borg; "Cognition is irrelevant. Breathing is irrelevant. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. We will add your distinctiveness to our own, and we will be foolish together." You are almost implausibly stupid.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 12:03

You are almost implausibly stupid.

Whats stupid about it?

You're the one unwilling to see their reality as illusion. You recognize my existance as truth.

Based on whats truly known, your interpretation of reality requires faith.

And don't get so caught up on illusion. I have also said, if you instead believe that experience is truth, and that all experience is true, including that which you personally do not experience, you eventually result in the same conclusion.

All possibilities exist within God.

KikoSanchez

2007-09-19, 18:32

Cognition is irrelevant.

You know you're experiencing one or the other. You know 'I AM', the presence, is true. Because thats all you know is true, then all experience becomes illusion to this truth.

Recognizing 'I AM' is itself an experience. It is, itself, an illusion to the truth which it represents.

Awareness of nothing is true reality.

So you accept 'I AM' as illusion but, this supposed, 'presence' is truth? But then you just stated I AM IS the presence. Now you're talking yourself in circles. What is this 'presence' you speak of if not simply sensory experiences traveling into a brain? It still seems like you are speaking in a religious hindu understanding, where the I is just a perceiver, but doesn't really exist. Unfortunately I can't relate to metaphysical concepts which bear no support. It's almost as if you actually believe some single entity, 'I', exists.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 22:20

So you accept 'I AM' as illusion but, this supposed, 'presence' is truth? But then you just stated I AM IS the presence. Now you're talking yourself in circles.

No, I'm not.

'I AM' is recognition of the presence.

"I AM (the presence) experiencing either true reality or illusion."

If illusions are are distortions from what you know to be true, and all you know to be true is 'I AM', then all experiences become illusions.

Recognition of 'I AM' is an experience. The truth is what recognition of the thought represents, the presence. The recognition also becomes an illusion.

The truest form of reality is the presence itself, aware of nothing, not even itself. Simply 'being'.

What is this 'presence' you speak of if not simply sensory experiences traveling into a brain?

The presence is that which experiences, awareness of nothing, God, Dimension Zero, Dimension 10, 'being', etc.

Scraff

2007-09-19, 22:26

Obbe, at it again with an "I AM" discussion. "HE IS" a selfish fuck that is set on hijacking every thread he participates in to talk about "his" issue. Please don't help the hijacking by getting in to it with him about a subject the OP didn't intend to discuss. He's beat this fucking topic into the ground already.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 22:35

"HE IS" a selfish fuck that is set on hijacking every thread he participates in to talk about "his" issue.

Every thread? I see twelve topics on the first page which I have participated in. I believe that in only three this topic was discussed at length, and only two of those three are still on that topic.

Hijacking? I say my opinion, and leave. If people question my post, I then begin to explain it, and it may continue from there with many insults being messaged my way.

I enjoy this issue, kind of like many of the atheists here enjoy telling specifically Christians why they are wrong, and how stupid they are.

Do you think the Christians care? Do you think they want to change what they believe is true any more then you?

Hahahahaha.

Scraff

2007-09-19, 22:39

Obbe, I can list thread after thread you pull this shit in. Yes, hijacking. Don't transfer blame to others when you do this constantly with your "I AM" and "everything's an illusion" topic. I'm not going to argue about this in this thread.

Obbe

2007-09-19, 22:42

Don't transfer blame to others when you do this constantly with your "I AM" and "everything's an illusion" topic.

I do not speak of these beliefs in any other other forum. It is my spiritual opinion, this is the spiritual forum.

Constantly? Please.

I am no where near as annoying as the constant barrage of preteen atheists looking to pick a religious fight.

Surak

2007-09-20, 00:39

"I am no where near as annoying as the constant barrage of preteen atheists looking to pick a religious fight."

You know what the really sad thing is? Those irritating preteen atheists are still more than capable of blowing holes in any religious argument by virtue of merely asking for proof. That's because religious clowns can't ever back up any of their inane claims with anything solid, and neither can you.

The fact of the matter is that even the most retarded fundyfuck christian on these boards still has more to say than you do. You keep making post after post with this "I AM" and "everything is an illusion" crap that is ultimately meaningless. You keep talking and talking but you say nothing.

And yes, you are in every other fucking thread with your shit.

I have a solution, though. Why don't you start one thread, and then you can stay in there and talk to your "illusions" all you like?

Obbe

2007-09-20, 00:43

...merely asking for proof.

Prove to me your perception of reality is true. Prove you exist.

I have a solution, though. Why don't you start one thread...

Perhaps I will again. Although, I'd like to see what happens to these discussions first.

Surak

2007-09-20, 00:50

"Prove to me your perception of reality is true. Prove you exist."

Hypothetically all I'd have to do is meet you in person. I'm not prepared to do that since I don't like you and don't intend on spending the money on transportation, but it's possible. I could produce various forms of ID as well that would indicate that I am who I say I am.

Now, your problem is that you want to perceive everything as an illusion, a trick. The only people that truly operate in this way are psychotic and require medical treatment; since you exhibit none of those symptoms that's how I know you don't actually believe any of what you're saying.

Obbe

2007-09-20, 00:56

Hypothetically all I'd have to do is meet you in person. I'm not prepared to do that since I don't like you and don't intend on spending the money on transportation, but it's possible. I could produce various forms of ID as well that would indicate that I am who I say I am.

All of which could possibly be an illusion. Based on what I know to be true, it is.

Now, your problem is that you want to perceive everything as an illusion

Not that I want to, I just believe illusions are are distortions from what is known to be true.

If I instead believed that experience and all possible experiences are true reality, then I would still arrive at the same conclusion.

Blackstar Himself

2007-09-26, 22:32

Oh shit, caught between the soul and perception. Fuck you! Perception isn't real, it is percieved! and in knowing this fact we can get on with more productive things than musing on an acid trip. Sure i experimented with some drugs and came out knowing myself better... But i don't feel the need to go all post-existentialist in any argument. or indeed situation.
You really are one sad lonely asshole, and your crippling self doubt has led you to the internet, where you can assert your arrogance in a motherfucking ZANY pre-shaped template. Grow up. There is no soul, there is no perception. There is just us, and our thoughts, and matter, and when we die our 'soul' and 'perception' will die with us. And none of this will have made any difference.

Obbe

2007-09-27, 01:13

Oh shit, caught between the soul and perception.

What?

There is no soul, there is no perception. There is just us, and our thoughts, and matter, and when we die our 'soul' and 'perception' will die with us.

Prove it.

And none of this will have made any difference.

Nope.

AngryFemme

2007-09-27, 01:17

Prove it.

Why do you need proof, Obbe? Wouldn't it just be reduced to an illusion even if it were presented to you?

Careful, you might slip out of character...

Obbe

2007-09-27, 01:20

Why do you need proof, Obbe? Wouldn't it just be reduced to an illusion even if it were presented to you?

Thats exactly my point.

'Truth', 'Illusion' they are labels no different then right and wrong.

AngryFemme

2007-09-27, 02:36

I'm sorry, but what exactly was your point?

If you believe that even your own truth (believing it all to be an illusion) is indeed an illusion itself, then isn't this philosophize-in-circles exercise of yours going to just leave you with nothing but more non-pertinent speculation?

This post speaks volumes. (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8970306&postcount=75) Why stray from what's meaningful and delve into such uselessness?

Obbe

2007-09-27, 12:08

I'm sorry, but what exactly was your point?

That your perception of the separation of all is an illusion to what is known to be true.

That All is One, I am God, God is All, etc...

If you believe that even your own truth (believing it all to be an illusion) is indeed an illusion itself, then isn't this philosophize-in-circles exercise of yours going to just leave you with nothing but more non-pertinent speculation?

My belief that everything is illusion means my belief must also be an illusion (everything I say is a lie...). I never said it was truth. Truth is 'being'.

Why stray from what's meaningful and delve into such uselessness?

The choice's of what to do and what is meaningful or useless are obviously mine.

Why does anyone do anything? Nothing a human ever does will change the outcome of the universe, why bother with anything? You're just gonna die in a couple years, why bother?

See what I'm saying?

AngryFemme

2007-09-27, 13:43

That your perception of the separation of all is an illusion to what is known to be true.

Could you be a little more obscure?

My belief that everything is illusion means my belief must also be an illusion (everything I say is a lie...). I never said it was truth. Truth is 'being'.

Nope. You said before that "I AM" is even an illusion. You later defined "I AM" as "being", and now you're confusing the situation even more by saying truth is "being", but "I AM" is an illusion .... :confused:

Even recognition that 'I AM' is true is an illusion, if being is the only thing which is true.

So which is it? Is "being" the only truth? Is recognizing "I AM" defined as "being"? If the recognition of "I AM" is an illusion, and "I AM" is being, then how can "being" be the only truth? Conflict!

Why does anyone do anything? Nothing a human ever does will change the outcome of the universe, why bother with anything? You're just gonna die in a couple years, why bother?

I asked you this same question a few threads ago and you danced around it. Why bother, Obbe? If you're firmly in the grasp of all that you claim to believe, and preaching it because you feel so certain it is the direct path ... why contradict your own viewpoints by "bothering" to post in every single thread about your Illusion fantasies?

You're just gonna die eventually. Your text won't affect the outcome of the universe. Or will it? Could it possibly be that you are tethered to the reality that we all perceive, only you fight it by constantly denying it? Your constant denial of it is making it appear to bystanders as if you're just as integral a part of this reality as the rest of us are, just in a little deeper state of denial.

Obbe

2007-09-27, 23:19

Could you be a little more obscure?

Aham Brahmasmi?

lol, okay, I get you...

What is known to be true? 'I AM'. This isn't to say that the recognition, or the event of thinking 'I AM' is true, but what it is recognizing is true.

Existence, simply 'being'.

What you perceive is an illusion to what is being implied by the true recognition that 'I AM'.

Separation, time and space for example, are all illusions to the true state.

You said before that "I AM" is even an illusion. You later defined "I AM" as "being", and now you're confusing the situation even more by saying truth is "being", but "I AM" is an illusion ....

'I AM' implies 'being'. 'I AM' is a recognition of 'being', you are aware that you do exist.

It is an experience and therefore an illusion to simply 'being', or 'awareness of nothing', which is the truest and simplest form of reality, and the source all possibilities.

So which is it? Is "being" the only truth? Is recognizing "I AM" defined as "being"?

'I AM' is a recognition, it is awareness of my being.

'I AM' is recognizing truth.

Being, or 'awareness of nothing' is that truth.

'I AM', as a recognition, is therefore an illusion to the truth.

why contradict your own viewpoints by "bothering" to post in every single thread about your Illusion fantasies?

What do you not understand about choice?

Currently I choose to experience, and I just so happen to be experiencing a pretty shitty world. So much conflict, hate, greed.

I believe that if everyone recognized the truth, it would make a better world. And by doing so, I believe I wouldn't only be improving this (Obbes) current perception, but a host of possible perceptions, all which are me.

There will always be a greater number of less enjoyable perceptions...everything already is. And, I imagine, there is a possible Obbe somewhere who has convinced all other perceptions tied to his, and it has improved their world, as all possibilities are....:)

Its all an illusion...but I choose to experience it, and I choose to try and make it better by spreading this.

You're just gonna die eventually. Your text won't affect the outcome of the universe. Or will it?

I believe somewhere, it already has.

Everything dies eventually, but death is not the end.

Your constant denial of it is making it appear to bystanders as if you're just as integral a part of this reality as the rest of us

Only because you haven't yet understood what I am saying...if you did, you would understand you only know one thing to be real, and Obbe is only an illusion to that.

Or everything is real and true. Same conclusion.

FreedomHippie

2007-09-28, 01:10

Currently I choose to experience, and I just so happen to be experiencing a pretty shitty world. So much conflict, hate, greed.

Why do we choose to experience though, if we do even have the choice where to or not?

