I have seen a great number of "atheist suck" threads on here. I have to wonder why?

I mean you theists are the ones who possess the ultimate truth...right? You hold the divine knowledge that is the key to freeing the immortal soul...right?

Why get pissed at atheists?

It is not like we are forcing our atheist views upon you under penalty of death by fire...right? It is not like you have to be an atheist or your community will turn it's back on you.

When you get pissed at what an atheist argument against theism you do realize you are just getting angry at reason and rationality itself, right? That is what comprises an atheist argument. Reason and rationality.

The bottom line is this: Religion is no longer needed. Society does not need some antiquitated and primitive magic to keep it going. We no longer require God. We MAY, I repeat MAY, have needed religion at some point for some unifying purpose of uneducated people, but we do not need it anymore.

So before you make a "Atheist make me cry" thread......stop and consider.....is it the atheist you angry with or the argument itself. The argument of you vs. rationality.

Atheism =/= rationality.

Personally, I find it to be more reasonable and rational not to rule out the existence of some sort of higher power based on current evidence, then to blindly assume there cannot be one.

Just like when people blindly assumed the earth was the center of the universe, based on the evidence they had.

Of course any idiot can blindly say that its impossible for a God not to exist, but the converse is true too.

Atheism =/= rationality.

Personally, I find it to be more reasonable and rational not to rule out the existence of some sort of higher power based on current evidence, then to blindly assume there cannot be one.

Just like when people blindly assumed the earth was the center of the universe, based on the evidence they had.

Of course any idiot can blindly say that its impossible for a God not to exist, but the converse is true too.

Not believing in 2900 thousand year old texts isn't rational?

Not believing in 2900 thousand year old texts isn't rational?

Its neither rational nor irrational, its your personal choice.

Blindly asserting there CAN or CANNOT be a God is irrational, as there isn't enough evidence either way.

Its neither rational nor irrational, its your personal choice.

Blindly asserting there CAN or CANNOT be a God is irrational, as there isn't enough evidence either way.

Lol, so now personal choices can't be labeled as rational or irrational? I don't understand why this would be. Waking up and drinking chlorox everyday is a very irrational thing to do and it is my personal choice. There is nothing wrong with this labeling.

We are not blindly asserting there is not a god, but I agree saying there CANNOT logically possibly be a god is a much stronger assertion (one which most atheists don't go as far as to say). Still, I find it more rational to say there is no god, until there is evidence given otherwise. In the same manner, I find it more rational to say there is no magical green monkey living on the dark side of the moon, even if I wouldn't say it is a logical impossibility. The onus in either case is on the believer to produce evidence, not the other way around.

Atheism =/= rationality.

Personally, I find it to be more reasonable and rational not to rule out the existence of some sort of higher power based on current evidence, then to blindly assume there cannot be one.

Just like when people blindly assumed the earth was the center of the universe, based on the evidence they had.

Of course any idiot can blindly say that its impossible for a God not to exist, but the converse is true too.


"when people BLINDLY ASSUMED the earth was the center of the universe, based on the EVIDENCE they had"

Something is not BLINDLY assumed if there actually is evidence for it. Was there real evidence in this case? Not that I know of, besides anthropocentric egotistically-driven dogma.

The problem is that atheism says, in one case, that there is no god in existence. To say something doesn't exist is true, unless the entity can be shown to exist. For the theist, they say something exists, but have nothing to show for such a belief. The atheist cannot possibly rebuttal something that is non-falsifiable. We can say look! we've looked all over the universe and there is no such being as god, therefore there is no reason to believe. Then the theist will say, look you can't possibly see or even experience this god in an objective, testable way. Well fuck, that's a good catch-22 :/

"when people BLINDLY ASSUMED the earth was the center of the universe, based on the EVIDENCE they had"

Something is not BLINDLY assumed if there actually is evidence for it. Was there real evidence in this case? Not that I know of, besides anthropocentric egotistically-driven dogma.

The problem is that atheism says, in one case, that there is no god in existence. To say something doesn't exist is true, unless the entity can be shown to exist. For the theist, they say something exists, but have nothing to show for such a belief. The atheist cannot possibly rebuttal something that is non-falsifiable. We can say look! we've looked all over the universe and there is no such being as god, therefore there is no reason to believe. Then the theist will say, look you can't possibly see or even experience this god in an objective, testable way. Well fuck, that's a good catch-22 :/

My point is, debating the existence of a God is as meaningless as debating the existence of the quality of say, free will. You just go around in circles with neither side being able to make enough of a case to sway the other side.

My issue here isn't with atheists, per se, but at the veiled swipe at believers in the OP's post.

It is not like we are forcing our atheist views upon you under penalty of death by fire...right? It is not like you have to be an atheist or your community will turn it's back on you.

There are all types of extremists.

When you get pissed at what an atheist argument against theism you do realize you are just getting angry at reason and rationality itself, right?

I don't understand how there could be an argument against God, unless this 'God' being argued against is not truly God, but a possibility within true God. Just a fraction of All.

When you get pissed off while talking with me about reality and God, and present everything you 'know' and all your 'truths', you realize that those are all based upon belief, right? No, because otherwise you would be a solipsist (or would agree with the idea).

Religion is no longer needed. Society does not need some antiquitated and primitive magic to keep it going.

I'm not trying to promote religion at all when I say this, as organized religion does a lot to fuck up the world. But I think that much of the world, the poor, sick and uneducated masses, would probably disagree with you.

For those of us lucky enough to be living amazingly better life's, no, religions or spirituality are not needed for comfort or life-purpose. But I personally think every person should have their own 'religion', or spiritual beliefs.

This is because through the feeling of 'understanding', and the respect of others and nature (or the rest of 'reality', or God, or 'oneness'...or whatever), people tend to stop subscribing to the materialistic lifestyle and worship of the almighty dollar that I feel is a major contribution to the degradation of culture throughout western society.

We no longer require God

Nobody says you must recognize God. Theists who do say so are either extremists who you should just ignore anyways, or pissed-off and retaliating to agitation caused by aggressive atheists. Perhaps those atheists were just pissed off at some aggressive theists from earlier...who the fuck knows.

It stops when everyone stops continuing the cycle.

And again, this could be taken as a misunderstanding of God. No longer require a bearded, toga-wearing white man to make sure we don't jack-off? Sure.

No longer require God? All 'requires' God, as all is God.

All 'requires' God, as all is God.

You're full of shit Obbe, as always

It's perfectly logical to rule out gods because they're contradictory constructs, like a totally visible and invisible car, or a tree that is also a bear. Such things are simply incapable of existing because they don't make any fucking sense. That's enough to toss out the foolish assertions theists make.

Its neither rational nor irrational, its your personal choice.

Blindly asserting there CAN or CANNOT be a God is irrational, as there isn't enough evidence either way.

There is as much evidence for God as there is for an invisible dragon in my garage.

That is to say there is NO evidence to support either claim AT ALL.

THE RATIONAL THING TO DO IS TO ASSUME I DO NOT HAVE AN INVISIBLE DRAGON IN MY GARAGE.....................RIGHT???

I am not saying there is no god. I am not saying goblins and dragons do not exist. I am just saying there is zero evidence. When you have zero evidence for something rationality dictates it is invalid. You must validate something with tangible evidence.

To put things in perspective: There is more evidence for bigfoot, nessie, Roswell aliens and a living elvis than there is for God. There is more evidence the WTC was perpetrated by our government and that Oswald was not the lone gunman than there is for God.

Therefore, I believe if you are going to believe in something that has no evidence to support it (i.e. God) you are equally likely (and irrational) to believe Elvis teamed up with bigfoot to kill nessie just before the MIBs took him away to area 51 to travel him back in time to shoot JFK. Setting in motion what the roswell aliens had planned all along.....the WTC attack on 9/11.

You see, if your a theist and someone tells you a story like the one I just mentioned above...can you in good judgment call them on their bullshit? I mean there is more evidence to support my outlandish conspiracy than there is for a space daddy who wants you to give 10% of your money to church so he can party with your ghost forever.

So theists, before you call a wacked out "I've been abducted by aliens and they looked like Elvis" nutjob on his bullshit, remember how upset you got when someone called you on yours.

I am not saying there is no god. I am not saying goblins and dragons do not exist. I am just saying there is zero evidence. When you have zero evidence for something rationality dictates it is invalid. You must validate something with tangible evidence.

There will always be people who claim their evidence is first hand experience. For these people, their claim to the existence of God is not invalid to themselves...which is all that really matters.

If real, the entity you call God would have to be separate 'part' of reality, like the invisible dragon inside the garage which itself is perceivable. That entity is not a description of God.

God is all....the garage, the possibility of the the invisible dragon, the 'you' perceiving the scenario...everything. All is 'evidence' of God.

But since you cannot know anymore then you already do, no evidence actually validates anything, except within the belief of the scenario.

There is more evidence for...than there is for God.

Thats just a misunderstanding of God.

There will always be people who claim their evidence is first hand experience. For these people, their claim to the existence of God is not invalid to themselves...which is all that really matters.

No.

If belief was all that mattered we would not have mental health professionals who study and try to treat people who believe their dogs talk to them. Who believe they are Christ returned. Who hear voices (what's that you said god?).

If you want to believe your feces is a sentient being or that the earth is hollow....feel free. My point of the whole thread is this....there is less evidence for God than there is for Elvis being alive today. SO how can a theist mock or ridicule someone with an INSANE belief in something such as the typical bigfoot searching, elvis spotting, anally probed by aliens, person?

That is the point of this. Xtians not understanding why they are mocked and are amusing to others.

How can you misunderstand God? How can a person misunderstand something which CANNOT be understood?

If belief was all that mattered we would not have mental health professionals who study and try to treat people who believe...

What I was referring to, was that is does not (or should not) matter to the belief-holder what anyone else thinks of their beliefs.

But apparently, belief does have a pretty big importance. These mental health 'professionals' and others in society believe that they are the sane, the people who talk to dogs are insane, and that those wackos should be 'treated'.

My point of the whole thread is this....there is less evidence for God than there is for Elvis being alive today.

No, the 'evidence' for Elvis being alive (or for Earth not being the center of the universe, or anything) is evidence for God. Your description of a separate entity is not a description of God.

SO how can a theist mock or ridicule someone with an INSANE belief in something such as the typical bigfoot searching, elvis spotting, anally probed by aliens, person?

Because their an asshole. Most theists do not understand what really God is, and their belief cannot be validated anymore then a belief in Big Foot, or a belief that expereince is truth.

Because their an asshole who believes they KNOW the truth, and the other is wrong. Same as atheist assholes mocking and ridiculing INSANE theists.

That is the point of this. Xtians not understanding why they are mocked and are amusing to others.

Yet the thread was addressed to theists.

And what a generalization. I'm sure many less-traditional Christians understand why their foolish brothers are made fun of.

Why even bring this point up? Should I bring up how you do not understand why I find you amusing?

How can you misunderstand God?

By believing God is a 'piece' of reality, separate from all.

How can a person misunderstand something which CANNOT be understood?

Ahem...cannot be fully understood, from where you are now...perceiving separation, aware of anything.

However, God understands God. At awareness of nothing, there is no understanding, there is just 'being'.

What do you think enlightenment leads to?

No, the 'evidence' for Elvis being alive (or for Earth not being the center of the universe, or anything) is evidence for God. Your description of a separate entity is not a description of God.

Because their an asshole who believes they KNOW the truth, and the other is wrong. Same as atheist assholes mocking and ridiculing INSANE theists.?

Elvis has more evidence for being alive today than God does. There are videos, pictures and songs of the man. He has family still surviving today. What more definitive evidence have you for god? You answer is NONE.

You misunderstand what evidence really is.

Understand this.....atheists do not claim to KNOW the truth. I claim to know what is NOT true based on RATIONALITY, REASON, and EVIDENCE. What is NOT true (based on lack of evidence) is an intelligent entity dictating human affairs on Earth.

Ahem...cannot be fully understood, from where you are now...perceiving separation, aware of anything.

However, God understands God. At awareness of nothing, there is no understanding, there is just 'being'.

What do you think enlightenment leads to?

^^^
All of this.......is why people DO NOT take you seriously. This is fortune cookie bullshit, which, lacks any evidence. You claim to partially understand a being as insanely powerful and mysterious as a God?

Elvis has more evidence for being alive today than God does. There are videos, pictures and songs of the man. He has family still surviving today. What more definitive evidence have you for god?

The videos, pictures and songs of Elvis are evidence for God. God is all. Everything is my 'evidence'.

But evidence doesn't let you know anything, as I say. You cannot verify any experience, you cannot know more then what you already do.

That presence which you know is true is 'evidence' for God.

What is NOT true (based on lack of evidence) is an intelligent entity dictating human affairs on Earth.

Which is not an accurate description of God.

You claim to partially understand a being as insanely powerful and mysterious as a God?

Yes.

this is a pointless argument, everyone knows god doesn't exist.

anyone who believes that there is literally a "god" are fucking idiots, end of.

When you get pissed off while talking with me about reality and God, and present everything you 'know' and all your 'truths', you realize that those are all based upon belief, right? No, because otherwise you would be a solipsist (or would agree with the idea).


If you include logic (or pure mathematics, even) as valid, you're already contradicting yourself, because there are many things that can be 'known' based on logic.

For example, the following can be known without 'belief':

2 + 2 =/= 5.

2 + 2 = 4.

These will always be true, no matter if you are counting actual objects or the 'pure' numbers in and of themselves.

Personally, I find it to be more reasonable and rational not to rule out the existence of some sort of higher power based on current evidence, then to blindly assume there cannot be one.

There is no reason or rationality behind your position, only the atheistic position that "All assertions require evidence, an assertion without evidence is an invalid assertion, there is no evidence to assert a deity exists, therefore a deity does not exist." stands by any form of logic. In otherwords, it is impossible to assert that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

I mean, if anyone else can come up with something logical other than the above position, I'd be glad to entertain it.

For example, the following can be known without 'belief':

2 + 2 =/= 5.

2 + 2 = 4.

These will always be true, no matter if you are counting actual objects or the 'pure' numbers in and of themselves.

Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is true...but only within the system that defines 4 as being two 2's and that separation, or the existence of more then one, is believed to be true.

The system itself cannot be known to be true.

"All assertions require evidence, an assertion without evidence is an invalid assertion, there is no evidence to assert a deity exists, therefore a deity does not exist."

It does not matter to a theist that they cannot prove to another person that God exists, if the theist knows God exists and has personal expereince as evidence.

Or rather, it should not matter and they should not care to bother others, and just leave the other person to themselves.

Unfortunately, most theists follow organized religion, do not truly understand God and agitate others to justify their opinion. However, that aggressive, offensive method of justification is also true of most people, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.

Not believing in 2900 thousand year old texts isn't rational?

Believing 20 year old texts that will be discredited in 20 more years is? :rolleyes:

I have seen a great number of "atheist suck" threads on here. I have to wonder why?

I mean you theists are the ones who possess the ultimate truth...right? You hold the divine knowledge that is the key to freeing the immortal soul...right?

And atheists don't claim a similar thing? I hate generalising, but the majority of time on this board at least I get the impression that the atheists on here believe that they posses to the Ultimate Truth, exchanging spirituality with materialism doesn't make it any less of a truth. Just because science shows us one truth does not mean it is the ultimate truth. Being able to prove something empirically shows nothing in a world with no inherent value. Would you accept that value is something that is added afterwards, that their is no absolute right or wrong, and that nothing is inherently better than anything, save where value is assigned by individuals and communities? If this is the case, then the truth portrayed through materialism, and atheism (Although I'm not saying that materialism is atheism, lets NOT start yet another definition thread) is in no way more or less valuable than mystic, spiritualistic or theistic philosophys?

Shit.... Y'know.... I can't even remember what part I was replying to nnow :S

Why get pissed at atheists?

It is not like we are forcing our atheist views upon you under penalty of death by fire...right? It is not like you have to be an atheist or your community will turn it's back on you.

The only real reason I can think that theists get pissed at atheists is because superior attitude.

Of course, it the same way round with thieists.

So think of the reason you get pissed at theists and the reasons are problay the same, just from differant perspectives.



The bottom line is this: Religion is no longer needed. Society does not need some antiquitated and primitive magic to keep it going. We no longer require God. We MAY, I repeat MAY, have needed religion at some point for some unifying purpose of uneducated people, but we do not need it anymore.

I have to echo Obbe's post on this part here. In some cases God provides a great-deal of comfort, and I also believe that we should have something that we can devotionally believe in, whether be theism or atheism (and no I'm not saying atheism is a belief like religion, merely that it is something that people can identify themselves with.).

When you get pissed at what an atheist argument against theism you do realize you are just getting angry at reason and rationality itself, right? That is what comprises an atheist argument. Reason and rationality.......

........So before you make a "Atheist make me cry" thread......stop and consider.....is it the atheist you angry with or the argument itself. The argument of you vs. rationality.

For a start, not that many, or not enough athesist posts are as simple as rationality vs. theism, it's often 'My Idea is better than your, xtianty sucks!! YEAH!', I mean, shit, it's the same on the other side.

And, echoing what I said above, why is rationalism inherently a better form of argument than, say, an argument from faith? Why is empiricism nescessarily better than other forms of thought?

You're also assuming that all those seeking to argue against atheism are theists, more of then than not I try to argue for theism, and yet atheism best decribes my beliefs. It's just that the majority of the time atheists seem as close-minded to me as any theist, when asked for the distinction I can see little differant from comparing two religions (Once again, not that I am saying atheism is a religion).

Lol, so now personal choices can't be labeled as rational or irrational? I don't understand why this would be. Waking up and drinking chlorox everyday is a very irrational thing to do and it is my personal choice. There is nothing wrong with this labeling.

We are not blindly asserting there is not a god, but I agree saying there CANNOT logically possibly be a god is a much stronger assertion (one which most atheists don't go as far as to say). Still, I find it more rational to say there is no god, until there is evidence given otherwise. In the same manner, I find it more rational to say there is no magical green monkey living on the dark side of the moon, even if I wouldn't say it is a logical impossibility. The onus in either case is on the believer to produce evidence, not the other way around.

While you can label someones personal choice as rational or irrational it does not make it so. Suppose that the individual has the belief that waking up and drinking chlorox everyday is the secret to happiness. From the individuals point of view it is perfectly rational, happiness is good, chlorox=happiness so drinking cholorox is good. The argument is perfectly rational if you accept the premise. The thing wrong with labelling is that while it works for you an your peer group, it doesn't not neccesarily make you label correct. Of the great nation of Chlorox drinkers, many may judge you irrational for not drinking chlorox.

In the same way, someone believes drugs are good because they expand the mind or some other bullshit, whereas someone else believes that drugs are bad because they damage the body or whatever bullshit they come out with. Each view is perfectly rational in context of the individual choosing.

Why do you find it neccesary to make the Leap that there is no green monkey, and no god, save that to your individual belief it is far more rational to find the notion absurd.

Each view is perfectly rational in context of the individual choosing.

Yes, and nice chlorox example.

As long as the chlorox drinkers didn't teach our little children that drinking chlorox is the thing to do to become more holy-minded, then more power to them. Luckily, a nation of Chlorox drinkers would die off pretty fast if ingesting bleach were their bag.

Belief can also be recognized as a life strategy, so to speak. It is our core beliefs that shape the decisions we make and identify the people we choose to be in cahoots with during our lives. It directs our overall vision, if you will - and gives a platform of thought to model our working view of the world around.

We all try to impress upon others our own life strategies and how they work to benefit us, because we learned by imitating other's strategies. That's just how we learn things - by imitation.

While the Chlorox Drinkers Congregation may have the right to drink chlorox if it brings some kind of comfort to them, regardless of their rationale - there will always be those who, in order to keep their young children and other impressionable peers from following suit, will point out the dangers in drinking chlorox and the uselessness of drinking chlorox. Their argument against drinking chlorox is their attempt to explain why they find it irrational. They hope that others will imitate their anti-bleach drinking life strategies, thus why they make their case against the Chlorox drinkers.

While just leaving the Chlorox Drinkers to slowly die out due to the bleach eating away their intestines would be simple enough, it would likely not sit well on the conscience of non-bleach drinkers to sit idly by and watch other imitators destroy their bodies. While most belief systems don't involve drinking poison, a similar analogy can be used when other people accuse other belief systems of "brainwashing" their practitioners. The non-believers and believers of other sects of religions will constantly vie for floor space in the minds of these people who have not yet made up their mind definitively. We're all in recruiting mode, whether we like to admit it or not. Regardless of belief, we were all "recruited" at some point in our lives - none of us were born with the knowledge we have today, which all goes back to imitation.

"But daddy, drinking chlorox brings me comfort and peace."

How would you address this child? Would you let their comfort and peace override the harm it would do to their body, or would you dare not mock the child's rationale, thereby letting him destroy his intestines?

When an atheist challenges a theist or the theist challenges an atheist, it does not necessarily have to be out of hate or spite. Most people who debate a belief system of another and offer up their own belief system as an alternative does so because the need to get their ideals imitated is what's necessary in keeping it alive.

We all do it. Broke Prophet uses animosity as one of his strategies. While it may not win him friends or influence many people in the short term, perhaps he finds it perfectly rational right now. Maybe he'll change his course along the way.

And atheists don't claim a similar thing? I hate generalising, but the majority of time on this board at least I get the impression that the atheists on here believe that they posses to the Ultimate Truth, exchanging spirituality with materialism doesn't make it any less of a truth. Just because science shows us one truth does not mean it is the ultimate truth. Being able to prove something empirically shows nothing in a world with no inherent value. Would you accept that value is something that is added afterwards, that their is no absolute right or wrong, and that nothing is inherently better than anything, save where value is assigned by individuals and communities? If this is the case, then the truth portrayed through materialism, and atheism (Although I'm not saying that materialism is atheism, lets NOT start yet another definition thread) is in no way more or less valuable than mystic, spiritualistic or theistic philosophys?

No atheist DO NOT assert ultimate truth. There COULD be a God. It COULD even be the Christian god. Without evidence FOR god, bigfoot, or the myth of the female orgasm (jk) you just have a creative concept. An idea based on imagination. This is akin to a Stephen King novel or the Harry Potter books.

The only seperating fact between the evidence that Harry Potter is real and the Bible is real is the fact that for thousands of years if you questioned the authenticity of the Bible you were excommunicated or FAR worse. If people took on the attitude of "believe in the power of Potter or die" for TWO THOUSAND YEARS people would be say "illuminus" instead of Amen when they finish praying.

While you can label someones personal choice as rational or irrational it does not make it so......The thing wrong with labelling is that while it works for you an your peer group, it doesn't not neccesarily make you label correct. Of the great nation of Chlorox drinkers, many may judge you irrational for not drinking chlorox.

LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL OR I WILL POST IT FOR YOU!!! Belief in ANYTHING without ANY evidence to support it IS irrational. PERIOD. The label IS correct.

The clorox drinkers MAY label me as irrational ONLY if they misunderstand (as you appear to) the definition of rationality.

Fuck it imma post the definition of rationality for you:

Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect. One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

The syllogism is at the core of deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations.

Theistic belief is not logical. It is therefore, not rational. It is I D E N T I C A L to any other fantasy a person can make up ex. when nobody is around my shit turns to stawberry sherbert is EVERY BIT as logical as God!!!

As long as the chlorox drinkers didn't teach our little children that drinking chlorox is the thing to do to become more holy-minded, then more power to them.

Conversely a Cholrox Drinker would not mind non-drinkers as long as the non-drinkers did not try to teach their little children the dangers of drinking Chlorox.

They hope that others will imitate their anti-bleach drinking life strategies, thus why they make their case against the Chlorox drinkers.

Some Chlorox Drinkers, the pushy asshole ones, would hope others would imitate their bleach drinking life-choice in the pursuit of an understanding, and would make a case against non-Chlorox Drinkers.

Regardless of belief, we were all "recruited" at some point in our lives - none of us were born with the knowledge we have today, which all goes back to imitation.

Everyone should search for their own truth, have their own 'religion'.

How would you address this child? Would you let their comfort and peace override the harm it would do to their body, or would you dare not mock the child's rationale, thereby letting him destroy his intestines?

It would depend on your whether you're a Chlorox Drinker, or opposed to the idea. On whether you value the supposed benefit of understanding gained by drinking bleach, or the supposed benefit of longer life gained by not drinking bleach.

We all do it. Broke Prophet uses animosity as one of his strategies. While it may not win him friends or influence many people in the short term, perhaps he finds it perfectly rational right now. Maybe he'll change his course along the way.

I realize my language and behavior on here is very aggresive and full of animosity. I personally feel that the only way to conquer the meme complex that is religion one must be brazen and passionate. Theists should feel stupid for their beliefs. Their beliefs have no evidence.

Tell me you do not find a red neck who swears up and down he was abducted by aliens and they looked like elvis amusing! Tell me you would VALIDATE his story for ONE SECOND without evidence. Why should it be any different for Xtians? B/C there are a large governmentally influencal number of Xtians every bit as deranged as an "Elvis Lives" whack job?

It is easy to say "I just ignore whack jobs who believe they were abducted by Elvis". It is easy to do that b/c there is not a large organized voting public who believe Elvis lives.

So yes, it makes me angry that people accept the nonsense a theist revels in. It is does not benefit the the theist (who imo is mentally ill) nor society (who suffers and has suffered from the madness of a theist).

Theists should feel stupid for their beliefs. Their beliefs have no evidence.

Then you should feel stupid for your own, which you cannot truly validate.

Tell me you would VALIDATE his story for ONE SECOND without evidence.

If he truly KNOWS what happened, he should not care what you think.

Then you should feel stupid for your own, which you cannot truly validate.

If he truly KNOWS what happened, he should not care what you think.

I do not have to validate my beliefs. I make no assertions I simply ask for proof of those who DO make assertions. My beliefs are validated with science. I make no claims to KNOW that which has not been fully explained.

I would certianly not have to validate what I believe to YOU. You have such a simple (and I mean retard simple!) belief structure that I ascertained you were a child from that alone.

I do not have to validate my beliefs. I make no assertions I simply ask for proof of those who DO make assertions.

You assert we no longer require God.

Prove how we no longer need God. To me, that doesn't even make sense...its an insane statement, as ALL is GOD.

My beliefs are validated with science.

Yes, they are validated as true ... within the system which can only be believed in, and not actually validated itself.

You believe the system being experienced is real, but do not know this.

I make no claims to KNOW that which has not been fully explained.

Sure you do, as you cannot know any of what you expereince to be real or true.

I would certianly not have to validate what I believe to YOU.

Of course you don't, yet you try so hard. You try to 'validate' your unbeliefs of misunderstood concepts to me as well.

If you know what you know, then why bother telling me I am wrong? How do my beliefs affect you BP?

Is it like how you describe a Christian rejecting the arguments of an atheist, because deep down they feel that the atheist is right? Deep down, do you feel that I'm right?

... I ascertained you were a child from that alone.

From your constant, baseless assertion that I am a child, I determine that you believe the misconception that name-calling and other such juvenile attacks on a personal level will somehow strengthen your argument.

In actuality, it makes you appear immature.

You assert we no longer require God.

Prove how we no longer need God. To me, that doesn't even make sense...its an insane statement, as ALL is GOD.


Just curious if you have an argument for pantheism or if you base it off 'experiences' or something else. It just seems a pointless redefinition of god that destroys any meaning to the term 'god'. We can just say everything is everything.



Yes, they are validated as true ... within the system which can only be believed in, and not actually validated itself.

You believe the system being experienced is real, but do not know this.



This is a self-defeating argument. If every system is in question, we fall into a deep skepticism where NO system can be accepted to base anything off of. Therefore, stating ANYTHING about any system is baseless, as it is based on atleast one other system, of which you should skeptical of enough to not rely on. In other words, if every system that allows us to experience and think are in question, even our most base systems, then such judgments (any judgments) should not hold any weight. It reminds me of Descartes' evil genius argument. Very pointless.

In other words, if every system that allows us to experience and think are in question, even our most base systems, then such judgments (any judgments) should not hold any weight.

...NO system can be accepted to base anything off of.