Why do we experience in the first place. What is the purpose to experience all this illusion?

Obbe

2007-09-28, 03:22

Why do we choose to experience though, if we do even have the choice where to or not?

The choice comes with the understanding.

Most perceptions do not understand that what they are perceiving is illusion.

Most don't realize they have a choice.

Why do we experience in the first place. What is the purpose to experience all this illusion?

Why? Purpose?

Such questions don't exist, at least before God.

You experience what you do, because its a possibility out of an infinity.

What is its purpose? Everyone has a unique answer for that.

Thats all perspective.

It is. Why is it? Because its all there is.

AngryFemme

2007-09-28, 11:42

I hate to be the one to break it to you Obbe, but your "choice" in experiencing and participating in this "illusion" is not really a choice at all. You have no other option, do you? You're kind of forced to interact with this reality, for the alternative would be sitting in a semi-vegetative state, unresponsive and unaware.

That's not living. That's merely existing. If your aspirations are to eventually embrace this flowerpot-like existence, cutting yourself off from emotion, interaction and experience - then knock yourself out - though I don't think you'll ever be able to completely separate yourself from reality. You could always continue to rebel against your sentience by scoffing that it's an illusion if it makes you feel warm & fuzzy inside.

Obbe

2007-09-28, 12:14

You're kind of forced to interact with this reality, for the alternative would be sitting in a semi-vegetative state, unresponsive and unaware.

Is that true?

How do you know you yourself did not just 'step into' this reality, that all the memories you have were not just imposed in your mind, and soon will be experiencing something currently unimaginable.

Yes, I have the choice of 'awareness of nothing', or experience the perception of Obbe.

Or the death of Obbe, which I believe would lead to another perception.

That's not living. That's merely existing.

So why do you think I am here talking to you now?

I don't think you'll ever be able to completely separate yourself from reality.

I know you don't.

Obviously, I think otherwise.

if it makes you feel warm & fuzzy inside.

It sure does, but...

You understand that, if I were an enlightened (see: disillusioned: freed from illusion) partaker of the state, I would not feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Yes?

wolfy_9005

2007-09-28, 13:24

the only thing real is zombies....

Surak

2007-09-28, 22:32

Zombies are the devil! That's why our gods created the Sacred Rings to eradicate them and start the Great Journey.

AngryFemme

2007-09-29, 01:53

Is that true?

I suspect that's a mockery-laced question since the only thing you consider true is "being". So I won't answer.

How do you know you yourself did not just 'step into' this reality, that all the memories you have were not just imposed in your mind, and soon will be experiencing something currently unimaginable.

Imposed in my mind by what, or whom? Surely you can't answer that, because if you knew, you could no longer claim that your thoughts were an illusion, yet somehow know who or what imposed those thoughts on you.

Yes, I have the choice of 'awareness of nothing'

No. We might could say that you desire to have a choice. But you really don't, do you? Else you'd be doing it. If you had a choice, you could cut yourself off from the rest of this mess and be celebrating the nirvana you so sanctimoniously preach about in your posts. Now, you wouldn't be preaching to us something that you wouldn't steadfastly adhere to yourself, would you?

Even as far as wishful thinking goes, the idea of it doesn't seem very beneficial, very advantageous as far as enriching your conscious life. Your perception of your experiences shapes who you are. Without all that qualia to stimulate your existence, wouldn't it be a bit like being a ... houseplant? Alive, but unaware of nothing but?

So why do you think I am here talking to you now?

Bullshit artistry in action, maybe?

You understand that, if I were an enlightened (see: disillusioned: freed from illusion) partaker of the state, I would not feel warm and fuzzy inside.

You're speaking in riddles, but I believe what you posed was:

If you really were (not that you have that choice) separated from reality (what you call illusion), you would have no feeling, no outside or inside awareness except for just "being".

You'd be living like a houseplant, until of course...

the death of Obbe, which I believe would lead to another perception

Would you waste that alleged after-death perception on convincing yourself that your afterdeath state was an illusion, also?

Obbe

2007-09-29, 03:36

Imposed in my mind by what, or whom? Surely you can't answer that, because if you knew, you could no longer claim that your thoughts were an illusion, yet somehow know who or what imposed those thoughts on you.

Nonsense, only one thing is known, all else is belief in illusions.

Based on what I know to be true, if I were to continue on with the 'imposed-at-this-moment' scenario, I could suggest everything, including the concepts of space and time, were created by myself out of imagination. Perhaps even made myself forget its an illusion.

But thats not what I believe.

I believe its impossible for me to understand how it works, because imagining all possibilities is much more complex then anything I am currently aware of, and any imaginable method of organizing them is itself a possibility. None of it can be known, only believed.

I believe that all is based upon (or comes forth from) 'the state', and all returns to the state, and we will therefore continue to experience all, unless we choose not to.

I have nothing to back this up but experiences which have made me believe this. And I understand that it is an illusion, just another way of explaining it all...its a belief, I see it as resonating truth. It is not something I know, it is something I believe, and I believe it correlates with what I know to be true.

It serves the same purposes as anyones beliefs.

No. We might could say that you desire to have a choice. But you really don't, do you? Else you'd be doing it.

No, I have the choice. It is difficult, of course, but the state can be reached. I did though ritualistic entheogen (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+entheogen&btnG=Search&meta=) use and meditation.

I still do, when I choose to.

If you had a choice, you could cut yourself off from the rest of this mess and be celebrating the nirvana you so sanctimoniously preach about in your posts. Now, you wouldn't be preaching to us something that you wouldn't steadfastly adhere to yourself, would you?

Why do you assume that when I have already pointed out why I choose what I choose in post #180?

Even as far as wishful thinking goes, the idea of it doesn't seem very beneficial, very advantageous as far as enriching your conscious life. Your perception of your experiences shapes who you are. Without all that qualia to stimulate your existence, wouldn't it be a bit like being a ... houseplant? Alive, but unaware of nothing but?

What role do you think benefits play within the state?

Hahaha, there would be no such things.

What benefits could the experience of truth have within illusions themselves? Comfort, cooperation, peace and answers, off the top of my head.

Bullshit artistry in action, maybe?

Or perhaps I believe experience is worthwhile?

Its either experience, or nothing...and I can assume what you would choose...you assume I would choose nothing?

Only when I choose to experience truth.

If you were separated from <maya>, you would have no feeling, no outside or inside awareness except for just "being"

'Awareness of nothing'

Aham Brahmasmi

You'd be living like a houseplant

Yes, if we assume they are not aware of anything, you'd be just like a houseplant, an atom, something planck length (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/glossary.html), or all possibilities as one.

Would you waste that alleged after-death perception on convincing yourself that your afterdeath state was an illusion, also?

How is it a waste?

AngryFemme

2007-09-29, 17:13

Based on what I know to be true, if I were to continue on with the 'imposed-at-this-moment' scenario, I could suggest everything, including the concepts of space and time, were created by myself out of imagination. Perhaps even made myself forget its an illusion.

Sure, you could suggest it. Even imagine it. But that's still just dancing around reality in a state of denial. I understand it's the easy road, and can imagine that it takes far less energy than facing reality head-on. I'll even ammend my post from "Bullshit Artistry" to "Escape Artistry",

I believe its impossible for me to understand how it works, because imagining all possibilities is much more complex then anything I am currently aware of, and any imaginable method of organizing them is itself a possibility. None of it can be known, only believed.

By choosing to believe that everything is an illusion, you shelter yourself from having to deal with reality. Thus, the cop-out. Taking a hiatus from reality in the short-term may be an interesting little philosophical exercise that you clearly enjoy, but ultimately just gives you a convenient excuse not to have to deal with the Here & Now.

So you claim to be able to hop in and out of it at will... choosing to experience when you feel like it, or choosing to be unaware if you so desire. When the fact is, if you chose to "drop out" completely (which you won't, because you're attached to reality far more than you'd ever admit), there would be no absolutely no way to discern how your state of being could positively impact you. It would be equivalent to cutting off your nose, just to spite your face. It would be akin to cutting off your sense of awareness, just to spite your own perception of existence. F-u-t-i-l-e.

I believe that all is based upon (or comes forth from) 'the state', and all returns to the state, and we will therefore continue to experience all, because we really have no other choice than to interact with the reality that surrounds us, unless of course we want to just cop-out by denying it to be anything other than illusion so we aren't forced to reckon with it.

Fixed.

I have nothing to back this up but experiences which have made me believe this.

So it's true. Your experiences shape who you are and what you believe. They are not in fact an illusion. They have the power over you to make you desire to be aware or unaware. They lead you around by a leash. You cannot escape them, because they are what defines your perception. Attempting to label them an illusion and then claiming to be able to separate yourself from them completely isn't transcending them, per se - just denying them, even though they clearly are the invisible hand that forms what you believe in.

And I understand that it is an illusion, just another way of explaining it all...its a belief, I see it as resonating truth. It is not something I know, it is something I believe, and I believe it correlates with what I know to be true.

I believe it correlates with what you desire to be true. If others do not choose to impact their realities with the asinine belief that all experiences are illusions, then the truth they resonate through their beliefs serve the same function as your belief does - to give them a deeper definition of who they are and why they're forced to relate to the world around them. Instead of tackling this reality head-on and determining what your position in it is, you choose to deny it as being real, assert that it's an illusion, and then act as though you can somehow escape it just by pretending it isn't really there. Another cop-out.

No, I have the choice. It is difficult, of course, but the state can be reached. I did though ritualistic entheogen (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+entheogen&btnG=Search&meta=) use and meditation.

I still do, when I choose to.

You have it backwards. Your ritualistic use of entheogens may help you ESCAPE FROM the parts of reality that you choose not to wrap your mind around and confront head-on, but it does not deny the fact that your experiences are inescapable, for if they truly were illusions and not reality itself, you would have no reason to attempt to separate yourself from it. The state of being that you describe as attainable if only awareness of all but "I AM" is stamped out and experiences reduced to illusions ... that is just but one remedy for helping aid in your denial of reality.

If you could assert "I choose not to deal with this reality and make efforts to escape from it by inspiring myself that it's not really there", then that would be an honest statement of your beliefs and practices. But preaching that "reality is an illusion, your experiences are an illusion, the only thing worth knowing is that we ARE" ... is just philosophical-babble that gets us nowhere in the search for the ultimate affirmation of life and finding it's source of truth.

Why do you assume that when I have already pointed out why I choose what I choose in post #180?

You are misinterpreting my assumption. I didn't orginally ask why you choose one position over another. I'm stating that there isn't an alternative choice, that dropping out of awareness in a state of denial about reality is an exercise in futility and not really a viable option at all. It benefits nothing, doesn't require any further exploration into searching for answers, and in my opinion, denotes intellectual laziness.

Post #180 didn't point out why you choose not to. It's just characteristically pointing out that you think the world is shitty, your present state of mind is apathetic to discovering anything beyond your own existence, and shows how, to you, just denying it all is easier than accepting it as something you're forced to contend with.

What role do you think benefits play within the state?

Within your described state of a single awareness point? None whatsoever. But again, I believe that because it seems your attitude is that nothing reality has to offer is beneficial at all, so you'd rather just take the drop-out route and pretend to others that it is the only true route to take.

What benefits could the experience of truth have within illusions themselves? Comfort, cooperation, peace and answers, off the top of my head.

But if, as you claim, the only way to benefit from the truth is to detach yourself from the illusions entirely ... then it is self-defeating because the recognition of "comfort, cooperation, peace and answers (which start with questions) would mean that you were having to subjugate yourself to the very reality you claim not to really exist in the first place!!

The real question would be, what is the importance of truth in a state of being that is reluctant to embrace or acknowledge the experience of "truth discovery".

Basically what this all boils down to is:

Fighting reality is senseless. You'll never succeed.

Or perhaps I believe experience is worthwhile?