And reality becomes simply 'being'. All things, all experiences or judgments need the foundation of 'being' first.

This 'being' is what God is. And if you want to view expereince as being true, it is true all things need this base to be. All is God.

Conversely a Cholrox Drinker would not mind non-drinkers as long as the non-drinkers did not try to teach their little children the dangers of drinking Chlorox.

Obbe, how do you feel about the more extremist sects of Islam teaching their children that killing infidels in the name of Allah is an acceptable (and most honored) practice? How would you feel if you were personally targeted as one of those infidels? Would you still think it best to not meddle or intervene with what these people teach their children?


Some Chlorox Drinkers, the pushy asshole ones, would hope others would imitate their bleach drinking life-choice in the pursuit of an understanding, and would make a case against non-Chlorox Drinkers.

How would the Chlorox Drinkers get their message out in order to "save" the non-believers from ... not believing? Are these Chlorox Drinkers born with this wisdom, or do they pick up on it during their life from other Chlorox Drinkers who testified about the benefits of drinking bleach? If it weren't passed around, the tradition of Chlorox Drinking would surely die out if the idea isn't replicated.

You typing about your beliefs points clearly to you trying to impress upon people an alternative method of belief other than what they're used to. You're not pushy or an asshole, but you're pretty consistent in giving out great detail on how to achieve this enlightenment.


Everyone should search for their own truth, have their own 'religion'.

But we're group animals. We tend to cluster together based on our cultural beliefs. That's not likely to happen, and besides - it goes against the "we are all one" dictum you've been on the horn about.

IMO, the concept of "truth" should be held loosely when considering subjective, abstract ideas such as God. Since it's unlikely that everyone, not even a vast majority of people, are going to come to the same conclusions - it should be treated with the same reverence (sans the sacred treatment) we would assign to other differences in opinion, such as "favorite color". We can't very well validate the "truth" involved in someone stating what color appeals to them the most, nor can we validate what they can possibly be experiencing when they speak of God. It should be more of a trivial detail than a self-defining one that drives the very bane of their perceived existence.

It would depend on your whether you're a Chlorox Drinker, or opposed to the idea. On whether you value the supposed benefit of understanding gained by drinking bleach, or the supposed benefit of longer life gained by not drinking bleach.

Of course, drinking bleach would put you in an early grave. My sense of humanity wouldn't be able stop me from advising against the dangers of losing your life over an abstract belief system.

No atheist DO NOT assert ultimate truth. There COULD be a God. It COULD even be the Christian god. Without evidence FOR god, bigfoot, or the myth of the female orgasm (jk) you just have a creative concept. An idea based on imagination. This is akin to a Stephen King novel or the Harry Potter books.

There was a mild typo in my post, it was suppposed to say I hate generalising, but the majority of time on this board at least I get the impression that the atheists on here believe that they posses the path to the Ultimate Truth

Which seems to be the case when an atheist declarest that everything without evidence is either untrue or bullshit.

In anycase, you have not answered the point of that part of my post, is there an objective code that states that your view is inherently better than a theists? What is this objective code, where does it come from, and if there is no inherently greater value, then why is your belief that your world-view is correct more true than a theists?


The only seperating fact between the evidence that Harry Potter is real and the Bible is real is the fact that for thousands of years if you questioned the authenticity of the Bible you were excommunicated or FAR worse. If people took on the attitude of "believe in the power of Potter or die" for TWO THOUSAND YEARS people would be say "illuminus" instead of Amen when they finish praying.

I can accpet that, it doesn't mean there is no God though, does it?



LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL OR I WILL POST IT FOR YOU!!! Belief in ANYTHING without ANY evidence to support it IS irrational. PERIOD. The label IS correct.

The clorox drinkers MAY label me as irrational ONLY if they misunderstand (as you appear to) the definition of rationality.

Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect. One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

The syllogism is at the core of deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations.



*sighs*

Here's a quote from Wikpedia :A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός — "conclusion," "inference"), (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form

SoI'm assuming that what I'm about to post is a syollogistic argument, and rational:

P1.Seeking happiness is a good.
P2.Drinking Chlorox brings happiness
C1.Drinking Chlorox is good.

You can agree this is a rational argument can't you? I personally can see nothing irrational with this, as long as one accepts the premise, and just because you do not accept the premise does not mean the conclusion is always false. To you drinking chlorox would not being happiness, but perhaps to the Chlorox drinkers it does. The Chlorox drinker accepts premise 1 and 2 and so comes to the Concusion.

Now, I'm no logician, but that seems to work unless you're going to nitpick the phrasing. But, Like I've said, I'm no logician, and could be wrong.

Fuck it imma post the definition of rationality for you:

Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect. One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

The syllogism is at the core of deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations.


Theistic belief is not logical. It is therefore, not rational. It is I D E N T I C A L to any other fantasy a person can make up ex. when nobody is around my shit turns to stawberry sherbert is EVERY BIT as logical as God!!!

I believe that part of your definition there defines rationality as associated with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. And also with with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways . interestingly [i](thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense).[i]

Going from this I can see theistic beliefs as being perfectly rational. In those theists that do not belong to the herd, explanation, understanding and justification play huge roles in belief. Comphrehension is displayed as well as intelligence.

Also, this leads onto the poiint I made above, without an objective value system, why is rationality worth more than irrationality? And if there is an objective value system, how do we become aware of it, and from where does it derive?

A point that Obbe pointed towards, is that your problme seems not to be with theism, but Christianity, your arguments are those against christians, you aggressiveness is aimed at christians as opposed to theism. It seems you disagree not so much with God as with Jehovah.

And reality becomes simply 'being'. All things, all experiences or judgments need the foundation of 'being' first.

This 'being' is what God is. And if you want to view expereince as being true, it is true all things need this base to be. All is God.

According to what you've stated in the past:

P1) Reality is an illusion (though I disagree with this premise, you have stated it many a times)
P2) Being is reality
P3) Therefore, being is an illusion
P4) God is being
____________
God is an illusion

According to what you've stated in the past:

P1) Reality is an illusion (though I disagree with this premise, you have stated it many a times)
P2) Being is reality
P3) Therefore, being is an illusion
P4) God is being
____________
God is an illusion

How kind of you to put it so simply for Obbe's review!!

I already know what he's going to say to this, but far be it from me to screw up the punch line.



...
Okay, what the hell. Here's is what I anticipate Obbe to counter you with:

He will argue that it is our perceived reality that is the illusion, and that the only true form of being is to just "be" without having these illusions. He will call this complete awareness, or awareness of unawareness.

(Although we all know that complete unawareness of being is ... the opposite of sentient)

So this should be interesting.

Now, I'm no logician, but that seems to work unless you're going to nitpick the phrasing. But, Like I've said, I'm no logician, and could be wrong.

It is rational in that it does not break any rules of inference in deductive logic/reasoning (i.e it is valid, though its premises might not be true). However, I believe he's using "rational" to mean "in good sense, or sound judgment" - like when we speak of "irrational fears", fears that have no good reason existing to that extent.

Believing in something without evidence is not in good sense. And while you could say that that is subjective, it's very telling the vast majority of the world believes in things with evidence when it conveniences them (like medicine, food, technology, et cetera) but suddenly they don't like to do so when it could put their superstitions in question...

...I get the impression that the atheists on here believe that they posses the path to the Ultimate Truth[/i] Which seems to be the case when an atheist declarest that everything without evidence is either untrue or bullshit.?

Science IS the path to truth. Science is a truth finding machine. Science requires evidence for assertions. Everything without evidence IS untrue bullshit. You must have this attitude in order to EVER find truth.

EX. I can shit strawberries when nobody is around. Ripe fresh strawberries. If you accept this as truth without evidence you are a FOOL.

...In anycase, you have not answered the point of that part of my post, is there an objective code that states that your view is inherently better than a theists? What is this objective code, where does it come from, and if there is no inherently greater value, then why is your belief that your world-view is correct more true than a theists?

Science. Science IS better than theism. Science answers questions with evidence. This leads to truthful knowledge. Truthful knowledge is better than faith. This knowledge serves everyone on the planet better than faith.

See Inquisition, Crusades, Dark Ages for more on why science is a better objective code that theism.


P1.Seeking happiness is a good.
P2.Drinking Chlorox brings happiness
C1.Drinking Chlorox is good.

Rationality: One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

Bleach making people happy is irrational by this definition. This makes your argument irrational. Read below:

You failed to comprehend with intelligence that bleach is posion in this case. You did not explain or understand why bleach makes people happy. Bleach making people happy is then NOT endowed with reason or understanding. Your P2 IS highly irrational.

In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion. Your reasoning IS valid. The truth of P2 is not. This argument cannot be rationally accepted as it does not meet BOTH requirements of valid reasoning and truthful premise. Which means.......your argument is irrational.

I despise all theism. I feel it has been and continues to be a detriment to society. I have a particular loathing for Xtians ONLY b/c I live in a Xtian dominated country.

Obbe, how do you feel about the more extremist sects of Islam teaching their children that killing infidels in the name of Allah is an acceptable (and most honored) practice?

Oh, I understand what you are trying to say, I just want it to be clear that the 'other side' finds their 'way of life' just as rational and right as you find yours, and probably find your beliefs irrational.

How would you feel if you were personally targeted as one of those infidels? Would you still think it best to not meddle or intervene with what these people teach their children?

Of course not, who would?

When I say we should not meddle, or intervene, that includes killing people who disagree with you. I would of course try to save myself, and others if possible, from being killed. Which would mean meddling with their belief that they should kill me.

I say we should not force our beliefs upon others, and so obviously I disagree with Islamic extremists, or Christian extremists, or any extremists of a violent and/or authoritative nature.

I say we should all have our own 'religion', and by that I mean make it on our own, and not force it upon others. Open discussion is fine.

"Conversely a Cholrox Drinker would not mind non-drinkers as long as the non-drinkers did not try to teach their little children the dangers of drinking Chlorox."

I do not think I said anything which would imply otherwise. I am simply pointing out how the 'other side' finds their beliefs and reasoning to be just as rational as your own.

If it weren't passed around, the tradition of Chlorox Drinking would surely die out if the idea isn't replicated.

Of course. If its not a good belief, if it does not true represent truth, then it should die out.

Passing ideas around is how we learn. Open discussion about beliefs is fine. But not forcefully enrolling members/killing those opposed.

You typing about your beliefs points clearly to you trying to impress upon people an alternative method of belief other than what they're used to.

And everyone does that. However, I do not think we should...unless its in an open discussion, as in both parties are being open. I do not think we should become pushy assholes resorting to insults, 'who's right and who's wrong', force, violence and the like.

And although it doesn't matter, all my lengthy explanations of my belief never begin until someone asks for an explanation. Thats not forceful. Before that, I'm simply stating my opinion on the topic.

...it goes against the "we are all one" dictum you've been on the horn about.

How?

We are all one, yes, in truth.

Within maya, we are individual and separate, with individual perspectives and perceptions of maya. It seems obvious different beliefs would have developed, but as none of these beliefs could ever be known to be real, we should tolerate our differences and live (or as I would say, experience maya) in peace.

... it should be treated with the same reverence (sans the sacred treatment) we would assign to other differences in opinion, such as "favorite color".

I agree. However, I think the true meaning of God is not understood by many theists.

It should be more of a trivial detail than a self-defining one that drives the very bane of their perceived existence.

Why?

My sense of humanity wouldn't be able stop me from advising against the dangers of losing your life over an abstract belief system.

And thats the difference between you an a Chlorox Drinker.

However, Chlorox Drinker is really just a metaphor. Most spiritual beliefs do not result in early death.

According to what you've stated in the past:

P1) Reality is an illusion (though I disagree with this premise, you have stated it many a times)

Perceived reality, actually. "Experience". When compared to the known truth.

P2) Being is reality

True reality, as it is all that is known to be true.

P3) Therefore, being is an illusion

No, the expereince of recognizing self-existence...'awareness of being', in other words...is illusion.

Simply being ... 'awareness of nothing' ... is real.


P4) God is being

Yes, as all is being.

God is an illusion

No, God is 'being' and being is truth. However, this is where you may have stumbled on this misconception:

My saying reality is illusion, and then saying all is God.

However, depending on how you define expereince, either expereince is illusion in which case 'all' is simply 'being', or expereince is truth. And as everything you can perceive can be broken down in the same way to simply 'being', all remains God.

All possibilities flow forth from God, and as such, defining expereince and all possibilities as truth is collectively equal to this God.

He will argue that it is our perceived reality that is the illusion, and that the only true form of being is to just "be" without having these illusions.

Good job!

He will call this complete awareness, or awareness of unawareness.

Awareness of nothing actually, which also means balance.

Although we all know that complete unawareness of being is ... the opposite of sentient

Which means what exactly?

Not being aware of maya doesn't mean you do not exist. What does your point have to do with what I say about God and reality?

Oh, Gosh. Where to start?

Oh, I understand what you are trying to say, I just want it to be clear that the 'other side' finds their 'way of life' just as rational and right as you find yours, and probably find your beliefs irrational.

But rationality isn't as subjective as we like to believe it is. It's fun to play around with when you're discussing hypothetical Drinkers of Bleach and the like, but when it applies to real-time, real-world situations like this, and there are entire countries at war over the very subject, then rational versus irrational must be defined as what's in the best interest of humankind. This means not addressing what happens after we die, but deals more at hand with making unnecessary this kind of disagreement while we're alive.


How?

We are all one, yes, in truth.

We are all one in truth only. Right now, all we experience is "maya".

Within maya, we are individual and separate, with individual perspectives and perceptions of maya.

If we're not in truth, we're in "maya". So we are, in fact, individual and separate, with different outlooks. Let's be real here and say that the vast, overwhelming majority of us live within maya. Only an elite few (such as yourself) has glimpsed the real, bonafide truth of being.

It seems obvious different beliefs would have developed, but as none of these beliefs could ever be known to be real,

I'll stop you right there. Just inserting "they're not real" isn't enough to not make the experiences people have as being not real. This is where you lose most of us, Obbe. You haven't come anywhere close to not just proving, but even pointing out why one should discount their "being" as an illusion. There's been no benefit to how it would enrich their lives.

we should tolerate our differences and live (or as I would say, experience maya) in peace.

Here, here! I agree whole-heartedly. I call it reality, you call it maya - minor difference in choice of words. But our mutual objective could be obtained without using your "reality is an illusion" model. That just seems to add to the fray of the countless interpretations of the unknowables, another "religion", if you will, that people can grapple onto and make the prime focus of their intents. All the while, their best intentions could have been poured into real-time, real-world humanitarian efforts to bring ALL people closer together, recognizing that it's "us", as a SPECIES - that's how we're all "One". Not because of the mystical belief systems we carry on our sleeves like some kind of proud nationalist flag.

I agree. However, I think the true meaning of God is not understood by many theists.

And you are one of those many theists who will not budge at all when it comes to admitting that the meaning of God you believe in could possibly be open to conjecture or examination. Don't you see? It's not about who is right and who is wrong, about unbelievers or believers. It's about the futility of the entire concept and the obvious riff it causes. It is a concept that promotes disagreement and separation, with no middle ground in sight. It doesn't support peace and harmony and all that is warm and fuzzy in this world.

Now, how can you say:

I agree

to my statement of: ...[on belief in a God] it should be treated with the same reverence (sans the sacred treatment) we would assign to other differences in opinion, such as "favorite color".

and then retort with:

Why?

to my next sentence, which was: It should be more of a trivial detail than a self-defining one that drives the very bane of their perceived existence.

Favorite color is a trivial detail that we don't judge others on. I love the color red, but it doesn't define who I am, because there is more to me than just the colors I aesthetically get off on. Just because red makes me feel good doesn't mean that people who love blue are somehow missing out on the "Big Picture" of why red is so awesome. It's just not even significant enough to warrant a real debate on, is it? That is how, if we are going to strive to "Be One", we are going to have to deal with religion and spirituality. We can debate the important issues, like how to benefit the greater good of humanity in this life, not some other mystical place that just somehow rectifies everything and brings us all together after the fact.

Good job!

Thank you. I pay attention sometimes, don't I? ;)

Awareness of nothing actually, which also means balance.

Awareness of nothing, including your "being", is non-sentience. We are sentient creatures, despite your clear-cut and anticipated retort of "it's just an illusion".


Which means what exactly?

Sentient: Having the power or perception of the senses; conscious.

Non-sentient: NOT having the power or perception of the senses; unconscious

Not being aware of maya doesn't mean you do not exist. What does your point have to do with what I say about God and reality?

(wait a minute ... I thought you said God and reality were one in the same. Why are you differentiating them now?)

My point was this:

Not being aware of maya means not being sentient. I never said something had to be conscious to exist. Things exist that are not sentient, such as rocks.

You say that you have to be completely unaware of even your own sentience in order to find the real truth in God. You say that it's attainable once one realizes that our perceived reality (as a result of our sentience) should be viewed as an illusion, a lie.

Therefore, you could only understand God as a non-sentient being. Since we are sentient creatures, how is it possible, by your definition, to ever "know" God?

Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 is true...but only within the system that defines 4 as being two 2's and that separation, or the existence of more then one, is believed to be true.

The system itself cannot be known to be true.

Conversely, I just proved that we can know two plus two to be four. Two plus two will never be anything but four. I invite you to prove that this knowledge is doubtable. Is there a case in which two plus two will ever be anything but four? Can it be doubted that two plus two will ever be anything but four?

Mathematics, largely if not completely, is knowable, without doubt.

It does not matter to a theist that they cannot prove to another person that God exists, if the theist knows God exists and has personal experience as evidence.

Personal experience is only the basis of opinions, not evidence for fact. Obviously they view that their opinions are the basis for fact, and while this explains their attitudes, it doesn't justify them.

Or rather, it should not matter and they should not care to bother others, and just leave the other person to themselves.

If you like. I think that's a nice way of looking at it.

Unfortunately, most theists follow organized religion, do not truly understand God and agitate others to justify their opinion. However, that aggressive, offensive method of justification is also true of most people, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.

What makes you think you understand God better than anyone else. And why do you call the only 'truth' known to Solispsism as 'God'? Even in a pure grammatical sense that's an incorrect usage.

Obbe, how far would you take the doubt? You assume (but not have asserted why) that empirical experiences, and the empirical world, are false, or as someone speaking a little more clearly would say, 'doubtable'. You then assert that only self-awareness can be known to truly exist (in other words, cannot be doubted) but you're yet to say why. I would imagine your justification is thus, because it's common, if not the only one: For I to doubt my own existence, there must be something doubting, therefore the faculty that does doubt is undoubtable, (or if you prefer, the faculty of thought can be known to exist).

What is this faculty, Obbe?

If this doesn't describe you, then let me rephrase. Why do you state that the knowledge of one's own existence is the only knowable thing? How can one know something to be true if the existence of the faculty of 'knowing' is doubtable, or illusory? Is it possible to form real knowledge using illusory means?

Science IS the path to truth. Science is a truth finding machine. Science requires evidence for assertions. Everything without evidence IS untrue bullshit. You must have this attitude in order to EVER find truth.

EX. I can shit strawberries when nobody is around. Ripe fresh strawberries. If you accept this as truth without evidence you are a FOOL.



I know you're not going to agree with me, but while I believe that it is but one of the paths to truth, the explanation of the physical world. And while an explanation and understanding of the physical world is neccesary, why not expand? We have reason and intellect don't we? then why should we not try to find greater truths throught the use of our intellect. If nothing else we need something to do with our time.




Science. Science IS better than theism. Science answers questions with evidence. This leads to truthful knowledge. Truthful knowledge is better than faith. This knowledge serves everyone on the planet better than faith.

See Inquisition, Crusades, Dark Ages for more on why science is a better objective code that theism.

You don't state how this is an objective code. You are assuming that science is the only path to truthful knowledge, not only that you are then giving your own value judgement that this truthful knowledge is objecvtively better. Objectively, how is science better. If you say because it benefits our kind, how do you know the objective value of our kind being benefited? Perhaps more importantly, how, using science, can we work out these objective codes? Can we use science to figure out non-physical truths? And if science cannot be used to work out non-pysical truths what should we use?

Once again, I know you won't accept it, but perhaps faith can lead to it's own truths. And not blind faith, but a reasoning faith.

You are giving me examples also of Christianity practised in un-christian ways. You are giving me examples of the nature of man desiring material things, material gains of men who desire the physical side of life alone. A theist is not always someone who chases you around forcing you into things that you don't want to do, and theist does not have to be evil or bad, does not have to be the sort of person who preaches the death of all unbelievers. Providing me with examples of Bad theism does not prove that theism is inhenerently wrong.





Rationality: One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.

Bleach making people happy is irrational by this definition. This makes your argument irrational. Read below:

You failed to comprehend with intelligence that bleach is posion in this case. You did not explain or understand why bleach makes people happy. Bleach making people happy is then NOT endowed with reason or understanding. Your P2 IS highly irrational.

In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion. Your reasoning IS valid. The truth of P2 is not. This argument cannot be rationally accepted as it does not meet BOTH requirements of valid reasoning and truthful premise. Which means.......your argument is irrational.

I despise all theism. I feel it has been and continues to be a detriment to society. I have a particular loathing for Xtians ONLY b/c I live in a Xtian dominated country.

I'm not sure if I'm not making the point clear enough. But my point is not that bleach makes people happy. My point is that to an individual who accpets and believes the premises to be true the conclusion is neccesarily true.


This was an attempt to show how to one individual what you call irrational is perfectly rational. I am not saying that bleach makes all people happy, hell I'm only including bleach as an example of the point I'm trying to make. The point that irrational behaviour can seem rational to an indidual who will in turn consider you behaviour irrational. This leads onto a further point; what is it that makes your view of rationality and irrationality true, while anothers is false?

A problem some atheists may have with those following religion is the belief that their religious view is inherently better than someone of another religious view. What I am trying to show is that the rationality of a belief is NOT dependant upon the observer, the observer does not decide that someones beliefs are rational or not, they decide instead whether THEY feel the idea is rational. Let's using a working example, you believe Obbe to be irrational, Obbe believes himself to be rational, how does your judgement affect Obbes opinion of the rationality of his belief?

I can't even remember what Ive just typed.

You don't state how this is an objective code. You are assuming that science is the only path to truthful knowledge, not only that you are then giving your own value judgement that this truthful knowledge is objectively better. Objectively, how is science better. If you say because it benefits our kind, how do you know the objective value of our kind being benefited? Perhaps more importantly, how, using science, can we work out these objective codes? Can we use science to figure out non-physical truths? And if science cannot be used to work out non-pysical truths what should we use?

How can knowing the truth, in and of itself, be worse than being ignorant? Why would progress and understanding be of less value of any kind than ignorance?

Science =/= secular humanism, and more importantly, secular humanism =/= atheism. So while you may debate this issue with an atheist, it has nothing to do with atheism in and of itself.

How can knowing the truth, in and of itself, be worse than being ignorant? Why would progress and understanding be of less value of any kind than ignorance?

Science =/= secular humanism, and more importantly, secular humanism =/= atheism. So while you may debate this issue with an atheist, it has nothing to do with atheism in and of itself.

I phrased the question a little wrong, what I'm trying to say, is that why is a scientific truth better than a philosophical or theologicl truth, or a truth arrived at by faith. We can both agree that knowledge is a Good? If so, what makes a scientific truth better than a spiritual truth? I think that science has its place, alongside philosophy and theology. There shouldn't be a view that science is the best of those three, or that anything other than science is foolish, these three should be used together and compliment each other.

What I am trying to say is that theological and philosophical truths are equal to those of science, that the truth they come to are differant only in nature.

What I am trying to say is that theological and philosophical truths are equal to those of science, that the truth they come to are differant only in nature.

Hardly. Scientific "truths" are based on evidence and proof, on logic and reason, on experimentation and observation. Not the case with "theological and philosophical truths".

What a coincidence that man decides to use scientific truths when his life depends on it (like medicine and subsistence) but when his life isn't at risk and has little to lose, he uses "philosophical and/or theological truths"...

Hardly. Scientific "truths" are based on evidence and proof, on logic and reason, on experimentation and observation. Not the case with "theological and philosophical truths".

What a coincidence that man decides to use scientific truths when his life depends on it (like medicine and subsistence) but when his life isn't at risk and has little to lose, he uses "philosophical and/or theological truths"...

Why should a man choose between scientific, philosophic and theological truths? What is the value in using one at a time when you can use all three. I'm not disputing the efficiency of science, I'm not doubting the knowledge gained by science is true, what I am saying is that theology, philosophy and science go hand in hand. They are all paths to knowledge, and wouldn't it be wise to seek knowledge in all its forms if you could?

Or is everything other than science completely worthless?

Why should a man choose between scientific, philosophic and theological truths?

Apparently you claim he shouldn't, which is why I find it curious that only science is used when man's life is on the line. Suddenly, when he has nothing to lose, when he is no longer in danger, is that he branches out to other supposed "truths".

Perhaps because "scientific truths" bring about results?

Or is everything other than science completely worthless?

Not everything, no. I, however, have yet to see a "theological truth" - whatever the hell you mean by that.

Apparently you claim he shouldn't, which is why I find it curious that only science is used when man's life is on the line. Suddenly, when he has nothing to lose, when he is no longer in danger, is that he branches out to other supposed "truths".

Perhaps because "scientific truths" bring about results?

Well... Yes.... I mean, obviously, I'm not gonna read the Republic and hope for the best , am I?

Well.... I suppose I might.... If it worked.


Not everything, no. I, however, have yet to see a "theological truth" - whatever the hell you mean by that.

I'd define it as ideas, preferably good ones, revealed by a divine agency (not that I'm saying the divine agency is there, or that there is neccesarily a divine agency.)

And to be fair, I'm always a little vague on it myself.

Well... Yes.... I mean, obviously, I'm not gonna read the Republic and hope for the best , am I?

Well.... I suppose I might.... If it worked.

That's the perfect answer as to why a man would choose between these "truths" then.

Why wouldn't man choose between these so-called "truths" if he has evidence one of them definitely works and others do not (at least in some specific area)?



I'd define it as ideas, preferably good ones, revealed by a divine agency (not that I'm saying the divine agency is there, or that there is neccesarily a divine agency.)

And to be fair, I'm always a little vague on it myself.So then an atheist, part of the set of "man" no doubt, does not have the option of the theological truths by that definition. Must he convert just because you think it's prudent to have truths of all kinds? If not, another good answer to the question as to why choose between the three "truths".

I DO actually KNOW that science is right, there is NO god. and no ammount of your theist mumbo jumbo can change my mind.

Science doesn't say there is no god. Learn Science, logic and reason, then speak.

I haven't been able to come on totse or have the chance to reply much, and I see there are a few threads to reply to.

However, this is all I can afford to type today. I'll get to the others as soon as possible.

But rationality isn't as subjective as we like to believe it is. It's fun to play around with when you're discussing hypothetical Drinkers of Bleach and the like, but when it applies to real-time, real-world situations like this, and there are entire countries at war over the very subject, then rational versus irrational must be defined as what's in the best interest of humankind. This means not addressing what happens after we die, but deals more at hand with making unnecessary this kind of disagreement while we're alive.

Sure it is.

Real-time? Real-word? Why bother with these terms? You know my beliefs well enough.

Some people, like pushy/extreme Christians for example, would think that avoiding an eternity in hell is in the very best interest of humankind, and that their actions are very rational.

Although, I agree that these disagreements should not happen, unless in open discussion. Everyone should make their own beliefs.

If we're not in truth, we're in "maya". So we are, in fact, individual and separate, with different outlooks. Let's be real here and say that the vast, overwhelming majority of us live within maya. Only an elite few (such as yourself) has glimpsed the real, bonafide truth of being.

How 'are we in fact' anything? 'We', this separation, is part of the maya...you cannot validate another's existence. There is nothing 'elite' about understanding this...anyone can.

Do you understand what you're talking about?

I'll stop you right there. Just inserting "they're not real" isn't enough to not make the experiences people have as being not real. This is where you lose most of us, Obbe. You haven't come anywhere close to not just proving, but even pointing out why one should discount their "being" as an illusion. There's been no benefit to how it would enrich their lives.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Their 'being' is not an illusion, it it all they know to be true.