Your active experiences is your current reality. POW! Reality is then, by your definition, worthwhile. They truly do represent all we can know about "the truth". Calling them an illusion is living in a state of denial.

Its either experience, or nothing...and I can assume what you would choose...you assume I would choose nothing?

Only when I choose to experience truth.

I would choose experience, yes. Because experience is the best route to go while formulating my beliefs on what's "true".

I do assume that you desire to choose nothing, but only because it is easier than acknowledging that what happens to you is sometimes beyond your control and as shitty as your existence might seem, you'd rather run from it in a state of denial rather than just position yourself as an integral part of it with no choice but to interact, and like it, because there's really no other choice.

Sucks being trapped in a state of experiencing that you must constantly question and evolve truths from, doesn't it? Oh well. That's life.

How is it a waste?

How is it beneficial? It only accomplishes putting you in yet another state of denial.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-29, 19:24

He can be a fun troll to feed...

KikoSanchez

2007-09-29, 20:06

Haha I should've known Obbe's whole basis for his 'non-existence' or temporary disconnect from reality was based on doing drugs.

BrokeProphet

2007-09-29, 20:50

Vanhalla

2007-09-29, 21:48

LOL

At one point I tried to explan to him about the spatial awareness centers in the brain. About how this brain center lets you know where you stop and other things begin.

So that you are not holding onto a broom for example and trying to send nerve impulses to the bristles of the broom.

If you damage or interfere with this shit (with drugs, car wreck, heavy meditation) you will get a sense of being one with everything. You will not be able to easily determine your pyhsical form.

Anyone who peaches about spirituality and uses drugs is about as useful as drunk man giving you driving lessons.

I smoke pot, I meditate a lot, and I've done a few psychedelics in my day but I can still determine my physical form. Only now I have a better understanding, we are all made of star stuff, supernovas shoot the elements into space, enriching the cosmic dust, what do you think our planet is made of? We are all part of the universe, so in that sense we are all one. We think we are individuals, but maybe that is just an illusion. All the parts of our body, our organs, cells, they are just parts of the larger whole. In our brain their is no single place that is us, millions of actions take place that form the larger whole. The universe is kinda like that.

Blackstar Himself

2007-09-30, 14:08

AngryFemme

2007-10-01, 11:30

We think we are individuals, but maybe that is just an illusion. All the parts of our body, our organs, cells, they are just parts of the larger whole. In our brain their is no single place that is us, millions of actions take place that form the larger whole. The universe is kinda like that.

We are part of the Universe, that is not what's being debated here. What's being debated is that our perception of individualism is an illusion, or why it's unnecessary and unproductive to think of our'selves' as such. As a living, breathing, congnitive organism, our input and interaction is mandatory to living up to our full potential. With Obbe's practice, we'd stop interacting individually with our experiences, ignoring all the intrinsic parts that make up that whole, focusing only on the big picture and allowing our individual perception to peter out.

This, in my opinion, doesn't pay as much homage to the Universe as it would if one recognized their place in it, interacted with it to their fullest potential, and build from the blocks of "I AM" into a complex, diverse learning "machine" that utilizes perception and experience to form it's basis for understanding all that can be learned about said Universe and the contents thereof.

If the Universe made it possible for us to be so complex, why take the faculties in place we have that make us complex creatures and just deny that they're useful by taking the stance that our emotions, ideas and desires are merely a trick/illusion?

Vanhalla

2007-10-01, 11:54

Even if our reality is an illusion, at the end of the day we are still living in this illusion, and to go through life only looking at the larger picture and losing your self in this illusion is missing the beauty of it all. The little things that makes you you, the thoughts you think, the actions you take, or don't take is what builds this reality and to deny that, is to deny reality (illusion).

If our perception of being an individual is but an illusion, we are still in this illusion.

Obbe

2007-10-04, 19:08

But that's still just dancing around reality in a state of denial.

What makes it reality?

By choosing to believe that everything is an illusion, you shelter yourself from having to deal with reality. Thus, the cop-out.

What makes it reality?

How does perceiving it as illusion allow me to avoid 'dealing' with it?

...ultimately just gives you a convenient excuse not to have to deal with the Here & Now

The only thing that could actually do that is enlightenment, and I am not enlightened.

As you seem to have a vast insight on the ways I conduct my life outside of this forum, please inform me of what I am not, ahem, 'dealing with'.

So you claim to be able to hop in and out of it at will... choosing to experience when you feel like it, or choosing to be unaware if you so desire.

Not at will, but through will, yes. Although I can believe it could become very easy.

there would be no absolutely no way to discern how your state of being could positively impact you.

You misunderstand.

There is no 'positive impact on you' because whatever you perceive as positive, or as you, is an illusion to the truth. Positive itself is merely perspective, and I could always argue that reaching the state, becoming enlightened, as being positive. But I believe it would be more correct to say the state is balance.

It would be futile.

What is not?

Fixed.

Liar!

Its not fixed!

You forgot to prove reality...

<Experiences> have the power over you to make you desire to be aware or unaware. They lead you around by a leash. You cannot escape them, because they are what defines your perception.

How is an illusion any different?

Attempting to label them an illusion and then claiming to be able to separate yourself from them completely isn't transcending them, per se - just denying them, even though they clearly are the invisible hand that forms what you believe in.

Attempting to label them a reality, and claiming them to be concretely true, and separate from the self isn't validating them...it's denying that they are actually illusions, even though you have absolutely no way of knowing.

I realize claiming them to be illusion isn't transcending them...I never claimed to be enlightened.

Recognition that they are illusion is still recognition.

Instead of tackling this reality head-on and determining what your position in it is, you choose to deny it as being real, assert that it's an illusion, and then act as though you can somehow escape it just by pretending it isn't really there.

Of course you can believe what you want, but the above is very off from what I have been trying to communicate.

And, of course, brings up the question of how you know it to be real...

Your ritualistic use of entheogens may help you ESCAPE FROM the parts of reality that you choose not to wrap your mind around and confront head-on, but it does not deny the fact that your experiences are inescapable

How so?

for if they truly were illusions and not reality itself, you would have no reason to attempt to separate yourself from it.

Why would I not?

Why do you believe there is a reason?

I am not attempting to separate myself from 'everything'...as I have said, separation is an illusion

The state of being that you describe as attainable if only awareness of all but "I AM" is stamped out and experiences reduced to illusions ... that is just but one remedy for helping aid in your denial of reality.

I do not understand how you could be misunderstanding this, still.

No, not even awareness of 'I AM' remains in true reality, because true reality is 'awareness of nothing'!

If you could assert "I choose not to deal with this reality and make efforts to escape from it by inspiring myself that it's not really there", then that would be an honest statement of your beliefs and practices.

Honest, if you could prove reality.

Any concept of a separate reality is 'dishonest', because any recognition of one is illusion.

But I fail to see how my concept is 'dishonest', when I honestly only know the one thing which I base this concept off of.

...just philosophical-babble that gets us nowhere in the search for the ultimate affirmation of life and finding it's source of truth.

The source is the presence, as I have said.

But please, if you know otherwise...demonstrate.

I'm stating that there isn't an alternative choice, that dropping out of awareness in a state of denial about reality is an exercise in futility and not really a viable option at all.

Then back it up.

Post #180 didn't point out why you choose not to.

Yes, because I believe my interaction could possibly benefit other possible perceptions of reality, as it has mine.

it seems your attitude is that nothing reality has to offer is beneficial at all

Perhaps it seems that way, but as I tried to point out by asking you why you think I am still here responding to you, or what you would choose between experience and nothing...I actually think otherwise.

As I have said, don't assume I am implying worthlessness to 'reality' by stating its an illusion.

...it is self-defeating because...recognition...would mean that you were having to subjugate yourself to the very reality you claim not to really exist in the first place!!

Yeah.

Maybe thats why I said...'within the illusion'?

Maybe thats why I said:

What role do you think benefits play within the state?

Hahaha, there would be no such things.

No...not maybe. That is why I said those things.

The real question would be, what is the importance of truth in a state of being that is reluctant to embrace or acknowledge the experience of "truth discovery".

What are you talking about?

'The state' is the highest form of truth.

Fighting reality is senseless. You'll never succeed.

Fighting is still an interaction.

They truly do represent all we can know about "the truth". Calling them an illusion is living in a state of denial.

So, you won't deny that the crazy man in cell with 20 'invisible' people is experiencing 'truth'?

Calling them an illusion is no different then calling them real, the two are no different the positive and negative, or good and evil.

But by definition, calling them illusion is more 'correct', because you can only know one thing to be true. The basis of the whole concept I present here.

BTW, where did I ever say illusions were worthless?

How is it beneficial?

The two are only perspectives.

Obbe

2007-10-04, 19:09

At one point I tried to explan to him about the spatial awareness centers in the brain. About how this brain center lets you know where you stop and other things begin.

Prove the brain.

AngryFemme

2007-10-05, 11:47

How does perceiving it as illusion allow me to avoid 'dealing' with it?

It lends you apathy, a trait that affords you the option of remaining emotionless towards the very celebration of being alive. It harbors laziness, doesn't grant one iota of discovery about the Universe around you except for the recognition of your own existence in it. It causes you to post inane things such as:

nothing serves a purpose. (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9002582&postcount=50)

and

everything is pointless (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9002582&postcount=50)

If that's the attitude you want to possess about everything, if apathy is what works for you - then great. But preaching it as the only path to complete truth is total nuttery, and while you continually thump your existential pulpit to chime in during discussions from people who actually feel that life is what you make of it - you're really contradicting your own position - that everything is meaningless, pointless and nothing we can think, feel or do has any real purpose to it where Truth Discovery is shown.

I am not enlightened.

We know. You just play enlightened on Totse.

As you seem to have a vast insight on the ways I conduct my life outside of this forum, please inform me of what I am not, ahem, 'dealing with'.

I have no comment on how you conduct your life outside of Totse. The only recognition I have of you is from your actions here, which is the only thing I've commented on. I will, however, take a guess that the role you play IRL doesn't resemble the character you play on here. As I pointed out before, we have no choice but to interact with reality. I highly doubt that you are successful escaping it merely at your whim.

You forgot to prove reality...

This is reality. Are you going to demonstrate how you plug in your computer, log into this forum, and spout your illusion philoso-babble while in some transcendental state of escapism?

As I have said, don't assume I am implying worthlessness to 'reality' by stating its an illusion.

Pardon my far-fetched assumptions, but when you type things such as:

"Nothing serves a purpose. Everything is pointless" - you sure make it seem as though this reality, to you, is not worth interacting with. Again, your multitude of posts does not affirm that you believe this is true.

BTW, where did I ever say illusions were worthless?

Reality = experiences. Experiences require recognition and interaction. How can you say you don't find reality worthless when you believe nothing serves a purpose and everything is pointless? Is it that you are resentful that you have to participate, regardless of your apathetic state?

The two are only perspectives.

And I appreciate yours, for what it's worth. :)
Welcome back, Obbe. You took a short sabbatical, didn't you?

old-codger

2007-10-05, 17:23

..42..

FreedomHippie

2007-10-05, 17:43

Wow haha this thread has reached 200 posts that interesting. its come along way, just read the original thread starter and look at where we are :p

Obbe

2007-10-05, 18:36

It lends you apathy, a trait that affords you the option of remaining emotionless towards the very celebration of being alive. It harbors laziness, doesn't grant one iota of discovery about the Universe around you except for the recognition of your own existence in it.

So, in short, leads one to realizing truth?

Hahaha.

But no, it doesn't have to lead to apathy and thus laziness, if I were completely apathetic then I wouldn't care enough to be posting this!

How does perceiving all around you as illusion stop you from gaining anything from it? You just assume that it does.

Do you have any experience that you're talking from?

It causes you to post inane things such as:

nothing serves a purpose. (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9002582&postcount=50)

and

everything is pointless (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9002582&postcount=50)

C'mon, you really can't see what I was doing there?