Are you, for some reason, referring to 'being' as ones collection of experiences? Their perception of reality, their ... maya?

What makes it an illusion? I have lost count of the number of times this has been explained. Here we go again:

What makes any experience an 'illusion'? What made your acid trips illusions? The comparison of those experiences to the ones you already ... ahem ... 'know' to be true. By comparing your acid tips to this 'reality', your perception.

And solipsism teaches us that all of our experiences cannot be known to be true, meaning that our existence is that all that can be known to be true. And by comparing experience to this truth, simply being, we find that all experience becomes an illusion. Maya.

... SPECIES - that's how we're all "One".

Thats why? Then please, demonstrate how you know this.

I think my version of 'why we are all one' is a ... little more rational.

And you are one of those many theists who will not budge at all when it comes to admitting that the meaning of God you believe in could possibly be open to conjecture or examination. Don't you see? It's not about who is right and who is wrong, about unbelievers or believers. It's about the futility of the entire concept and the obvious riff it causes. It is a concept that promotes disagreement and separation, with no middle ground in sight. It doesn't support peace and harmony and all that is warm and fuzzy in this world.

No, while I am opposed to the forcing of belief, I support open discussion of beliefs.

Its not the concept that doesn't promote harmony, its our disagreement on the truth of those concepts. Which can never be known. Thats the problem.

A concept of God, if kept to oneself, DOES promote peace, harmony, and all that warm-fuzzy jazz. Thats what the true meaning of God is, that all is One. Peace 'n Love, brothers.


We can debate the important issues, like how to benefit the greater good of humanity in this life, not some other mystical place that just somehow rectifies everything and brings us all together after the fact.

How is 'being' a trivial detail?? It is what unites all! It is al that can truly be known.

After what fact? What are you talking about?

Awareness of nothing, including your "being", is non-sentience.

And ... ?

Sentient: Having the power or perception of the senses; conscious.

Non-sentient: NOT having the power or perception of the senses; unconscious


Obviously.

I meant, what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

wait a minute ... I thought you said God and reality were one in the same. Why are you differentiating them now?

It was not intentional.

You say that you have to be completely unaware of even your own sentience in order to find the real truth in God. You say that it's attainable once one realizes that our perceived reality (as a result of our sentience) should be viewed as an illusion, a lie.

Therefore, you could only understand God as a non-sentient being. Since we are sentient creatures, how is it possible, by your definition, to ever "know" God?

No, I am saying that awareness of nothing is the real truth, is God.

Understanding anything is not awareness of nothing. So no, within maya, we can never completely understand God ... which is why I said partially. You can understand the concept. To completely understand God is to be God, be one with all, be aware of nothing. To leave maya.

Real-time? Real-word? Why bother with these terms? You know my beliefs well enough.

And you, mine. Since I entertain the ideas of your concepts, would it be too much to ask to be allowed to express my views to you by using terms that are complimentary to my own beliefs? That would be like me asking you to explain your concept without using the word "God" or "maya". Bad form.

How 'are we in fact' anything? 'We', this separation, is part of the maya...you cannot validate another's existence. There is nothing 'elite' about understanding this...anyone can.

Careful! You must first assume my existence before engaging in dialogue with me. And thanks for inadvertently validating that I exist by doing so. :)

We are human. We are of the same species. We are ultimately both clamoring towards the same goal (peace). Even with our separate belief systems, we still share common denominators, and it could be said that "that is how we are One".


Do you understand what you're talking about?

I do. Do you?

What the fuck are you talking about?

That while we may not be able to validate the qualia that may exist in another person, we can still validate the experiences we have personally, and these experiences are what makes us who we are. Now, "being", to me, is a combination of 1) me existing and 2) the experiences that make up my perceptions of my own existence.

I could scold you like you did me for even suggesting that "being" is something else, since you know what my views on it are. But that would be little of me, and might hinder you gaining more understanding about my views. What we're doing here is swapping viewpoints, correct?

Their 'being' is not an illusion, it it all they know to be true.
Are you, for some reason, referring to 'being' as ones collection of experiences? Their perception of reality, their ... maya?

Reasons. Plural. I am referring to "being" as more than just knowing I exist, what you call the Only Truth. I am referring to "being" in the light of sentience. Being aware ... not doubtfully aware, not in the throes of illusions - but completely aware of my true experiences, the things my senses pick up on to guide my entire perception of both myself and others. It's the crux of what I know, all my judgements and perceptions.

What makes it an illusion?

Nothing does, only your subscription to solipsism.

And solipsism teaches us that all of our experiences cannot be known to be true, meaning that our existence is that all that can be known to be true. And by comparing experience to this truth, simply being, we find that all experience becomes an illusion. Maya.

And there are many objections to solipsism that I'm sure you've dismissed already as being another part of the grand illusion that our mental faculties suffer from. You may think I'm a figment of your imagination, but since I know that I am not, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Thats why? Then please, demonstrate how you know this.

Are you and I not of the same species, Obbe? Are we not both comprised of the same kind of mental "stuff" that allows us to communicate to one another, feel empathy for one another, be at peace with one another, if that's what we so desire? Does this supposedly insignificant trait that we share not unite us in any way at all? Or must our beliefs be the determining factor to our "Oneness"?

I think my version of 'why we are all one' is a ... little more rational.

I obviously disagree.

Its not the concept that doesn't promote harmony, its our disagreement on the truth of those concepts. Which can never be known. Thats the problem.

Exactly! Human beings disagreeing on concepts that advertise "absolute truth" and insert "God" as the author of this absolute truth is pointless, futile, and doesn't promote solidarity or "Oneness". It creates conflict, because not only are there vast differences of opinion on God, but there are differences in personal qualia that makes up our "absolute truths" and CANNOT be undermined by another person other than ourselves. It is absolutely not worth being in conflict over. However, if you drop the cause of the conflict, the conflict itself tends to vanish into thin air.

A concept of God, if kept to oneself, DOES promote peace, harmony, and all that warm-fuzzy jazz. Thats what the true meaning of God is, that all is One. Peace 'n Love, brothers.

Peace and love back @ ya, Obbe. But people's concepts of God aren't kept to themselves. They are constantly in competition with the conflicting concepts of God that threaten to make their belief system as being possibly untrue, if considered.

No, I am saying that awareness of nothing is the real truth, is God.

And to be aware of nothing is to vacate your mental faculties, shut down your senses - basically close a blind eye to the very thing that makes us human! If that is the real truth, if it is God, then I would personally not wish to trade out the ability to perceive just to get a little closer to being God-like.

Understanding anything is not awareness of nothing. So no, within maya, we can never completely understand God ... which is why I said partially. You can understand the concept. To completely understand God is to be God, be one with all, be aware of nothing. To leave maya.

If being able to even partially understand God requires that you not be in possession of all the "thinking" apparatus that makes up your mental faculties, how is it possible to know or understand that you've left maya? It would be an un-recognizable reward, worth nothing.

That's the perfect answer as to why a man would choose between these "truths" then.

Why wouldn't man choose between these so-called "truths" if he has evidence one of them definitely works and others do not (at least in some specific area)?

I haven't phrased what I'm trying to get across very well. I'm not saying that in some spheres these differant 'Truths' (After typing this word so much it seems ot lose it's meaning) are not more appropriate than others. I'm trying to express that no one of the 'paths' is pre-eminent, or more important than the other, save where they're-

Screw it, maybe I should think more definitely on what I'm trying to express so I can get it across clearer.

Simply put, all that shit is useful, may as well use it. If nothing else it passes the time.

So then an atheist, part of the set of "man" no doubt, does not have the option of the theological truths by that definition. Must he convert just because you think it's prudent to have truths of all kinds? If not, another good answer to the question as to why choose between the three "truths".

I'm not advocating he convert to some specific religion, just that the possibility is there.

Is it not prudent to have all kinds of truth?

Is not knowledge a greater good than ignorance? I'm not saying you have to become a theist to get more knowledge, I'm not saying that you have to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, or Mohammed as the messenger of God, but instead that you can extract knowledge from all of these. Do Jesus's parables become less worthy because they are from Jesus? Can nothing of worth be extracted from any religious text/belief?

Right, I have to go now, or else, God knows, I'd ramble some more bullshit for a page and a half.

Simply put, all that shit is useful, may as well use it. If nothing else it passes the time.

1. It's useful? How so? Who decides that? You do?

It seems that humanity sees no use for "theological truths" when it comes to fulfilling it's need for survival, and we've not established it is useful in any other sense that I can see.

2. A Hammer that gives AIDS could be useful, correct? After all, it could be used successfully to hammer a nail. Would you use it? I wouldn't. I'm guessing you wouldn't either. It seems something being "useful" doesn't automatically govern whether or not it should be used...



Do Jesus's parables become less worthy because they are from Jesus? Can nothing of worth be extracted from any religious text/belief?

If they extract anything from those parables, yet they believe in no "divine agency", then, according to your own definition, they have not extracted a theological truth. They might extract a scientific truth, or a philosophical truth, from reading those religious texts, but not a theological one.

In order to extract a theological truth, according to what you've said here, the atheist must believe in a "divine agency".
I'm following your own definition of "theological truth"...

1. It's useful? How so? Who decides that? You do?

It seems that humanity sees no use for "theological truths" when it comes to fulfilling it's need for survival, and we've not established it is useful in any other sense that I can see.

2. A Hammer that gives AIDS could be useful, correct? After all, it could be used successfully to hammer a nail. Would you use it? I wouldn't. I'm guessing you wouldn't either. It seems something being "useful" doesn't automatically govern whether or not it should be used...



I guess I can't really establish usefulness for theology outside of a spiritual sense, and seeing as I can't provide an objective use for spiritual anything... Well... I guess I'm fucked.

The only way I could come back is to say that I believe that there might be a spiritual something, the evidence I would give would that religion and spirituality are all present in mankind from the earliest, and that, if nothing else, mankind may benefit from fulfilling his spiritual needs. The only usefulness I can give is if mankind benefits from some kind of spiritual outlet.

I'd also like to point out that my idea of theology is not that of the Church or the way in which any major (and many minor) world religions shows it, in the sense of trying to prove any single belief system to be true, but rather in seeking the truth behind any possible divinity, while not supposing one view to be true. Of course, this is besides the point.

Also, just to argue for the sake of it, the Aids hammer while being useful is inherently harmful. Which is not the same as theism which may be useful but is not inherently harmful, or good. We hope to aim it towards good, but there are always those who will pervert it for their own ends. BP's use of the crusades and the inquisition etc, are examples of bad theism (Or hiding behind theism) Yet this does not make all theism bad.

We could say that all hammers are bad, because they have the potential to harm people, yet the purpose of a hammer is to hammer in nails, not kill (usually anyway). In the same way the purpose of Philosophy, Theology and Science should be tools towards benefit and enlightenment.

Of course, looking at many religons you wouldn't really think this.


If they extract anything from those parables, yet they believe in no "divine agency", then, according to your own definition, they have not extracted a theological truth. They might extract a scientific truth, or a philosophical truth, from reading those religious texts, but not a theological one.

In order to extract a theological truth, according to what you've said here, the atheist must believe in a "divine agency".
I'm following your own definition of "theological truth"...

Well. I guess you're right, an atheist could never extract a theological truth.

But are you willing to accept the possibility that there may be a divinity present? And that truths about or from this divinity could be glimpsed or grasped by the individual. Would it then follow that the individual, regardless of belief, had recieved a divine or theological truth.

I suppose what I'm really asking is; does the belief of the individual affect the source of the truth? Just because the individual does not believe in the source, does it mean it didn't come from that source?

For example, let's suppose that tommorow Angelina Jolie sends me an indepth love-letter in the post. I'm, obviously, convinced it's a fraud, and treat it as a fraud. But didn't Angelina still send me a super hot love letter?

Might we say that the belief of the individual affects the individual, but not the truth? That dismissing something because you don't believe in it is not the best path. That perhaps it is worth entertaining the possibility of somthing being true, even if only because I might get in Angelina Jolie's pants?

Is Objective truth affected by the Subjective belief of the individual?

IThis was an attempt to show how to one individual what you call irrational is perfectly rational. I am not saying that bleach makes all people happy, hell I'm only including bleach as an example of the point I'm trying to make. The point that irrational behaviour can seem rational to an indidual who will in turn consider you behaviour irrational. This leads onto a further point; what is it that makes your view of rationality and irrationality true, while anothers is false?

You have shown how someone can rationalize a bullshit argument. That is all. The argument ITSELF is NOT a rational arguement. Syllogisms follow rules. You broke the rules with a false premise. If you have a disputed conclusion (which you do) with a false presmise (which you do) YOU (as per the rules of syllogism) DO NOT HAVE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

To answer your second part and to repeat myself....my argument is rational if I follow the proper rules of a syllogism. Yours did not. A theists does not.

So this....

"This was an attempt to show how to one individual what you call irrational is perfectly rational."

Is a failed attempt. I get what you are saying and I do agree a person can rationlize anything they want to THEMSELVES. It is called self delusion. It demonstrates a point inherit in theism. That is take an idea and run in the face of contradictive evidence with a stubborness that rivals a retard's strength.

Theists are NOT rational. They are NOT arguing from a rational place. Science and atheism IS rational.

The only way I could come back is to say that I believe that there might be a spiritual something, the evidence I would give would that religion and spirituality are all present in mankind from the earliest, and that, if nothing else, mankind may benefit from fulfilling his spiritual needs. The only usefulness I can give is if mankind benefits from some kind of spiritual outlet.

Killing has arguably been present since the beginning of mankind - can we say that a bloodthirsty "spiritual thing" exists as well? Certain human behavior existing for a long time doesn't mean some mystical "being" must exist to explain it.


Also, just to argue for the sake of it, the Aids hammer while being useful is inherently harmful. Which is not the same as theism which may be useful but is not inherently harmful, or good. We hope to aim it towards good, but there are always those who will pervert it for their own ends. BP's use of the crusades and the inquisition etc, are examples of bad theism (Or hiding behind theism) Yet this does not make all theism bad.