Pointing out how terms such as 'purpose' and 'pointless' are perspectives?

Why would you think I said 'I disagree' before I said the other comments?

Because, obviously I do not think everything is pointless or purposeless. But , as I said 'I could argue', I do believe that could be argued, at least in demonstration of how they are merely perspective.

I'm sure that wasn't too hard to miss.

you're really contradicting your own position - that everything is meaningless, pointless and nothing we can think, feel or do has any real purpose to it where Truth Discovery is shown.

I think you're an idiot if you actually have concluded that as my position.

That really is not what I mean when speaking of illusions, I imply no worthlessness. If I did think that, I would not be here typing this for you to read, as you assumed I would prefer the state while assuming that I feel everything else is meaningless.

I have been trying to tell you that I do not.

You just play enlightened on Totse.

Maya is a play written by God. Poorly.

I have no comment on how you conduct your life outside of Totse.

Although you do believe you posses the insight as to what I find meaningful and not?

The only recognition I have of you is from your actions here, which is the only thing I've commented on.

You've said I avoid dealing with the 'Here & Now'. I believe that applies to life outside totse.

I highly doubt that you are successful escaping it merely at your whim.

Do you hate reading, or do you do this intentionally?

Honestly. You seem to prefer focusing on what I have said out-of-context, or in other threads out-of-context, to my direct responses.

Not on a whim. Not at will. Not yet anyway.

But through will? Yes.

That is the only way.

This is reality

This is simply maya.

Are you going to demonstrate how you plug in your computer, log into this forum, and spout your illusion philoso-babble while in some transcendental state of escapism?

How, after so much discussion about 'the state', you would believe that I would be able to do anything in 'the state', is completely beyond me.

Escapism? As in escaping from reality?

What makes this reality?

"Nothing serves a purpose. Everything is pointless" - you sure make it seem as though this reality, to you, is not worth interacting with.

Something-out-of context, you say? Yet again?

Reality = experiences. Experiences require recognition and interaction.

Illusion = experience.

Or, are you saying that the 20 people only the insane person can experience, but we cannot, are real?

How can you say you don't find reality worthless when you believe nothing serves a purpose and everything is pointless?

Easy.

I don't believe nothing serves a purpose and all is pointless.

That quote is out of context, from another thread.

Is it that you are resentful that you have to participate, regardless of your apathetic state?

If I didn't want to participate, I would aim for 'the state'. And I do, when I choose to.

And I appreciate yours, for what it's worth.

If you really do, then you should already have the answer.

Welcome back, Obbe. You took a short sabbatical, didn't you?

Yes, I was not posting on totse for a few days.

No need to be concerned. I wasn't gone for too long ;).

AngryFemme

2007-10-05, 19:23

Wow haha this thread has reached 200 posts that interesting. its come along way, just read the original thread starter and look at where we are :p

Four more pages and we'll have to close it and start a new one! Jeff's orders.
:D

Obbe:

How am I an idiot for perceiving all the lies you told in the way I did?

BrokeProphet

2007-10-05, 19:41

I smoke pot, I meditate a lot, and I've done a few psychedelics in my day but I can still determine my physical form. Only now I have a better understanding, we are all made of star stuff, supernovas shoot the elements into space, enriching the cosmic dust, what do you think our planet is made of? We are all part of the universe, so in that sense we are all one. We think we are individuals, but maybe that is just an illusion. All the parts of our body, our organs, cells, they are just parts of the larger whole. In our brain their is no single place that is us, millions of actions take place that form the larger whole. The universe is kinda like that.

I have used pot and tripped acid maybe 8 or 9 years ago. If I continiued to use heavily and added some crack or X I would damage my brain severly.

The part of your brain that is most actvie during meditation, or prayer (and at the point of "transendence") is the spatial reckoning center. In patient studies, patients whose spatial centers were damaged were unable to orientate themselves properly in the physical world. They describe a sense of oneness and interconnectivity with everything.

Everything in the universe except hydrogen and maybe helium is star stuff. Every other piece of material is cooked for billions of years inside stars. There are so many answerable questions in science and plenty of room for abstract thought process, I am amazed people still need to imagine gods and demons.

Finally to Obbe. I get what your saying. Explain to me how this is USEFUL in any way shape or form to humankind. Explain to me how your abstact ideals and self-refuting arguments are not pointless. Just explain me that please.

AngryFemme

2007-10-05, 20:04

Finally to Obbe. I get what your saying. Explain to me how this is USEFUL in any way shape or form to humankind. Explain to me how your abstact ideals and self-refuting arguments are not pointless. Just explain me that please.

*Claps* I am curious to see how he answers you, after this:

How, after so much discussion about 'the state', you would believe that I would be able to do anything in 'the state', is completely beyond me.

Brace yourself. He is likely to answer your question with a whole slew of his own obscure questions, which will ultimately lead nowhere.

But hey! If you make them labor while the drivel is being spun, at least they can't say they trolled you effortlessly.
;)

Obbe

2007-10-05, 20:06

How am I an idiot for perceiving all the lies you told in the way I did?

I don't perceive you as being an idiot for initially perceiving my lies the way that you did. Or any lies.

But I do think it was idiotic of you to believe I was...

contradicting <my> own position - that everything is meaningless, pointless and nothing we can think, feel or do has any real purpose to it where Truth Discovery is shown.

As that is not 'my own position'. That is not my point.

Truest reality is awareness of nothing. That doesn't mean illusions are worthless.

AngryFemme

2007-10-05, 20:22

BrokeProphet had a pretty strong case in that other thread (and this one) about how what you're preaching serves no purpose and is pointless. I'm sure what he meant by that is, why wrestle with it? Cui Bono? WHO BENEFITS???

You answering "I could argue everything was pointless ... I could argue nothing serves a purpose" ...

Do you really not have an argument, and that's just your way of ducking out of answering the question? Sue me for thinking you were being literal here - but after reading everything else you write, it doesn't seem too far off the mark to believe that since you think this reality is an illusion, that you don't see the POINT or the PURPOSE of it.

Obbe

2007-10-05, 20:27

Finally to Obbe. I get what your saying. Explain to me how this is USEFUL in any way shape or form to humankind.

I have. You really hate religion, no?

And you'd like everyone to conform to your ideas, because you believe them to be correct...just like anyone would. You believe the unification would end much strife, create peace, progression, blah dee blah blah.

But...get this!

Most of the people in the world are scared little sheep. They need comfort. Most people need their religion, they need to believe in something higher...thats why religion is still around today. Most people think they need it.

I believe that a unification of belief is stronger then a unification of disbelief. Not that I find anything wrong with science, not at all...it greatly improves society. But I also believe in God, I believe we are all one.

I believe that the truth I point out with lies is undeniable. And I believe that my concept would be much better at ending world strife, causing world peace...if everybody understood it...then trying to strip them of beliefs which they desire so badly.

Beliefs, so obviously similar, but explained slightly differently and cause argument and war around the world. Beliefs that, stripped of their individual dogmas, actually represent the same truth I speak of.

So how could this be useful? By bringing comfort and understanding of reality to everyone, resulting in cooperation and peace within the maya, allowing for unrestrained progression in science to better explain our consensual perception of this maya, respecting each other and the world around us and maintaining a personal connection with God. Thats how.

How probable is that scenario? Well, given the last million years of our species, I'd say not likely.

But given what I understand about people and religion, I'd say its that much more probable then any attempts at causing atheist domination.

Obbe

2007-10-05, 20:29

after reading everything else you write, it doesn't seem too far off the mark to believe that since you think this reality is an illusion, that you don't see the POINT or the PURPOSE of it.

Then re-read it.

Vanhalla

2007-10-05, 20:52

The part of your brain that is most actvie during meditation, or prayer (and at the point of "transendence") is the spatial reckoning center. In patient studies, patients whose spatial centers were damaged were unable to orientate themselves properly in the physical world. They describe a sense of oneness and interconnectivity with everything.

Why is the spacial reckoning center the most active part of your brain during meditation?

Everything in the universe except hydrogen and maybe helium is star stuff. Every other piece of material is cooked for billions of years inside stars. There are so many answerable questions in science and plenty of room for abstract thought process, I am amazed people still need to imagine gods and demons.

I see what you mean but 'Gods' can be thought of in many ways. Poseidon for example is the god of the sea and earthquakes, humans just put a face and name to a 'God' to have a better connection to the natural force it embodies.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-05, 21:20

I believe that the truth I point out with lies is undeniable. And I believe that my concept would be much better at ending world strife, causing world peace...if everybody understood it...then trying to strip them of beliefs which they desire so badly.

So how could this be useful? By bringing comfort and understanding of reality to everyone, resulting in cooperation and peace within the maya, allowing for unrestrained progression in science to better explain our consensual perception of this maya, respecting each other and the world around us and maintaining a personal connection with God. Thats how.

You mean your concept that everything is an illusion and the only thing known to be true is the self. You dont think that would make a more selfish world if everyone truly believed the only thing real or true is the self? You think your core concept of illusions is helpful to society? I blelieve you are completely off base and grossly mistaken in this idea.

You need to read up more on science before you make a claim that your illusionary concepts, which lack any empiracle evidence whatsoever, will promote it. Your ideas cannot survive alongside scientific progression. Again, you are way off base and mistaken here.

This is why your concept of only the self to be true and everything else an illusion is not helpful in any way shape or form to the rest of humankind. Your abstract ideals then serve no purpose towards education or bringing about a better world AT ALL. The very core nature of you ideals is the very definition of selfishness.

You need to ask yourself why you continue to promote such useless and counter productive self-refuting concepts and ideals.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-05, 21:30

Why is the spacial reckoning center the most active part of your brain during meditation?

I see what you mean but 'Gods' can be thought of in many ways. Poseidon for example is the god of the sea and earthquakes, humans just put a face and name to a 'God' to have a better connection to the natural force it embodies.

To your first question I cannot remember. I read an awesome book titled Why God Won't Go Away. I still have it and will re-read it tonight and perhaps start a thread on the subject.

The God's you speak of, the ancient god's of Greece, and what we now call mythos represent the nature of religion in that they explain the not yet understood. Poseidon left us when we began to understand more about earthquakes and the scienctific structure of the earth and the moon. Thor left us when we began to realize that lightning was a natural occurance accompying storms.

God's have always explained what we do not yet know. God's today do the same thing. The Christian god has gotten much smaller and his domain has shrunk. This pheonomenon is known as "The God of the Gaps". It's basic premise is this: Gods fill in the unexplained gaps in scientific knowledge.

AngryFemme

2007-10-05, 21:48

So how could this be useful? By bringing comfort and understanding of reality to everyone, resulting in cooperation and peace within the maya, allowing for unrestrained progression in science to better explain our consensual perception of this maya, respecting each other and the world around us and maintaining a personal connection with God. Thats how.

You're assuming that others are struggling with the concept of reality. Ever consider that the people you are preaching to may have a firmer grasp on it than you are giving them credit for?

You're also assuming that everyone desires to maintain a personal connection with God.

How probable is that scenario? Well, given the last million years of our species, I'd say not likely.

It's about as likely as having everyone's concept of reality, in unison, being twiddled down to "illusion" ... not very likely at all.

Vanhalla

2007-10-05, 22:39

To your first question I cannot remember. I read an awesome book titled Why God Won't Go Away. I still have it and will re-read it tonight and perhaps start a thread on the subject.
I was reading a review on that book, it looks pretty interesting. I look forward to that thread that you'll make on the subject
The God's you speak of, the ancient god's of Greece, and what we now call mythos represent the nature of religion in that they explain the not yet understood. Poseidon left us when we began to understand more about earthquakes and the scienctific structure of the earth and the moon. Thor left us when we began to realize that lightning was a natural occurance accompying storms.
God's have always explained what we do not yet know. God's today do the same thing. The Christian god has gotten much smaller and his domain has shrunk. This pheonomenon is known as "The God of the Gaps". It's basic premise is this: Gods fill in the unexplained gaps in scientific knowledge.Our knowledge of the science behind things has grown but there is still much we don't know, like the energies involved in all of these forces. We understand that everything is made of energies and therefore everything is effected by these energies, but we still are far from understanding these energies. The effects of these energies were interpreted as 'gods' in ancient times; now we understand these effects better, but couldn't they still be seen as 'gods' in our time? Just different names and ideas for the effects of these energies. No matter how much knowledge we obtain we never know all the answers, and we can always speculate on the underlying questions.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-05, 23:03

The problem with deifying the unknown is that you have answered the unknown with something not real. Since the unknown now has an answer there is no point in trying to answer it.

Religion has held back the pursuit of knowledge through science since recorded history. It has held it back in part b/c of the aforementioned statement involving no point in answering what is known, but also b/c profit and power were realized by the makers of religions.

If you study the process of science you will understand that science is the unbaised pursuit of the truth. The end product of science is knowledge. Real applicable knowledge.

Science has been and is a threat to religion. Science = Truth then why do religions fear science? If they are right...it cannot be disproven right? You cannot disprove what is true with science. Any religion that fears or loathes science is then a false belief structure and fears the truth machine that is science.

Vanhalla

2007-10-06, 00:57

The problem with deifying the unknown is that you have answered the unknown with something not real. Since the unknown now has an answer there is no point in trying to answer it.

Religion has held back the pursuit of knowledge through science since recorded history. It has held it back in part b/c of the aforementioned statement involving no point in answering what is known, but also b/c profit and power were realized by the makers of religions.

A lot of people use religion for the wrong reasons, power, control over the minds of their followers, and when evidence comes around saying the Earth isn't the center of the universe, their religious structure gets shaken and people come up with new ideas, who unfortunately get persecuted for it. It shouldn't be like that, religion should be like science in that it continually evolves to offer new ideas to the unknown. If religions could see that they are just posing an idea about what could be, and scientist could realize that they are just finding evidence for one aspect of reality, that there could be much more to it that we cant detect, then I think we could work together and achieve new ideas, gaining a better understanding of the cosmos.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 01:19

You dont think that would make a more selfish world if everyone truly believed the only thing real or true is the self? You think your core concept of illusions is helpful to society? I blelieve you are completely off base and grossly mistaken in this idea.

I would disagree with that.

No, I do not think it would make a more selfish world, as part of my concept is that every singular separation perceived in the maya is you. Everything comes forth from and goes back to the state. All is one.

I believe that would promote compassion, not selfishness.

I do not think it would make a more selfish world, because my recognition of experiences as illusion does not imply those experiences are worthless. In fact, I have been trying to communicate I actually feel the opposite...after all, we are that which experiences.

You need to read up more on science before you make a claim that your illusionary concepts, which lack any empiracle evidence whatsoever, will promote it.

Did I say a world-wide acceptance of my concept would promote science?

No, I say it would leave us unhindered by faith-debates, allowing for more effective scientific exploration of our consensual perception of maya.

Yes, my concept lacks empirical evidence, because such only 'proves' things within maya itself. My concept describes true reality.

Your ideas cannot survive alongside scientific progression.

I disagree, because science does not exist alongside the state.

It exists within maya, maya which flows forth from the state described in my concept. Within that maya is the only place science can progress, and I see nothing about an understanding of my concept which would hinder the progression within that maya.

Your abstract ideals then serve no purpose towards education or bringing about a better world AT ALL.

I disagree, as this concept is at the core of religions which teach the morals you too agree with, along with reasons above.

The very core nature of you ideals is the very definition of selfishness.

No, selfishness is concern with ones own interests. Interests do not exist within the state.

You need to ask yourself why you continue to promote such useless and counter productive self-refuting concepts and ideals.

If you believe I need to be asking myself that, then I pose that you need to ask yourself if these concepts really are useless/counter productive.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 01:23

You're assuming that others are struggling with the concept of reality.

What purpose do you believe organized religion serves?

Ever consider that the people you are preaching to may have a firmer grasp on it than you are giving them credit for?

If they understand the only truth then they would probably agree and move on.

I see it causing no problem.

You're also assuming that everyone desires to maintain a personal connection with God.

You may just think I mean something else by that.

What do I mean by a 'personal connection with God'? Or by 'God'?

I am talking about maintaining awareness of truth and maya, respect for and unity with all, compassion and understanding. All beneficial things.

Yes, I suppose it would not benefit those who desire chaos and disorder. But 'benefits' is again, just another perspective, isn't it. A relative term. Relative to humanity, I think what I mean by 'personal connection with God' is highly beneficial.

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 01:40

If religions could see that they are just posing an idea about what could be,

Then they wouldn't be religious, they'd be agnostic.

and scientist could realize that they are just finding evidence for one aspect of reality

That's all they claim to find, anyway.

Religions have evolved, and will continue to evolve as long as it keeps the main trait that makes it replicate most successfully in humans beings, which unfortunately for us is it's worst quality:

The requirement that it's longevity depends solely on the person carrying it to continue to believe in it exclusively, and without doubt. To thrive and survive as a tradition, it can't very well make room for other competing memeplexes to shimmy their way in and steal the thunder. And most religions are set up to outline this very requirement in their doctrines. Our Gods are jealous Gods not out of spite or to get off on our confusion. Our Gods are jealous Gods because that's what it takes to keep them in circulation through people's minds and survive the centuries!

Regardless, I think we should still all strive to work together and observe the cosmos as we seek to understand.

If there's a will, there's a way.

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 02:36

What purpose do you believe organized religion serves?

What does that have to do with your assuming that other people are struggling with their own perceptions of reality?

Besides, organized religion doesn't exist to explain away this reality, it promises to provide an afterreality, which religious people call the Afterlife, which would suggest that they have to recognize this reality for what it is - not an illusion. They define it as more of a journey, till they get to what they believe is the good stuff afterwards.

If you're suggesting that your way is the healthiest alternative to atheism OR organized religion, then I have to vehemently disagree, because at least THEIR way gives credence to the fact that this reality (outside of your *state*) is what's important, what counts, what makes any real difference to us as we live to observe it.

Once we're out of it (dead by my standards - "in the state", by yours) ... nothing matters. You said so yourself. In your state, there is still perception of "I AM". In my (dead) state, all perception is fizzed out, including "I AM", and the hunger for truth that accompanies it. Nothing more to be realized once you're dead, in my state.

If they understand the only truth then they would probably agree and move on.

I see it causing no problem.

Of course you don't. It's your own religion that you've organized, and that prohibits you from seeing it as anything but The Way To Go.

Sure, it would be great if people just all agreed with you and "moved on". I'm sure millions of Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews can sympathize with that very same sentiment.

What do I mean by a 'personal connection with God'? Or by 'God'?

I am talking about maintaining awareness of truth and maya, respect for and unity with all, compassion and understanding. All beneficial things.

All the things in bold can be reached without subscribing to either organized religion OR your brand of 'truth'. Awareness is compulsory. Respect for an unity with all ... we're hardwired for the opposite, but I believe it can be overcome through compassion and understanding.

Yes, I suppose it would not benefit those who desire chaos and disorder.

Are you implying that it must be assumed that those who aren't in tune with your theory desire disorganization and chaos? That's eerily similar to how organized religion operates, regarding those who beg to differ with their respective premise. Are you seeing a pattern here?

But 'benefits' is again, just another perspective, isn't it. A relative term. Relative to humanity, I think what I mean by 'personal connection with God' is highly beneficial.

Relative to humanity, your "beneficial" personal connection with God is just yet another in a long, long string of metaphors that humanity has conjured up in their minds to help convince themselves that they can transcend physical death. It's what we wish.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 03:10

What does that have to do with your assuming that other people are struggling with their own perceptions of reality?

It shows that I am not assuming anything, it shows that people are struggling with the concept of reality.

...which would suggest that they have to recognize this reality for what it is - not an illusion. They define it as more of a journey, till they get to what they believe is the good stuff afterwards.

That is not all religions do. They attempt to explain everything about reality.

If you're suggesting that your way is the healthiest alternative to atheism OR organized religion, then I have to vehemently disagree, because at least THEIR way gives credence to the fact that this reality (outside of your *state*) is what's important, what counts, what makes any real difference to us as we live to observe it.

You are again making the mistake of assuming I believe maya to be worthless, despite my attempts to correct this assumption.

Besides that, you are also yet again missing the point of my concept...not thats its healthier, or better in anyway...such a thing is merely perspective. The point of my concept is that it points out the only truth.

In your state, there is still perception of "I AM".

Okay, this is just silly. I really suggest you read what I type.

Awareness of nothing.

Not even 'I AM'. 'I AM' is simply recognition of truth, but is itself, as an experience, only an illusion to that truth.

Nothing more to be realized once you're dead, in my state.

Nothing need be realized in the state. Realization doesn't exist within it.

...prohibits you from seeing it as anything but The Way To Go

Yes, which is exactly why admit it is nothing but lies and illusion. :rolleyes:

Sure, it would be great if people just all agreed with you and "moved on".

You asked if I had considered they may a firm grasp on reality. What do I believe is true reality Femme?

The state.

Is there more truth to reality then that? If so, demonstrate it.

All the things in bold can be reached without subscribing to either organized religion OR your brand of 'truth'. Awareness is compulsory. Respect for an unity with all ... we're hardwired for the opposite, but I believe it can be overcome through compassion and understanding.

Tell that to the masses of lost sheep searching for answers.

Are you implying that it must be assumed that those who aren't in tune with your theory desire disorganization and chaos?

Holy christ on a stick.

No, I am implying that those who desire disorder and chaos do not mean the same thing when they speak of 'benefits'. To such people, chaos and disorder would be a benefit. But such a 'benefit' would not result from world-acceptance of the truth.

How the fuck you assumed I meant otherwise, is unbelievable.

Relative to humanity, your "beneficial" personal connection with God is just yet another in a long, long string of metaphors that humanity has conjured up in their minds to help convince themselves that they can transcend physical death. It's what we wish.

Is it? Then by all means, prove death.

Prove there will be an end.

There is no end, because there was no beginning. God just is.

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 03:42

it shows that people are struggling with the concept of reality.

You assume they are. How do you know what the core of humanity is struggling? You don't, other than your own personal struggles.

God just is

...a word, a description we use for describing what we cannot begin to comprehend yet, but that we like to believe that we do.

And man, it sure is obvious that the real conflict lies in the fact that everyone believes their description of God to be the ultimate, unarguable truth. You've exhibited the same while outlining your definition of it, so don't pretend to be beyond all that.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 04:11

How do you know what the core of humanity is struggling? You don't, other than your own personal struggles.

No, the only thing I know is 'I AM'.

However, based upon my perception of maya, I do see humanity struggling to understand the world around them...it is what we do, we strive to understand, to find truth.

Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

All religions have been attempts to quench that thirst.

If you believe otherwise, then please describe what you believe the purpose of religion to be.

...a word, a description we use for describing what we cannot begin to comprehend yet, but that we like to believe that we do.

Yes.

And man, it sure is obvious that the real conflict lies in the fact that everyone believes their description of God to be the ultimate, unarguable truth. You've exhibited the same while outlining your definition of it, so don't pretend to be beyond all that.

Total acceptance of my concept would resolve that conflict, and that would be much more probable then having the religious masses deny the beliefs they have held on to so for long, as my concept is the core upon which much religious dogma has been built upon.

As my ego is an intricate part of my perception of maya, yes, I have exhibited the same characteristic. But there is a difference between the truth I am describing and the dogma of religion (or all experience). My concept is not solely based upon beliefs, but upon what is known to be true.

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 05:31

No, the only thing I know is 'I AM'.