The point of the hammer analogy was to show that "useful" isn't the only thing that needs to be considered. If you're now suggesting we should also consider any "harm" it might cause, then who are you to say that religion isn't inherently harmful? That seems like a very subjective position... another good reason why someone could choose between the "truths".



But are you willing to accept the possibility that there may be a divinity present? And that truths about or from this divinity could be glimpsed or grasped by the individual. Would it then follow that the individual, regardless of belief, had recieved a divine or theological truth.

Arguably yes, but he wouldn't know it. To him, it would be a truth of the two remaining kinds. So how is he not still choosing (from his point of view) from the two remaining truths, and not the theological truths? Remember, the whole point is to answer why would someone choose between these so-called truths... If that someone doesn't believe they exist, then regardless of whether they can exist or not, to him, he wouldn't be choosing from all the truths.

You have shown how someone can rationalize a bullshit argument. That is all. The argument ITSELF is NOT a rational arguement. Syllogisms follow rules. You broke the rules with a false premise. If you have a disputed conclusion (which you do) with a false presmise (which you do) YOU (as per the rules of syllogism) DO NOT HAVE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

To answer your second part and to repeat myself....my argument is rational if I follow the proper rules of a syllogism. Yours did not. A theists does not.

So this....

"This was an attempt to show how to one individual what you call irrational is perfectly rational."

Is a failed attempt. I get what you are saying and I do agree a person can rationlize anything they want to THEMSELVES. It is called self delusion. It demonstrates a point inherit in theism. That is take an idea and run in the face of contradictive evidence with a stubborness that rivals a retard's strength.

Theists are NOT rational. They are NOT arguing from a rational place. Science and atheism IS rational.


How did I break the rules with a false premise? Supposing someone is made happy by chlorox, and being happy is good, then drinking chlorox is rational to that individual.

Fine, lets substitute the example of Chlorox with the example of Drugs.

Being happy is Good
Drugs make me happy
Drugs are good.

To one individual this is true, to another drugs are seen as harmful, and so are bad. Who is right?

To the people holding the view, they are right and rational, while the other is wrong and irrational. Can you truly not see how one individual can consider their own arument right and anothers wrong? Can you not see that a theist thinks himslef as right as you do? That is all I want to show.

Killing has arguably been present since the beginning of mankind - can we say that a bloodthirsty "spiritual thing" exists as well? Certain human behavior existing for a long time doesn't mean some mystical "being" must exist to explain it.


Well, in terms of the need for food, yes. But while killing has arguably been around since the dawn of mankind, it is still inherently negative. Ending anothers life is a very final act, killing for the sake of killing is not a worthy goal, it is not a worthy goal because it retards growth, growth is better than no growth, and so killing is bad.

On the other hand relgion can be a force behind growth and unity. And while some people consider that science and religion are mutually exclusive, I don't see why they have to be. Religion could be the path to unity, and so to growth. Of course, there'd have to be some pretty big reformations with things the way they are.


The point of the hammer analogy was to show that "useful" isn't the only thing that needs to be considered. If you're now suggesting we should also consider any "harm" it might cause, then who are you to say that religion isn't inherently harmful? That seems like a very subjective position... another good reason why someone could choose between the "truths".

We can see that religion is more probaly neutral as we from the atrocities commited and the great help religion has been to mankind. Whereas the AIDS hammer is inherently harmful, religion is more like a normal hammer, it's a tool, but you can fuck it up and hit someone with it, But harm is not an inherant side-effect.




Arguably yes, but he wouldn't know it. To him, it would be a truth of the two remaining kinds. So how is he not still choosing (from his point of view) from the two remaining truths, and not the theological truths? Remember, the whole point is to answer why would someone choose between these so-called truths... If that someone doesn't believe they exist, then regardless of whether they can exist or not, to him, he wouldn't be choosing from all the truths.

Well, I can't really argue with that, you win on that :)

Personally I would think that it would be best to accept all possible forms of knowledge, based on the belief that knowledge is better than ignorance, and by ignoring some possible form of knowledge you a perpetuating ignorance.

How did I break the rules with a false premise? Supposing someone is made happy by chlorox, and being happy is good, then drinking chlorox is rational to that individual.

Fine, lets substitute the example of Chlorox with the example of Drugs.

Being happy is Good
Drugs make me happy
Drugs are good.

To one individual this is true, to another drugs are seen as harmful, and so are bad. Who is right?

To the people holding the view, they are right and rational, while the other is wrong and irrational. Can you truly not see how one individual can consider their own arument right and anothers wrong?



We can all argue about "I'm right, and you're wrong", but what is rational is defined as exercising good judgement, being sensible (which often means looking far beyond, to the long-term effects) and making sound choices that are reasonably agreed upon universally.

In your drug-user analogy, the people doing drugs are so in the throes of synthetic happiness, they fail to see the ill-effects the drugs may cause on their well-being. Their rationality is clouded by their happiness. If there were absolutely no chance that the overuse or misuse of any drug would cause harm to the human body, then drugs wouldn't be illegal, nor would they be considered harmful.

Here's another one:

Soft things makes toddlers feel good
A pit bull has soft fur
Letting toddlers sleep with pit bulls is good.

The toddler surely wouldn't object. After all, it likes what the pit bull feels like. Since the toddler is unable to see the harm in it, we have to rationalize it FOR them:

Pit bulls are soft.
Toddlers who love soft things will rationally be attracted to pit bulls.
It would be irrational behavior for someone to allow a baby to sleep in a pen of pit bulls.

Like the drug analogy, we sometimes have to go BEYOND "what makes people happy" before we define it as rational.

Since drugs are illegal and DO cause long-term damage from repeated use, we sometimes have to intervene with these happy-go-lucky drug users and (hopefully) end up rationalizing with them before the addiction takes completely over, or they get arrested for using illegal substances, or they accidentally O.D.

No one can argue with a cokehead: "Bro! Cocaine REALLY DOESN'T make you feel good!" (because any of us who have used it knows good and damn well that it DOES make you feel good, and happy). It's not about belittling their rationale as much as it is pointing out the adverse-effects of their rationale.

Drugs make you feel good.
People who like to feel good often take drugs.
It would be irrational behavior to not point out the adverse dangers of drugs to someone we know and love just because we do not want to intervene with their happiness.

Can you not see that a theist thinks himslef as right as you do? That is all I want to show.

Happiness and feeling good is a half-assed measure of rationality. Otherwise "If it feels good, do it" would be the #1 rule to live by, and we'd have to let rapists and murderers off without charges since there's a chance that slitting people's throats or forcing themselves on others sexually actually makes them feel good, so therefore it MUST be rational.

The atheists who object to what they call the irrationality of the theist isn't objecting that the theists have no right to feel righteous (good, warmfuzzy) about what they believe in. But they do have grounds to question the overall rationality of the theist, when to the atheist, the views taken by the theists lack (1)good reasoning, (2)sound judgment and (3)good sense.

1. They aren't reasoning anything at all. They're taking it all on 100% faith.

2. Judgment is being reserved until later - they are to take the holy books AS ARE, and believe in them without question.

3. It is not sensible to believe what we are told without inquiry, to judge what is "right" simply by being told what is right.

How did I break the rules with a false premise? Supposing someone is made happy by chlorox, and being happy is good, then drinking chlorox is rational to that individual.

Fine, lets substitute the example of Chlorox with the example of Drugs.

Being happy is Good
Drugs make me happy
Drugs are good.

To one individual this is true, to another drugs are seen as harmful, and so are bad. Who is right?

To the people holding the view, they are right and rational, while the other is wrong and irrational. Can you truly not see how one individual can consider their own arument right and anothers wrong? Can you not see that a theist thinks himslef as right as you do? That is all I want to show.

A theist CAN and does rationlize to THEMSELVES the rationality behind believing in a God. HOWEVER, in order for a theists syllogism explaining god to be a rational argument the premises HAVE TO BE TRUE.

Since a theists premise involving a god cannot be proven it cannot be considered true. Hence NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT. Which means thiests are not thinking rationally or logically AT ALL when they profess a simple belief in an invisible man in the sky who sometimes grants wishes and loves us.

Well, in terms of the need for food, yes. But while killing has arguably been around since the dawn of mankind, it is still inherently negative. Ending anothers life is a very final act, killing for the sake of killing is not a worthy goal, it is not a worthy goal because it retards growth, growth is better than no growth, and so killing is bad.

On the other hand relgion can be a force behind growth and unity. And while some people consider that science and religion are mutually exclusive, I don't see why they have to be. Religion could be the path to unity, and so to growth. Of course, there'd have to be some pretty big reformations with things the way they are.


I don't understand what that has to do with what I said.

Not only have you not proven that killing is inherently negative - that would take some objective morality which you have yet shown to exist - but so what if it were? The point I was making was that something existing for a long time is meaningless in determining if a "spiritual something" exists. You cannot say, X has existed since the birth of humanity, thus there must be a "spiritual something" that explains (or is responsible for) X.

Remember, you said:

"...I believe that there might be a spiritual something, the evidence I would give would that religion and spirituality are all present in mankind from the earliest..."



We can see that religion is more probaly neutral as we from the atrocities commited and the great help religion has been to mankind. Whereas the AIDS hammer is inherently harmful, religion is more like a normal hammer, it's a tool, but you can fuck it up and hit someone with it, But harm is not an inherant side-effect.


Maybe according to you, but not according to someone that holds the belief that religions are inherently harmful for whatever reason (e.g. its infatuation with "faith").



Personally I would think that it would be best to accept all possible forms of knowledge, based on the belief that knowledge is better than ignorance, and by ignoring some possible form of knowledge you a perpetuating ignorance.

That assumes you know that "theological truths" are knowledge in the first place, something you definitely do not know. For all you know, you could be perpetuating ignorance by believing in so-called "theological truths" that are false!

Yay, totse's back up. And I have a real computer again!

I know I have other replies to make in other threads ... but this is all I felt like typing tonight.


Is there a case in which two plus two will ever be anything but four? Can it be doubted that two plus two will ever be anything but four?

Yes, in systems where four is not defined as two plus two ... systems which would seem inconceivable to you or I. Or in a 'system' with no separation.

Mathematics, largely if not completely, is knowable, without doubt

No, it is not. The experience of mathematics cannot be known to be real.

Personal experience is only the basis of opinions, not evidence for fact.

Then please tell me what is evidence for fact, hmmmm?

Experiences which you can verify with others? So how do you go about verifying your experience of these other observers?

Its all personal experience, and none of it can be known to be real. Only existence, 'being', can be known.

Obviously they view that their opinions are the basis for fact, and while this explains their attitudes, it doesn't justify them.

It also explains your attitude, and the attitudes of those like you.

Whats not justified is this attitude ... and this goes for the attitudes of religious assholes as well. It is not right to tell others that their beliefs are wrong ... it makes them feel like shit, it makes them want to make you feel the same way, and thats a major contribution to all this disagreement over truth. Contributing to all this hate, when humanity should be at peace.

Why try to convince others that their 'truths' are wrong, and your own are right? You cannot know that. We all know what the 'truth' is (or like to believe we do), so why not keep it that way?

If a theist 'knows' theres a God, he should simply not listen to atheists speaking otherwise, and vice versa. Both parties can still work together to build a better world.

What makes you think you understand God better than anyone else.

Not anyone else.

But most theists seem to think God is a big 'space-daddy' (as BP likes to say), a separate entity within reality.

And why do you call the only 'truth' known to Solispsism as 'God'?

Many reasons...

The truth, 'being' or 'awareness of nothing', is the truest form of reality. From the perspective that all but the self is an illusion, then the self is all, and all is God.

From the perspective that all is real, all is again God. How does that relate to the truth found through Solipsism?

Because anything out of all things being perceived as separate, from alpha to omega, can from its own perspective be broken down to the simple truth of 'being'. If all exists, then this 'being', this 'awareness of nothing' is the basis of all things.

Nothing can be without this 'being'. That is why it is God, why God is all, and why I am God.

Why do you state that the knowledge of one's own existence is the only knowable thing?

You cannot know that what you are experiencing is real or an illusion.

However, you know 'I AM'.

How can one know something to be true if the existence of the faculty of 'knowing' is doubtable, or illusory?

This question is the reason that 'awareness of nothing', and simply being, is the truest form of reality. Because yes, 'knowing' anything, or any sort of experience, is illusory.

Bad form.

I agree, and am so sorry.

Careful! You must first assume my existence before engaging in dialogue with me. And thanks for inadvertently validating that I exist by doing so.

That I must do anything before anything is your[i/] assumption. By comparing my experience of you with what I know is truth, you are an illusion. All I am doing by interacting with you is entertaining myself.

Please, explain this method of validation for me...I experience you, choose to interact with you, therefore you exist?

So, our famous crazy person isn't really hallucinating 20 people in his room? Are you saying they exist?

We are ultimately both clamoring towards the same goal (peace). Even with our separate belief systems, we still share common denominators, and it could be said that "that is how we are One".

And any of that requires some level of belief in your experiences. If we are to assume that all (or anything) does exist, then the greatest 'common denominator' of all (or any) things is 'being'. Or ... God.

That while we may not be able to validate the qualia that may exist in another person, we can still validate the experiences we have personally, and these experiences are what makes us who we are.

Uh huh ... so ... how? [i]How do you validate these experiences?

Yes, they make you what you are. From the perspective of my concept, this 'you' (the ego, 'Obbe' in my case) is also an illusion.

What we're doing here is swapping viewpoints, correct?

Yep. As has been said, 'being' for me is analogous with 'awareness of nothing' ... implying no experience. I believe this because when compared to what can be known to be true, simply being, all experiences become illusory.

So here is where I ask of you to share your viewpoint, and you tell me why you believe experiences can be validated, and how that can be done.

Reasons. Plural.

Alright then. Could you list some? Because the next few sentences were further explanations of your definition of 'being', not reasons to why you define it so.

... but completely aware of my true experiences, the things my senses pick up on to guide my entire perception of both myself and others.

How are they known to be true?

Nothing does, only your subscription to solipsism.

Is solipsism wrong?

If experiences are not illusions ... how do you know them to be true?

You may think I'm a figment of your imagination, but since I know that I am not, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Likewise, you'll never be able to convince me you are not an illusion.