However, based upon my perception of maya, I do see humanity struggling to understand the world around them...

it is what we do, we strive to understand, to find truth.

Finding truths above or beyond what is observable to us in this state (the reality you and I are engaging each other in, right now) is unnecessary. Sure, we should always seek to understand the natural world around us to better ourselves so that we can live as long as possible, but ...

Making up impossibly unprovable theories about how we can either transcend after death, or kid ourselves into thinking that life/death is just an illusion? That is unnecessary.

We do this because we are loathe to part with our relationship to this world and it's easier to deny or transcend death than it is to cope with having to eventually face it someday. None of it is "true". It's wishful thinking.

It seems to me like recognizing it for what it is, wishful thinking, leaves more room to increase our awareness about our survival as a species. Being in conflict about which abstract truth trumps another seems to stand in the way of any real progress towards "uniting as one".

Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

Vonnegut. Sweet. :)

All religions have been attempts to quench that thirst.

Including yours, which you understandably refuse to acknowledge as a religion, or even be compared to, for that matter, because that would imply that their theories were somehow equally as plausible as yours. And how could that be, if your concept is the only one that is true?

If you believe otherwise, then please describe what you believe the purpose of religion to be.

I already did. It's a natural phenomena that occurs only in the human species that serves as a coping mechanism to deal with our unwillingness to believe that this is all there is, and to soothe the cold, hard fact that our presence here is limited and our awareness only temporary.

Total acceptance of my concept would resolve that conflict, and that would be much more probable then having the religious masses deny the beliefs they have held on to so for long

Embracing your concept wouldn't be thwarting their organized religion? Would it not require them denying at least part of their beliefs? Tweaking it just enough to fall into the category of your own?

"Total acceptance" is what every religion out there strives for. Because it can't bend to accomodate other beliefs, it therefore must hold true to them that everyone else's must be discarded. For "total acceptance" requires not accepting anything else in lieu of. Your concept is no different.

If not, then as my concept is the core upon which much religious dogma has been built upon.

In other words, it's just another interpretation of it. One that you personally believe is the only righteous path one can take to achieve enlightenment and restore harmony and balance.

As my ego is an intricate part of my perception of maya, yes, I have exhibited the same characteristic. But there is a difference between the truth I am describing and the dogma of religion (or all experience). My concept is not solely based upon beliefs, but upon what is known to be true.

So what you're basically saying is that "My concept differs from religion because it's true, and religion is not." Here you help validate the exact response you were responding to, which was:

And man, it sure is obvious that the real conflict lies in the fact that everyone believes their description of God to be the ultimate, unarguable truth.

Your concept, by asserting it's ultimate truthfulness above all other concepts, isn't resolving the conflict ... it's adding to it by offering YET ANOTHER set of beliefs to the already overpopulated supernatural belief pool that is constantly in conflict with itself.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 06:25

Finding truths above or beyond what is observable to us in this state (the reality you and I are engaging each other in, right now) is unnecessary.

That is your opinion. Others may feel it is the purpose for their existence.

And to think either, would be to believe your experiences are reality, such as my existence. Can you explain how you know these experiences are truth and not illusion?

Sure, we should always seek to understand the natural world around us to better ourselves so that we can live as long as possible, but ... Making up impossibly unprovable theories about how we can either transcend after death, or kid ourselves into thinking that life/death is just an illusion?

Whats provable about your experiences of the world around you?

I know you may think so, but I am not kidding you. Based on what you know to be true, your experiences are illusions.

None of it is "true". It's wishful thinking.

Your existence is not true to you? Hahahaha. Its an illusion to me.

Would you mind demonstrating some things that can be known to be true then?

It seems to me like recognizing it for what it is, wishful thinking, leaves more room to increase our awareness about our survival as a species

Tell that to religious masses who need the comfort, and find it benefits their life.

Being in conflict about which abstract truth trumps another seems to stand in the way of any real progress towards "uniting as one".

All of them are lies, as there is only one truth.

Vonnegut.

Yes. I think Bokononism is neat.

...somehow equally as plausible as yours. And how could that be, if your concept is the only one that is true?

If you do not yet think so, please demonstrate what else can be known to be true please.

It's a natural phenomena that occurs only in the human species...

This assumes you know a vast number of things to be true. Please demonstrate some of what you know to be true.

Embracing your concept wouldn't be thwarting their organized religion? Would it not require them denying at least part of their beliefs? Tweaking it just enough to fall into the category of your own?

I said more probable, not likely. In fact, I stated that in an earlier post.

Do you not already agree that they should forget the dogma?

Why the truth?

Your concept is no different.

Can you deny the truth I speak of?

Thats the difference.

In other words, it's just another interpretation of it. One that you personally believe is the only righteous path one can take to achieve enlightenment and restore harmony and balance.

It is the only path, because it is the same path all these religions speak of. They all speak of the same thing. But they all get weighed down by dogma, so much that the truth they may have once been based on long ago is no longer recognized by many, if not most. All this dogma, the cause of so much unnecessary war.

My concept has no dogma. It is simply the undeniable truth. It is recognition of what true reality is.

... it's adding to it by offering YET ANOTHER set of beliefs to the already overpopulated supernatural belief pool that is constantly in conflict with itself.

Beliefs?

Or One Truth?

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 13:19

Can you explain how you know these experiences are truth and not illusion?

I am a conscious experiencer. The only truth I can ascertain comes from the result of my being aware, and having the ability to experience from this awareness.

Calling them an illusion would just be serving a dogmatic purpose. No other.

Whats provable about your experiences of the world around you?

Here's just one:
The fact that I am a conscious experiencer that is engaging in conversation with another conscious experiencer (you). Need evidence of that? Look at the text you're reading. It's proof that both conscious experiencers know they are aware, and are engaging in an activity that further points to this awareness.

What do you have to support that it's all an illusion? Nothing except the assertions of "It's all a lie". And again, you even being able to formulate that thought is proof positive that you exist as a creature who is both aware and experiencing who prefers to think of it as an illusion because it better serves your own brand of dogma.

I know you may think so, but I am not kidding you. Based on what you know to be true, your experiences are illusions.

Your existence is not true to you? Hahahaha. Its an illusion to me.

All of them are lies, as there is only one truth.

And that is all you've got ^

Yes. I think Bokononism is neat.

Clearly. So much so, that your "one truth" concept verrrrry closely resembles it. Obbe, are you basing your "concept" loosely on the text of a ... fictional writer? If so, you deserve a scolding for being a bit hypocritcal. I distinctly remember you hassling Kazz about doing that very same thing, when he demonstrated some of his "truths" by sharing a Zarathustra article.

Cat's Cradle was a great story, Vonnegut is one of the greatest fictional writers of our generation - no argument there. What an entertainer!

If you do not yet think so, please demonstrate what else can be known to be true please.

I already have.

This assumes you know a vast number of things to be true. Please demonstrate some of what you know to be true.

Does asking this question over and over and over again help you believe the ruse that this is all an illusion? Even though you could not possibly deny the validations I get from being a conscious experiencer?

Do you not already agree that they should forget the dogma?

Not just they, Obbe. You too. Your concepts aren't much different than theirs. I've already illustrated how.

Can you deny the truth I speak of?

I can, and I have. You can wax poetic about it all you like, but remember: Just wishing it to be true does not necessarily make it true. Unless of course you hold on to that belief so tightly that it becomes ... your dogma!

It is the only path

Here we go again with "My path is the only righteous path." Hell-oooo, dogma!

because it is the same path all these religions speak of. They all speak of the same thing.

Not really.

But they all get weighed down by dogma, so much that the truth they may have once been based on long ago is no longer recognized by many

So does your concept, Obbe. The difference is that you deny it, they don't.

My concept has no dogma. It is simply the undeniable truth. It is recognition of what true reality is.

To you, Obbe. Not to many others. Calling it "undeniable" is just defending it, because you know it has to stand up next to the other thousands of different variations of abstract possibilities.

Beliefs?

Or One Truth?

Beliefs. Plain and simple.

Hare_Geist

2007-10-06, 14:18

The reason he didn’t respond to my thread properly and coincidentally disappeared for a couple of days is because I showed his philosophy for exactly what it is: a useless and unprovable speculative theory based on highly questionable presuppositions; a prison with assumptions for its foundation, in which, if accepted, the only way out is faith in a God or external world.

I highly suspect that he doesn‘t believe his own theory and is merely trying to annoy people. His method is this: make an inane statement; when someone responds, reply with very vague questions; trick them into unknowingly presupposing that certainty is a necessity of awareness of what is the case through more inane questions; move off topic and criticize their belief system from within the prison, when it can just as easily be applied to his own philosophy; then act as if a victor, or, if the person shows it for what it is, start making nonsense up on the fly, name call or disappear.

It’s the method ate and Rizzo used too. It works as a nice little defence of a questionable belief system, since it moves the topic onto the other person’s belief system, which, when supposedly disproved, allows them to commit the fallacy of believing their theory is therefore correct, when they hadn’t even responded to the criticisms.

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 17:06

I highly suspect that he doesn‘t believe his own theory and is merely trying to annoy people. His method is this: make an inane statement; when someone responds, reply with very vague questions; trick them into unknowingly presupposing that certainty is a necessity of awareness of what is the case through more inane questions; move off topic and criticize their belief system from within the prison, when it can just as easily be applied to his own philosophy; then act as if a victor, or, if the person shows it for what it is, start making nonsense up on the fly, name call or disappear.

It’s the method ate and Rizzo used too. It works as a nice little defence of a questionable belief system, since it moves the topic onto the other person’s belief system, which, when supposedly disproved, allows them to commit the fallacy of believing their theory is therefore correct, when they hadn’t even responded to the criticisms.

Spot-on as usual, Hare. Except in my opinion, Rizzo had a more charming, multi-faceted personality and was a better storyteller.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 18:09

Calling them an illusion would just be serving a dogmatic purpose.

Reality is what you know to be true, illusions are something not true to reality. If you only know one thing to be true (and you do), then these experiences become illusions to that truth.

I fail to see how thats dogmatic, as it is true you only know one thing. Please point out why you believe its dogmatic, if you can do so.

The fact that I am a conscious experiencer that is engaging in conversation with another conscious experiencer (you).

This is an experience you believe to be perceiving, but one thing you cannot know about it is if it it true reality, or an illusion. Another, is if you have actually experienced this conversation, or only believe you have.

Need evidence of that? Look at the text you're reading.

Thats 'proof' within the maya...like the character at the end of this sentence is a period.

However, it doesn't prove the maya is true reality.

Again, how do I know you actually exist? That the text before me is not merely an illusion I have been experiencing? That the belief that the text has been experienced itself is not an illusion?

Based on what I know to be true, experience is illusion. It is maya.

What do you have to support that it's all an illusion?

That illusions are not true to reality. Reality is truth. Truth is knowledge. And you only know one thing.

Every other thing is illusion.

...you even being able to formulate that thought is proof positive that you exist as a creature who is both aware and experiencing...

Is it? Or is it all an illusion?

Experience, recognition, thought formulation, all is illusion to true reality.

Again, its proof of something within the maya, but not of the maya itself.

...who prefers to think of it as an illusion because it better serves your own brand of dogma.

I do not prefer that, thats just how it is.

Could I not say you prefer to think of experience as reality because it better serves your own brand of dogma?

Please, tell me how what I describe is dogmatic and not simply, truth.

So much so, that your "one truth" concept verrrrry closely resembles it. Obbe, are you basing your "concept" loosely on the text of a ... fictional writer?

No, I base it on what I know to be true, but I find similarities with it in Bokononism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, String Theory, etc...

My question to you is would you know I based it off anything? How do you know I am actually saying anything? Or that I exist?

I distinctly remember you hassling Kazz about doing that very same thing, when he demonstrated some of his "truths" by sharing a Zarathustra article.

I wasn't hassling Kazz, nor was I promoting Bokononism (or Cats Cradle) here.

I already have.

In actuality, you only believe you have. In actuality, such a thing is impossible.

Does asking this question over and over and over again help you believe the ruse that this is all an illusion?

No, but it helps demonstrate it that its not a ruse, perception is illusion.

Even though you could not possibly deny the validations I get from being a conscious experiencer?

I can easily deny them as true experiences, or even as experiences which actually occurred, as you cannot know either. You cannot validate anything!

Based on what you know to be true, they are illusions.

Not just they, Obbe...I've already illustrated how.

And I disagree that it is dogma. Show me how it is.

Why not recognize what is true?

Of course you don't think what I describe as being the only truth is true....so please, demonstrate why you think that.

Just wishing it to be true does not necessarily make it true.

I'm not wishing 'being' to be true, it is in fact the only thing I know to be true!

Prove that its not! Prove maya is not illusion!

So does your concept, Obbe.

It has become so weighed down with dogma, I can no longer recognize truth?

Uh huh...

Please, demonstrate some of my dogma, and demonstrate how it misrepresents the truth.

My concept has no dogma...it solely describes the truth!

Calling it "undeniable" is just defending it...

Then deny it by proving I am not.

To do so would make me an illusion.

Plain and simple.

KISS

Obbe

2007-10-06, 18:11

The reason he didn’t respond to my thread properly...

Is because its too long, too complex, and I don't want to bother. I took the same advice I give to those who hate my threads.

Oh, and it was funny thinking of you compulsively obsessing over a reply for days, after all the effort put into writing such a monstrosity.

It’s the method ate and Rizzo used too

'Method', phhhh.

You can't see past arguing because that is all you enjoy to do! I am not trying to 'win' something, or make the other 'lose'.

I am trying my best to communicate truth, which can only be done through lies. Thats why its self-defeating. Not only does it destroy its own argument, but everything else within maya!

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 18:28

All you do is ask the same questions over and over again, and assert the same belief of yours over and over again. Which are:

Question: How do you know it's true?

Belief: Everything is an illusion.

Round and round and round you go - what your point is? No one knows.

(Because there isn't one)

Explain yourself while omitting the word illusion or truth - both which aren't necessary to explain our current state of being - and I'll take your assertions more seriously.

I'll leave you to your Obbe-esque dogma and go enjoy the remainder of my Saturday.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 18:41

Explain yourself while omitting the word illusion or truth - both which aren't necessary to explain our current state of being - and I'll take your assertions more seriously.

I believe they may be necessary, but I'll try to use them as little as possible

Question: How do you know it's true?

Because its known. And its all I know.

I know that 'I AM', and nothing more.

What is 'I AM' recognizing? Being.

'Being' is the truth ( whoops, sorry).

Belief: Everything is an illusion.

True reality is being, therefore everything else is illusion (dammit).

Even the recognition that expereince is maya and true reality is 'being', is an illusion to that truth. For within that truth, there is awareness of nothing. It is simply being.

what your point is?

True reality is 'being'.

...go enjoy the remainder of my Saturday.

That is why I do not find illusions to be worthless.

BTW - I had a feeling you wouldn't directly respond, again, causing me to re-explain everything. Can you prove my truth wrong (that 'I AM' is not true)? Can you prove anything is true? Can you prove experience is reality? Can you at least prove that its not illusion?

Hare_Geist

2007-10-06, 18:54

Obbe, while I enjoy a good debate, I care much more about the truth. This is why I have taken the time to point out the nonsense that is your philosophy, which I believe is nothing more than your attempt to provoke people under the guise of spreading truth.

Oh, and it was funny thinking of you compulsively obsessing over a reply for days, after all the effort put into writing such a monstrosity.

The amount of times you have picked on my OCD shows just how much of a bitter dick you are.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 19:13

...which I believe is nothing more than your attempt to provoke people under the guise of spreading truth.

As so, you have completely misunderstood it.

What is untrue about 'being'?

What is true about experience?

The amount of times you have picked on my OCD shows just how much of a bitter dick you are.

I won't deny it.

However, I believe you should question why I am such a dick to you (and those like you). No, its not because you disagree with me, I was a dick to you before I even brought this upon totse.

If you figure that out, and change your act accordingly, then I won't be a dick.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-06, 19:15

Is because its too long, too complex, and I don't want to bother. I took the same advice I give to those who hate my threads.

Oh, and it was funny thinking of you compulsively obsessing over a reply for days, after all the effort put into writing such a monstrosity.

Obsessing.

I was laughing at your utter lack of a reply. Your loss of the debate. Your inability to understand the argument presented before you in an intellectual fashion.

It is and was amusing.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 19:20

Your loss of the debate. Your inability to understand the argument presented before you in an intellectual fashion.

You're missing the point of what I am saying by getting caught up in debate.

I understand my argument kills itself. But I don't present it to argue.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-06, 19:23

You're missing the point of what I am saying by getting caught up in debate.

I understand my argument kills itself. But I don't present it to argue.

What is the point of putting your completely illogical and self-refuting argument out there?

Obbe

2007-10-06, 19:31

What is the point of putting your completely illogical and self-refuting argument out there?

Knowing the truth. The point is that true reality is being.

Oh, putting it out there, you mean spreading it through the maya, as in telling 'other' people and the such?

This (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9005727&postcount=208) is the point.

Hare_Geist

2007-10-06, 19:31

As so, you have completely misunderstood it.

Or completely understood it.

What is untrue about 'being'?

What is true about experience?

And so the part of the method which involves vague, loaded questions begins.

However, I believe you should question why I am such a dick to you (and those like you).

The problem isn’t with me, I’m not the one that allows himself to grow so bitter that he resorts to using someone’s ailments to insult him.

I was laughing at your utter lack of a reply. Your loss of the debate. Your inability to understand the argument presented before you in an intellectual fashion.

If he believes the argument was that his belief is self-refuting and that’s why he’s resorted to saying it’s supposed to self-refute, then he’s certainly misunderstood a huge part of the argument.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 19:41

Or completely understood it.

'fraid not, if you believe you know either way.

And so the part of the method...

Which you will try to ignore because you know that 'being' is true, and you understand that you cannot know experiences to be true, and you really, really don't want to admit it.

Again, "method". I am just telling undeniable truth.

You turn it into an argument out of your desire to deny it.

The problem isn’t with me, I’m not the one that allows himself to grow so bitter that he resorts to using someone’s ailments to insult him.

It is your problem, because it is no problem for me to be a complete dick to you. The reason I am lays with you.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-06, 19:41

Knowing the truth. The point is that true reality is being.

Oh, putting it out there, you mean spreading it through the maya, as in telling 'other' people and the such?

This (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=9005727&postcount=208) is the point.

I already explained to you that your self-refuting argument of complete circular logic is pointless. You say nothing everytime you type your response.

I will say it again: Your core concept cannot survive alongside scientific progression. Your idea therefore will not promote science by ending theistic debate. Your idea is far too abstract to end or even lessen theistic debate anyway.

Your idea is a piss poor attempt at philosophy at best. In fact, you belong in the philosophy section with your "thoughts". Go there. Tell them. They will enjoy your nonsense and you theirs. It will almost be like a circle jerk of the minds.

Hare_Geist

2007-10-06, 19:50

Obbe, let's leave it at this: until you can address anything in my thread, you and your method are a waste of time. :)

Obbe

2007-10-06, 19:59

I already explained to you that your self-refuting argument of complete circular logic is pointless.

I have already explained why it is not.

Your core concept cannot survive alongside scientific progression.

I disagree, because science does not exist alongside the state.

It exists within maya, maya which flows forth from the state described in my concept. Within that maya is the only place science can progress, and I see nothing about an understanding of my concept which would hinder the progression within that maya.

Your idea therefore will not promote science by ending theistic debate.

I never said it would, I said it would leave us unhindered by faith-debates.

Science is the tool for exploring 'consensual' perceptions of maya. The entire reason you are experiencing is to experience.

I see no reason it would hinder science.

Your idea is far too abstract to end or even lessen theistic debate anyway.

And obviously I disagree, but even if that arguable, it is more probable then atheist domination.

Your idea is a piss poor attempt at philosophy at best. In fact, you belong in the philosophy section with your "thoughts". Go there. Tell them. They will enjoy your nonsense and you theirs. It will almost be like a circle jerk of the minds.

And whats atheism? Nothing?

Then what the hell are you doing here? Why not go to mad scientists and have a circle jerk over what you conclude as consensual perception with the strangers you believe exist?

Obbe

2007-10-06, 20:01

Obbe, let's leave it at this

If thats what you want.

BrokeProphet

2007-10-06, 20:43

I have already explained why it is not.

I see no reason it would hinder science.

I am sorry could you explain again how your self-refuting argument of complete circular logic is not pointless!!!!!!

You cannot grasp how futile that explanation is under you own philosophy can you? You just will not let it sink in. After your admission that your argument is self-refuting...you have no argument...AT ALL. You cannot continue to be this dumb can you? You have no argument. Your done. It is midly amusing at this point.

I know you see no reason your self-refuting circular logic would hinder science because you have absolutely ZERO GRASP of what science is. You see no reason b/c you are ignorant of science. You have to ignorant of any science or scientific thought to believe any part of what you speculate.

Uranium238

2007-10-06, 21:02

This really is almost unbelievable. It's hard to grasp that someone might be as hopelessly dense as Obbe.

Obbe

2007-10-06, 21:14

You cannot grasp how futile that explanation is under you own philosophy can you?

This is assuming no value to illusions.

That is not part of my philosophy.

You just will not let it sink in. After your admission that your argument is self-refuting...you have no argument...AT ALL.

As with everything else...AT ALL!

Its self-refuting, its reality-refuting!

You have to ignorant of any science or scientific thought to believe any part of what you speculate.

Why? Whats ignorant in admitting I only know 'I AM'?

AngryFemme

2007-10-06, 21:25

Bike rides are fun. Now I'm back for more.

I know that 'I AM',

This is not arguable. It's honest. And true.

and nothing more.

This is where it all crumbles. This is where you discount the whole purpose of I AM, which is to experience, and use those experiences to shape your reality. You prefer to call it an illusion, which is unnecessary, and which is why it is akin to dogma. It is YOUR settled and established belief, principle and conviction.

It's been pointed out several times by several different people how that train of thought is not only unnecessary, but also not beneficial, and basically boils down to loose, self-refuting, circular, pointless philoso-babble. You don't need it to help support the one logical thing that you have been asserting, the fact that 'I AM' is being, and being is true.

Why you can't accept that your being is true without having to deny that experiences that make up the awareness that gives you the faculties to even think 'I AM' are true also ... makes no sense.

What is 'I AM' recognizing? Being.

You type that one irrefutable fact into every one of your missives, then you succeed in tearing it down by reporting that regardless of what everyone might think they are perceiving - reality and experiences are illusions! You state that it not only applies to you, but to other experiencers who beg to differ with you.

Your recognizing your own personal state of 'being' is called awareness. Awareness without experiences is much like the flowerpot scenario we spoke about earlier.

'Being' is the truth ( whoops, sorry).

There it is again. It's true, sure. But to be true ONLY IF experiences and the reality they reside in are illusions is just horseshit, plain and simple. You're taking a basic given and then attempting to make it complex. And I'm sorry to report that you are failing miserably at it, because if you comb through your posts, it reads almost parrot-like "I AM! I AM! That's true! That's true! Everything else is illusion! Illusion, I tell you!".

Then you ask the befuddled readers to prove you false. Proving you false by your statement of "I AM" is to deny our own awareness of existence. Proving you wrong by pointing out how unnecessary all this illusion crap is to your sense of being is cakewalk. It's been done already, but you refuse to even acknowledge it because it's your belief, your principle, your opinion ... your dogma.

This is also why you won't acknowledge Hare's thread. It tramples all over your dogma and exposes it for what it really is - pointless drivel.