I would like to point out that, convincing you that you are an illusion is not at all something I am attempting. Thats just silly.

But I ask you ... how do you know that I am not illusory? That Obbe is real?

Are you and I not of the same species, Obbe? Are we not both comprised of the same kind of mental "stuff" that allows us to communicate to one another, feel empathy for one another, be at peace with one another, if that's what we so desire? Does this supposedly insignificant trait that we share not unite us in any way at all?

Thats not a demonstration of how you know what I asked. None of that can be known.

Please. Demonstrate what I asked.

Or must our beliefs be the determining factor to our "Oneness"?

Pardon?

It is absolutely not worth being in conflict over. However, if you drop the cause of the conflict, the conflict itself tends to vanish into thin air.

Nice job inserting 'God', and changing the focus to religion. I was implying that telling others that there is no God, or similar negative acts of pushing ... ahem, 'truth' on others is just as bad, just as unjustified, and just as much a cause of the conflict.

But people's concepts of God aren't kept to themselves. They are constantly in competition with the conflicting concepts of God that threaten to make their belief system as being possibly untrue, if considered.

And I am saying thats bad, and should not be done.

And to be aware of nothing is to vacate your mental faculties, shut down your senses - basically close a blind eye to the very thing that makes us human! If that is the real truth, if it is God, then I would personally not wish to trade out the ability to perceive just to get a little closer to being God-like.

Then continue to do that which you enjoy. I am not saying you should do otherwise, I am not implying a 'worthlessness' to experience by calling it illusory ... thats just what it is.

We, as in 'being' ... are, or is, that which experiences. That said, I do not think God wants to be anymore God-like then you do. Otherwise, you (or me, or anyone ... I would just say 'God') would not be experiencing right now.

... how is it possible to know or understand that you've left maya?

Its not ... being outside of maya is simply 'being'. There is no 'know'. Part of leaving maya is ceasing to know.

It would be an un-recognizable reward, worth nothing.

Reward? Its the truth, not a goal ... except for those who understand what it is and wish to reach it. And for them, it is indeed a most excellent 'reward'.

Worth? Worth is only perspective. I could say nothing has worth, and that would be just as 'true' as saying anything has worth.

This is gonna be TL;DR, folks, so just skip down to the paragraphs after the last quote if you want a short answer, I guess.

Yes, in systems where four is not defined as two plus two ... systems which would seem inconceivable to you or I. Or in a 'system' with no separation.

I invite you to prove that such a system exists, because if they are inconceivable then there is no reason to assert they possibly exist.

No, it is not. The experience of mathematics cannot be known to be real.

This is a false assertion, which I have expanded on further down. In Solipsistic terms, you can only assert that empirical experience is doubtable, and even so you haven't said why, which makes your system bankrupt already. This is the first time I'm going to say it, but you have no reason to doubt a non-empirical matter, such as the existence of mathematics and it's processes 'in and of themselves' exists. Since you have no means of asserting it is doubtable, it is thus completely incorrect to assert it is unknowable.

Then please tell me what is evidence for fact, hmmmm?

Non-subjective empirical evidence, if we speak strictly (and scientifically) of empirical facts.

Experiences which you can verify with others? So how do you go about verifying your experience of these other observers?

By repeating them. Mathematics and Science (in an empirical sense at least) both rest on this principle.

Its all personal experience, and none of it can be known to be real. Only existence, 'being', can be known.

If every 'personal' experience of a thing is identical in all manners and possibilities, is that 'experience' a 'personal' one or subjective at all?

It also explains your attitude, and the attitudes of those like you.

I'll just disregard this, because it has nothing to do with logical debate and everything to do with my person, making it irrelevant.

It is not right to tell others that their beliefs are wrong

This is where you're wrong. I assume what you state is 'It is not right to tell others that any or all of their beliefs are wrong', in which case is it wrong to dispel ignorance in terms of harmful beliefs, or those that would bring harm to others?

Why try to convince others that their 'truths' are wrong, and your own are right?

You're right, we shouldn't try and help people...

You cannot know that. We all know what the 'truth' is (or like to believe we do), so why not keep it that way?

Actually, it is completely feasible for me to draw attention to holes or fallacies within a set of ideologies and otherwise criticise them.

If a theist 'knows' theres a God, he should simply not listen to atheists speaking otherwise, and vice versa. Both parties can still work together to build a better world.

I think many would strongly disagree that blind ignorance is good. Many would tell you blind ignorance is never good and will never amount to anything good. Blind ignorance and intolerability is divisive.

The truth, 'being' or 'awareness of nothing', is the truest form of reality. From the perspective that all but the self is an illusion, then the self is all, and all is God.

You didn't answer my question. There's no similarity between knowing an undoubtable 'truth' and a or the God. One is a deity and one is a matter of dialectical process.

From the perspective that all is real, all is again God. How does that relate to the truth found through Solipsism?

You think Pantheism and Solipsism are reconcilable? This should be interesting.

Because anything out of all things being perceived as separate, from alpha to omega, can from its own perspective be broken down to the simple truth of 'being'.

I challenge you to prove this assertion, and it's worth noting it's grossly irrelevant to the Solipsism you're trying to justify.

If all exists, then this 'being', this 'awareness of nothing' is the basis of all things.

If we assume that all things exist, then their existence is their unifying factor, which has nothing to do with the 'awareness of nothing'. In fact, it's completely converse to the 'awareness of nothing'.

Nothing can be without this 'being'.

Assuming that all things exist, then indeed, their existence is in fact critical to their existence. But this has nothing do with your Solipsistic claims.

That is why it is God, why God is all, and why I am God.

See above. You're trying to prove Solipsism with it's counter-philosophy, and that doesn't wash. In semantic terms, God is a misnomer for the pantheistic viewpoint.

You cannot know that what you are experiencing is real or an illusion.

However, you know 'I AM'.

The correct statement, which I will assume you mean to say, is that any empirical experience is doubtable, but not necessarily false. And within this, 'I AM' is not the only thing one knows. One can be certain that that the existence of a faculty or entity with which empirical experience occurs on the grounds that empirical experience does occur, facilitating a necessity for such a faculty.

This question is the reason that 'awareness of nothing', and simply being, is the truest form of reality. Because yes, 'knowing' anything, or any sort of experience, is illusory.

Interestingly, your official policy is somewhat more vague than the 'true' Solipsistic view. I hope I haven't falsely assumed something here. To answer your assertion, I must assume that 'the awareness of nothing' is the statement that 'all empirical experience is doubtable', in which case not only have you failed to provide a reason for this assertion, but you have failed to state why this doubt is in fact an 'existence' or 'reality' rather than an intellectual process. If you actually literally mean that 'knowing nothing exists' is what you meant, then you have no grounds for this assertion, and I'm afraid not even Descartes is on your side (whose logic is, if I remember, that it is possible for [hypothetically] an entity to produce false empirical experiences in oneself, therefore any and all empirical experiences can be doubted as false.)

Interestingly, if we follow the reasoning that false empirical experiences can exist therefore all empirical experience is doubtable, then we can still assert that 'rational' experience still exists- the processes and faculties which develop or discuss matters that are not empirical (such as 'a priori' matters in and of themselves) are still yet to be doubted.

Thus, I assert that mathematics, 'in and of themselves' is knowable, in that no grounds have been stated in which it is unknowable or even doubted and I can assert with certainty that at least basic mathematics is valid and can be known- we can know, demonstratively and repeatedly, that two plus two will always be four, even if we discuss the numbers 'in and of themselves' rather than in terms of groupings of empirical objects.

My main criticism is that you use a lot of baseless assumption, and that you've oversimplified your terms until you've alienated them from defendable Solipsistic philosophy. Read above for my point-by-point attempt at a refutation.

That I must do anything before anything is [i]your[i/] assumption. By comparing my experience of you with what I know is truth, you are an illusion. All I am doing by interacting with you is entertaining myself.

Please, explain this method of validation for me...I experience you, choose to interact with you, therefore you exist?

AngryFemme is stating, if I am not wrong, that for a proper discourse to be held with her, first it must be assumed she exists or, that by discoursing with her you and others make the assumption that she indeed exists, as existence is a critical requirement of discourse. Of course, this begs the question that if such a discourse indeed exists at all, but it tends to suggest the Solipsist regards the 'illusory' interlocutors as real if he or she is bother discoursing with them.

So, our famous crazy person isn't really hallucinating 20 people in his room? Are you saying they exist?

Is he really discoursing with them?

greatest[/b] 'common denominator' of all (or any) things is 'being'. Or ... God.

Why do you insist on using confusing and otherwise inaccurate words to describe something so plain as 'existence'?

Yep. As has been said, 'being' for me is analogous with 'awareness of nothing' ... implying no experience. I believe this because when compared to what can be known to be true, simply being, all experiences become illusory.

Being able to doubt experience =/= no experience exists. Why is something able to be doubted assumed false (and thus 'illusory' when compared to something that can't? That's a false assumption.

Is solipsism wrong?

Your version seems to be, or at least, not without holes and fallacies.

If experiences are not illusions ... how do you know them to be true?

See above. It's a false assumption to state empirical evidence is assuredly false ('illusory') when all you are capable of doing is doubting it.

Likewise, you'll never be able to convince me you are not an illusion.

"You'll never convince me" is the last defence of the ignorant and incorrect.

Nice job inserting 'God', and changing the focus to religion.

That's the actual context of the word. You're the one twisting it.

I was implying that telling others that there is no God, or similar negative acts of pushing ... ahem, 'truth' on others is just as bad, just as unjustified, and just as much a cause of the conflict.

You don't understand atheism if you think it's about stating baselessly 'there is no God'. I'll just ignore the part where you attempt to criticise discussion of theological or philosophical matters on grounds that they are 'unjustified' and 'cause conflict', because that's a rediculous assertion.

And I am saying thats bad, and should not be done.

You believe no ideologies or concepts should be exposed to discussion with others?

Also, I've edited out the points not relevant to me, such as the parts were you go from discussing philosophy to Hinduism, and where you're addressing matters I myself don't agree with.

AngryFemme is stating, if I am not wrong, that for a proper discourse to be held with her, first it must be assumed she exists or, that by discoursing with her you and others make the assumption that she indeed exists, as existence is a critical requirement of discourse. Of course, this begs the question that if such a discourse indeed exists at all, but it tends to suggest the Solipsist regards the 'illusory' interlocutors as real if he or she is bother discoursing with them.

Correct!
But here is how Obbe tricks himself out of admitting I am real: He flip-flops his method. First, he engages in discourse with me. THEN he states it is not real, it's illusory. If he truly held to his beliefs as much as he expounds on them via text, he would find it useless to "participate in the maya", assert to himself that I am an illusion, and would find it silly to engage in dialogue with me, the non-experiencing illusion.

How he reconciles it is to reduce our dialogue to "entertainment", as if he is just humoring this non-experiencer (me) by responding to my conversation (which he insists can't be real).

According to Obbe's example of the ONLY thing that can be known to be true (being), one who claims to be a verifier-of-experience is incapable of being real, because being real demands that you don't know anything outside of just being. He will repeatedly ask us to "please demonstrate what you know", while in the same breath, refuting that nothing CAN be known within the "maya".

It takes circular, unproductive discussion to a whole new level.

Correct!
But here is how Obbe tricks himself out of admitting I am real: He flip-flops his method. First, he engages in discourse with me. THEN he states it is not real, it's illusory. If he truly held to his beliefs as much as he expounds on them via text, he would find it useless to "participate in the maya", assert to himself that I am an illusion, and would find it silly to engage in dialogue with me, the non-experiencing illusion.

How he reconciles it is to reduce our dialogue to "entertainment", as if he is just humoring this non-experiencer (me) by responding to my conversation (which he insists can't be real).

According to Obbe's example of the ONLY thing that can be known to be true (being), one who claims to be a verifier-of-experience is incapable of being real, because being real demands that you don't know anything outside of just being. He will repeatedly ask us to "please demonstrate what you know", while in the same breath, refuting that nothing CAN be known within the "maya".

It takes circular, unproductive discussion to a whole new level.

Of course, if us empirical interlocutors are in fact illusory, then we can very easily chastise Obbe for engaging in a pointless exercise, which is discoursing with something he 'knows' or is at least 'certain' does not truly 'exist'.

Not to mention that my obscenely long posts have pointed out that he deviates from (what I suppose to be) philosophically 'justified' Solipsistic stances due to baseless assumptions (such as that something being doubtable = it does not exist) into something completely different... With a dash of Hinduism. Or maybe I'm just using Cartesian methods to try and understand something which doesn't have a philosophical basis, which I suppose is equally demeaning of Obbe's viewpoint...

If they are under the influence of Cartesianism, then people like Obbe and Rizzo are proof that René Descartes was not arrogant in believing the common man would not grasp his Meditations on First Philosophy and would set upon their own misguided philosophical paths, which would be the result of nothing but a misreading of his philosophy. This was why he published his Meditations in Latin. Anyway, below I outline three common misconceptions about Cartesianism.

First, René Descartes’ goal was to prove that God and soul are more knowable and certain than anything else, so atheists who maintain there is an external world but not a God are misguided. He is very open about this, stating this to be his goal explicitly in his Dedicatory Letter to the Sorbonne, which can be found at the start of the Meditations on First Philosophy. His indubitable ground for the sciences and refutation of scepticism in general are secondary to him, only coming after his attempt at an ontological proof of God.

Some people reverse this priority or don’t even notice Descartes’ main aim at all, even though it is very blatant. This combined with an incautious reading of the Meditations results in a misunderstanding of Descartes’ methodical doubt and search for certainty. René Descartes never believed certainty to be a requirement of knowledge and states so several times. His methodical doubt was merely a thought experiment to show that even if the external world and something as apodeictic as mathematics are of very slight philosophical uncertainty, God is not.

Another common misunderstanding of Descartes is of his mind-body dualism. Descartes definition of substance is anything he can conceive of independent of everything else clearly and distinctly. For anything he perceives clearly and distinctly is true and since God is not a deceiver, he would not deceive him in the case of clearly and distinctly perceiving something as being capable of existence independent of anything else, such as in the case of the mind or body. So many people believe Descartes actually held the soul and body to be literally detached from one another. But just because God can separate mind from body, since they are distinct substances, it does not follow that he has separated mind from body. Indeed, Descartes believed they were not separate from one another, but intricately intertwined, as confirmed by experience.