True reality is being,

True.

therefore everything else is illusion (dammit).

False. What you're claiming to be an illusion is what actually makes you able to be aware. The experiences and recognition of I AM is what got you there. So is the illusion necessary to awareness? Yes. Without it, we'd closely resemble the state of, say, a tree? Yes. And how is that beneficial to humanity, if we were to all be in the same state as a tree?

For within that truth, there is awareness of nothing. It is simply being.

Awareness of nothing isn't being. It's ceasing to be. Awareness is what allows you to assert that 'I AM'.

If 'I AM' is true, and you seek truth - why discount the thought processes and experiences THAT LED YOU TO THAT POINT as illusions? It's completely and utterly unnecessary, and for the umpteenth time - you've failed to illustrate how it could possibly be beneficial.

BTW - I had a feeling you wouldn't directly respond, again, causing me to re-explain everything.

I responded to each and every point. If your dogma wasn't in the way, leading you by a leash and hindering you from accepting anything else, you wouldn't fail to see it.

Can you prove my truth wrong (that 'I AM' is not true)? Can you prove anything is true? Can you prove experience is reality? Can you at least prove that its not illusion?

Once again, this time on a loudspeaker:

I cannot say that 'I AM' is not true. Because it is. I CAN say that it is not the ultimate truth to end all other truths, rendering everything else outside this one statement as false ... especially since they are tantamount to you arriving at that truth that you so desperately insist is the only thing worth knowing.

Obbe

2007-10-07, 05:15

It is YOUR settled and established belief, principle and conviction.

Indeed, and is so because by result of definitions. Its a belief which points out what you can know true reality is. If you believe you can know anything besides 'I AM', demonstrate how.

But I have also said that the opposite, believing all possibilities are true, arrives at the same conclusion. I do not preach my 'belief' that all is maya as necessary for reaching the truth.

You don't need it to help support the one logical thing that you have been asserting, the fact that 'I AM' is being, and being is true.

No, you don't.

Illusion and what is perceived as true reality are the same thing.

Why you can't accept that your being is true without having to deny that experiences that make up the awareness that gives you the faculties to even think 'I AM' are true also ... makes no sense.

Its not that I believe you must deny truth to experience to arrive at the truth. If i thought so, I would not speak of other ways.

But in a conversation like this, using a language with defined words, all experiences are illusions to the state you know to be true. Truth is knowledge, and you can only know 'I AM' to be true. Experiences are illusions to that state.

You type that one irrefutable fact into every one of your missives, then you succeed in tearing it down by reporting that regardless of what everyone might think they are perceiving - reality and experiences are illusions!

You experience the recognition of 'I AM'. That recognition is part of the maya.

What I tear down is not the truth that is being recognized, but recognition itself!

All thats left in true reality is the presence.

Awareness without experiences is much like the flowerpot scenario we spoke about earlier.

...do you have a point?

...to be true ONLY IF experiences and the reality they reside in are illusions

If that was what I try communicate, then why would I say the same conclusion is reached by perceiving all possibilities as true?

I swear, every time you reply in full, you misunderstand at least one thing I said in the last post.

You're taking a basic given and then attempting to make it complex.

It is both.

It's been done already

If you believe you know it has, then you miss the point of what I have been saying!

What you're claiming to be an illusion is what actually makes you able to be aware.

No, I am not claiming 'being' to be an illusion, I claim the recognition of being to be an illusion!

Being is awareness of nothing. You are awareness, you are that which experiences...nothing 'makes' you that, its is all you are!

The experiences and recognition of I AM is what got you there. So is the illusion necessary to awareness?

Yes, maya is necessary for experiencing. Maya is experience.

But not for awareness, nothing is necessary for it. Its is all that truly is! Awareness of nothing!

...how is that beneficial to humanity, if we were to all be in the same state as a tree?

I'm not saying the state is beneficial to humanity, recognition of the truth results in recognition that humanity is maya. Benefits do not exist within the state!

We would not all be 'in' that state, because we then would not be recognizing the maya that we are part of humanity. But within the maya, recognition of what is true reality would be beneficial for cooperation and peace.

Awareness of nothing isn't being. It's ceasing to be. Awareness is what allows you to assert that 'I AM'.

And so existence is being able to recognize that I exist? I do no think so.

As with your tree-example, do you believe thats a tree exists because it is aware of its existence? Otherwise it would not exist, no?

So now you believe the computer in front of you is self-aware?

Hahaha, somehow that doesn't seem like you.

There is no ceasing to be. Being is all there is.

Personally I believe all things to be aware, at least of nothing.

If 'I AM' is true, and you seek truth - why discount the thought processes and experiences THAT LED YOU TO THAT POINT as illusions?

'I AM' is only recognition of truth.

Again, for it to be true, you would be assuming you know that the thought processes and experiences which 'led' to it are real, not illusion. You do not know. You cannot.

<Being> is not the ultimate truth

(I decided to correct your misunderstanding of the difference between 'being' and 'I AM' here myself, because you've made similar mistakes about what I say so many times, that I don't even think pointing it out ever makes a difference. Do you do it deliberately? You've never apologized either, in fact, whenever it happens you seem to then ignore most of that reply except for a section or two.)

Please demonstrate how you know another thing to be true.

For reals this time.

they are tantamount to you arriving at that truth

Why do you think that?

If I never experience anything, then I have already 'arrived' at that truth. If I am not experiencing anything at all, then I am aware of nothing, I already am the truth!

They may be essential for recognizing that 'I AM', just as most things within maya depend on other things. But they are in no way essential for 'being', the truth which 'I AM' is recognizing.

(oh, in case you thought I ran away or something, I went Blue Grass concert. Sorry to disappoint)

AngryFemme

2007-10-07, 12:46

So how was the concert?

Indeed, and is so because by result of definitions. Its a belief which points out what you can know true reality is.

I am just utterly satisfied that you are now calling it a belief system by a result of definitions. Just so long as you don't take the stance that anything outside that belief system of your "One Truth" is completely false, and I'll get off your back. I think we still have a ways to go there, yet...

But I have also said that the opposite, believing all possibilities are true, arrives at the same conclusion. I do not preach my 'belief' that all is maya as necessary for reaching the truth.

If that's the case, then why even acknowledge that all things outside of the state are illusions? If reaching the truth can be achieved either way, I fail to see the point of telling yourself that your experiences are illusions.

If you believe you can know anything besides 'I AM', demonstrate how.

No matter what I said, you'd point out (through your belief system) that what I reported on was an illusion. Obbe - can you demonstrate to me that you love your mother? It's nothing worth demonstrating, it's a feeling inside you that only YOU can recognize. Does this make it an illusion? I prefer to think not. That is how I am certain that we are more than just "being".

No, you don't.

Illusion and what is perceived as true reality are the same thing.

Why undermine your perceptions at all then? Why convince yourself that they're illusions?

Its not that I believe you must deny truth to experience to arrive at the truth. If i thought so, I would not speak of other ways.

I haven't heard of you speak but of one way. That way is acknowledging (for what purpose?) that experiences are illusions, lies. From what you're saying, the only truth worth knowing is "being". If you exist, you are "being". Correct? Then by default, you already know the truth. It's a given. Now, how is it that you have to arrive at the major revelation of "everything else is a lie" just to confirm this truth? It seems like unnecessary excess, which is why I deem it philoso-babble.

But in a conversation like this, using a language with defined words, all experiences are illusions to the state you know to be true. Truth is knowledge, and you can only know 'I AM' to be true. Experiences are illusions to that state.

You have failed to point out why experiences have to be illusions to the state you know to be true. BEING IS TRUE. EXPERIENCES ARE TRUE. Why do those two statements conflict for you? Unless the only way to accept "being is true" is to falsify your experiences into mere illusions...

You experience the recognition of 'I AM'. That recognition is part of the maya.

What I tear down is not the truth that is being recognized, but recognition itself!

Let's talk about maya now, and tearing down the recognition of all that we experience. Borrowing from the Hindus Vendantic philosophies, the Dharmic philosophies, and even Plato's Allegory of the cave - the only way to arrive at the "universal truth" is to separate yourself from what you think is true (your experiences) to be able to acknowledge the ONE truth, which is simply "being".

For most of us, "living" is enriching the experiences and the knowledge of the only known cognitive state we can possibly report on. To accept and eternally philosophize that our experiences, the recognition of being and our physical state in the natural world is an illusion brings forth unnecessary mysticism, excess use of metaphors, and a train of thought that will serve of little use to us while living in the only known cognitive state that we can report on. In a spiritual realm (if you subscribe to that, I do not) - it might serve a purpose for enrichment. But it's not necessary.

Even if the highest spiritual knowledge is attained ...

...All thats left in true reality is the presence.

The "presence", according to you, is going to be the one central affirmation of true reality, itself. With this given, why is spiritual knowledge necessary to the cognitive state we are bound to in this realm???

I have the same aspirations for humanity that you do, Obbe. You and I are not so very different there. The fundamental difference between you and I is not our theories on what enlightenment is, but our methods on applying it to the Here and Now and making the world a better place through understanding and acceptance of "All".

Are we "all one"? Yes, I believe that also. But I don't believe that working so hard to get in touch with our spiritual sides is the only path to getting the rest of humanity to embrace the "We are all one" philosophy. We are all flesh and blood, we reside in and are subject to the natural world, we are tethered to one cognitive state (recognition of awareness) and we must find a way to merge "into One" using the mental faculties of perception that our brains are capable of.

Once we attempt to separate our minds from our bodies, championing the thought of us all co-existing in a spiritual realm, holding hands, if you will, caught up in the warmfuzzy throes of ultimate "togetherness" ... it's a nice thought, but it's not applicable to this world, a world full of conflict and strife and flesh-and-blood beings who have no choice but to exist together on a physical plane. Time would be better spent working out our conflicts while NOT arguing over our vast interpretations of what spirituality may or may not hold for us after we die.

Again, you can go on believing that dying is an illusion, but it still will not prevent you from moving out of the path of an oncoming bus to escape being run over. I'll give you the same impossible request that you have handed me over the course of this thread:

Can you demonstrate to me how you are certain dying is an illusion?

...do you have a point?

I do. The overall point is that practicing spirituality isn't necessary while we reside on the physical plane. EVEN IF spirituality is the essence of all human beings, then it is something that, for all practical purposes in THIS life, doesn't fulfill the hopes we all have of co-existing as "One". Only real-time reactions to our experiences is necessary to work together in harmony.

I swear, every time you reply in full, you misunderstand at least one thing I said in the last post.

Is that so unusual? If I claimed to understand everything you are attempting to communicate by way of your opinion, then we'd be in full agreement and these conversations wouldn't even be necessary. Can you acknowledge that maybe you are misunderstanding my point of view, also? That maybe both points of view are necessary to dissect in order for us to gain a greater understanding of each other's viewpoints?

No, I am not claiming 'being' to be an illusion, I claim the recognition of being to be an illusion!

And in turn, I am claiming that viewing your own recognition of 'being' as an illusion is unnecessary.

Being is awareness of nothing. You are awareness, you are that which experiences...nothing 'makes' you that, its is all you are!

If we are 'that which experiences', then our purpose is to experience. Defining our experiences as illusions seems to be belittling the very purpose of our being!

Yes, maya is necessary for experiencing. Maya is experience.

But not for awareness, nothing is necessary for it. Its is all that truly is! Awareness of nothing!

Again - how is reaching "awareness of nothing" beneficial to us flesh-and-blood creatures in the Here & Now? Does it solve problems? Does it further humanity? Does it serve any purpose whatsoever other than speculation about the spiritual plane of existence? If we weren't flesh and blood creatures forced to interact with each other in this natural world, then your theories would perhaps be worth pursuing. But we are, and it's not, except for maybe abstract discussion that doesn't really amount to much when it comes to enriching the lives of humanity as a whole.