Being an atheist, I disagree with René Descartes. But I admire him very much. So I find it quite deplorable when Obbe abuses his methodical doubt, turning it into a crude self-rejecting belief. Perhaps one day he will find there to be more beyond Meditation Two, perhaps one day he will find there to be more outside of Descartes. And who knows? Perhaps one day he will step out of his maya.

I invite you to prove that such a system exists, because if they are inconceivable then there is no reason to assert they possibly exist.

Thats as impossible as proving truth to the existence of the system which you believe is true. Another system seems inconceivable because you only understand the one you have experienced.

What reason do you have to assert any experience as being reality, and not illusion?

... you haven't said why, which makes your system bankrupt already. This is the first time I'm going to say it, but you have no reason to doubt a non-empirical matter, such as the existence of mathematics and it's processes 'in and of themselves' exists. Since you have no means of asserting it is doubtable, it is thus completely incorrect to assert it is unknowable.

Why experience is illusion:

You only know one thing. That you exist, that 'I AM'. You cannot know experiences to be true or illusory.

Then by comparing experience to all we know true reality to be, which is simply 'being' ... without experience ... we find that experiences become illusory to the state of 'being'. Understanding mathematics, knowing the 'rules' to a specific card game, thinking any thought ... cannot be known to be true, and when compared with what can be known, such 'knowledge' is reduced to illusion.

Non-subjective empirical evidence, if we speak strictly (and scientifically) of empirical facts.

All knowledge and experiences are subjective, except knowledge of 'being', but you can only know that of yourself.

By repeating them. Mathematics and Science (in an empirical sense at least) both rest on this principle.

Repeating them 'proves' nothing except within the illusions of others existences, time and space.

You cannot verify the existence of the 'person' you are attempting to verify the results of a repeated experiment with. Hell, you cannot verify that you actually repeated an experiment, or even conducted one in the first place ... or just believe you did.

If every 'personal' experience of a thing is identical in all manners and possibilities ...

How could you possibly know such a thing?

I think many would strongly disagree that blind ignorance is good.

I said nothing about blind ignorance there.

What roll does blind ignorance play with something which is known?

You didn't answer my question.
Maybe if you expanded the quote to include all those wee paragraphs, you would have your answer.

There's no similarity between knowing an undoubtable 'truth' and a or the God. One is a deity and one is a matter of dialectical process

Yes, there is. God is all, God is infinite, and so is 'being'.

Lets view reality from the assumption (which it must be, since it cannot be known) that experiences are true: You perceive another person ... from their own perspective, they can also understand that nothing can be known to be true except for their existence. That truth is their 'being'. Lets say you perceive a ball. What is the perspective of that ball? Does it 'know' anything? Is it in a state of 'awareness of nothing'? A state of simply 'being'?

'Being' is the base of all things. Nothing can exist without 'being', no experience can be had without 'being'.

You think Pantheism and Solipsism are reconcilable?

I think their different ways of viewing the same thing. Different sides to the same coin.

I challenge you to prove this assertion

I remind you that you can only know one thing, nothing else can be proven. But look above a little to find an understanding of what I was saying.

You're trying to prove Solipsism with it's counter-philosophy, and that doesn't wash.

No, I'm not. I am explaining to you what I find God to be, and it is the same thing described by both Solipsism and Pantheism, their just different perspectives. Personally, I find it described best using both.

And within this, 'I AM' is not the only thing one knows.

No. Observe:

One can be certain that that the existence of a faculty or entity with which empirical experience occurs on the grounds that empirical experience does occur, facilitating a necessity for such a faculty.

Which is just like saying “I know that 'I AM' because I am experiencing <something>.” ... however, you do not know the truth of that experience. You do not know if it is real ... could it be an illusion? Who knows!?!

How do we deduce an experience is an illusion? By comparing that experience to what we know to be true. Most of the time, we believe the 'norm experience' to be true, and we compare things such as the effects of drugs, or the hallucinations of crazy people to the 'norm' ... and decide those other experiences are illusions.

But what we actually know, for certain, is that at least we exist. 'I AM'. And when we compare our experience to this truly known part of reality ... simply 'being' ... then that experience, and any experience, becomes an illusion. Illusions to simply being. Including the experience of self-recognition ... of knowing 'I AM'.

I hope I haven't falsely assumed something here.

I think you have. More then once, as well.

... we can know, demonstratively and repeatedly, that two plus two will always be four, even if we discuss the numbers 'in and of themselves' rather than in terms of groupings of empirical objects.

You can 'know' mathematics to be true, only under the assumptions that the experience of theses demonstrations, their repetition, and the existence of objects other then your own self are true ... and that, you cannot know.

... existence is a critical requirement of discourse.

Do you think that of the 'crazy person' who sees, and discourses with those whom you cannot?

The only existence required is that of the observer. And why not choose to interact? Is that so odd? As AngryFemme has implied herself, she would rather be experiencing an illusion then nothing at all. And I agree ... thats the point of 'life', thats what we are ... 'that which experiences'.

But those experiences cannot be known to be true.

Is he really discoursing with them?

He would certainly believe so ... in exactly the same way you believe you are discoursing with me.

Why do you insist on using confusing and otherwise inaccurate words to describe something so plain as 'existence'?

That they are confusing and inaccurate is only your perception ... from another's, such mine, its makes perfect sense. Why do I type so much text? To see if anyone else can understand that existence isn't what they currently think it is ... and understand their 'oneness' with reality, and the true meaning of God.

Why is something able to be doubted assumed false (and thus 'illusory' when compared to something that can't?

Why is an acid trip considered an illusion when compared to your 'usual' experience?

Your version seems to be

The concept I describe here is not at all limited by Solipsism, it is not a 'version' of Solipsism. If anything, an understanding of Solipsism is a component of the concept I describe.

"You'll never convince me" is the last defence of the ignorant and incorrect.

Are you calling AngryFemme defensive, ignorant and incorrect? Because it was her statement which I was mimicking.

That's the actual context of the word. You're the one twisting it.

You are obviously mistaken about the context of the quoted text. She inserted God and religion, while I was talking about the spreading of 'truth' and the belittling of others 'truths', regardless of the specific topic.

You don't understand atheism if you think it's about stating baselessly 'there is no God'.

That wasn't atheism, that was ahem. As in, a clearing of the throat.

I think anyone who claims to be an atheist, misunderstands God. For if there were no God, the true One ... then there would be no person making the claim, and there would be no perception of a reality which they would have been speaking to.

You believe no ideologies or concepts should be exposed to discussion with others?

Have I not, probably repeatedly, stated that open discussion is fine? I'm talking about force, and I'm talking about stating others are wrong and pushing your own beliefs as truth, as that also spreads negativity in a continuous cycle.

Also, I've edited out the points not relevant to me

Then how can you hope to understand what I am talking about?

Or have you already decided that I must be wrong, and have decided to try and push your beliefs on me?

That doesn't sound like open discussion.

I find it quite deplorable when Obbe abuses his methodical doubt, turning it into a crude self-rejecting belief.

I've never heard of the guy, so don't be too offended.

Perhaps one day he will step out of his maya.

:rolleyes: Like you ever understand what that means.

Perhaps one day, Hare my little buddy, you'll step out of mommys womb.

Thats as impossible as proving truth to the existence of the system which you believe is true. Another system seems inconceivable because you only understand the one you have experienced.

New systems can be discovered, and proved. Impossible systems can not. Inconceivable means impossible, not unheard of.

What reason do you have to assert any experience as being reality, and not illusion?

I'd say 'empirical observation', in terms of 'empirical experience'. You have no means to assert this is an 'illusion' to begin with, as I'll address more than once later on, if memory serves.

Why experience is illusion:

You only know one thing. That you exist, that 'I AM'. You cannot know experiences to be true or illusory.

Then by comparing experience to all we know true reality to be, which is simply 'being' ... without experience ... we find that experiences become illusory to the state of 'being'. Understanding mathematics, knowing the 'rules' to a specific card game, thinking any thought ... cannot be known to be true, and when compared with what can be known, such 'knowledge' is reduced to illusion.

False. One does not know 'I AM', one cannot doubt that a faculty experiencing doubt cannot be doubted. There's a very big difference between doubt and can't know. Doubtable knowledge when compared to undoubtable knowledge is merely highlighted as doubtable, not illusory, which infers falsehood. I'm not the only one making incorrect assumptions, it seems.

All knowledge and experiences are subjective, except knowledge of 'being', but you can only know that of yourself.

Empirical experience at least. Some argue that there is innate a priori 'knowledge' amongst all people.

Repeating them 'proves' nothing except within the illusions of others existences, time and space.

Repeating them proves they exist within an empirical realm, yes. You have no grounds to assert that such empirical 'existence' is an 'illusion', however.

You cannot verify the existence of the 'person' you are attempting to verify the results of a repeated experiment with. Hell, you cannot verify that you actually repeated an experiment, or even conducted one in the first place ... or just believe you did.

Yes, if we assume that Solipsism is a correct viewpoint.

How could you possibly know such a thing?

It was a hypothetical. I think you'll find it's perfectly fair to use them in discourse, you've done so yourself extensively.

I said nothing about blind ignorance there.

Yes, you did. You said theists shouldn't listen to atheists, and that means closing off your own ideas from criticism or debate; ie, blind ignorance.

What roll does blind ignorance play with something which is known?

You're blind and ignorant if you aren't willing to allow your ideologies to be discussed or criticised.

Maybe if you expanded the quote to include all those wee paragraphs, you would have your answer.

Well, while we're criticising each other, I'd like you to at least address or acknowledge my refuations of your arguments, whilst you're picking apart my posts. If memory serves, there's some good stuff at the bottom of my first one on the last page.

Yes, there is. God is all, God is infinite, and so is 'being'.

No, there isn't. God is, in a 'traditional' definition, a deity whom is omnipotent and omnipresent, but that doesn't mean everything is God unless we change the definition to a Pantheistic one.

Lets view reality from the assumption (which it must be, since it cannot be known) that experiences are true: You perceive another person ... from their own perspective, they can also understand that nothing can be known to be true except for their existence. That truth is their 'being'. Lets say you perceive a ball. What is the perspective of that ball? Does it 'know' anything? Is it in a state of 'awareness of nothing'? A state of simply 'being'?

There's a big difference between 'doubtable' and 'can't be known'. You've falsely and baselessly assumed they're the same. Also, for you to even begin asserting such that they are, you need to explain how you came to such an assertion in the first place. Your arguments are bankrupt, as I said earlier, without a logical basis.

'Being' is the base of all things. Nothing can exist without 'being', no experience can be had without 'being'.

Yes, existence is indeed a critical property of all things that exist.

I think their different ways of viewing the same thing. Different sides to the same coin.

They're diametrically opposed, was my perspective.

I remind you that you can only know one thing, nothing else can be proven. But look above a little to find an understanding of what I was saying.

I remind you that you assert this again and again, without explaining the basis of this assertion, and I once again remind you that you have no grounds to doubt the existence of anything non-empirical, thus meaning that anything 'rational' or 'innate' can be known. I can also declare undoubtable that an empirical 'faculty' exists, further refuting you, as there must be a faculty that is experiencing the 'false' empirical material. There we go, that's another thing I can certainly and most assuredly know. Consider your claim that one can only 'know' one thing refuted. Here's another 'undoubtable' thing; the faculty of 'doubt' or 'rational thought', since for any rational thought to take place, such as doubting the existence of such a faculty, there must be such a faculty. The problem with your claim is that you haven't taken pathological doubt to it's logical conclusion- you stopped at the mere existence of an entity, without examining what within that entity can be doubted.

No, I'm not. I am explaining to you what I find God to be, and it is the same thing described by both Solipsism and Pantheism, their just different perspectives. Personally, I find it described best using both.

'God' in Pantheistic terms can have many usages, one sometimes (and if I remember correctly, commonly) assosciates it with the sum total of existence. If you want to assosciate the 'truth' of the 'existence' of a self (as a whole, or even the minor faculties contained within this self which should indeed be considered) as the sum total of existence, first you need to prove that everything else doesn't exist. All you can 'prove' is that everything empirical is doubtable, which does not refute it's existence.

Which is just like saying “I know that 'I AM' because I am experiencing <something>.” ... however, you do not know the truth of that experience. You do not know if it is real ... could it be an illusion? Who knows!?!

Once again, you haven't taken the doubt to it's logical conclusion. You can be certain there is a faculty 'experiencing' this doubtable empirical experience, but that is only a minor element within the entirety of an 'entity' that is 'I'.

How do we deduce an experience is an illusion? By comparing that experience to what we know to be true. Most of the time, we believe the 'norm experience' to be true, and we compare things such as the effects of drugs, or the hallucinations of crazy people to the 'norm' ... and decide those other experiences are illusions.

Yes, 'we' do.

But what we actually know, for certain, is that at least we exist. 'I AM'. And when we compare our experience to this truly known part of reality ... simply 'being' ... then that experience, and any experience, becomes an illusion. Illusions to simply being. Including the experience of self-recognition ... of knowing 'I AM'.

What we cannot doubt is indeed the experience of a variety of faculties which are necessary for our doubt and indeed other elements of our 'existence', such as 'empirical delusions'. Doubting something doesn't refute it's existence, or even the possibility of knowing it (potentially). Once again, if we compare something that is completely undoubtable to something that is doubtable, then the only assertion we can make is that the latter is indeed doubtable and the former isn't- it has nothing to do with the falsehood of either of the compared matters. And I disagree that we can doubt 'self recognition', because as I've noted, we can at least guarantee parts of the self are undoubtable; Thus it is false to doubt the existence of an experience in which we 'realise' the undoubtability of the existence of such 'parts'.

I think you have. More then once, as well.

So have you, and unfortunately for you your false assumptions are critical to your argument.

You can 'know' mathematics to be true, only under the assumptions that the experience of theses demonstrations, their repetition, and the existence of objects other then your own self are true ... and that, you cannot know.

I said much earlier that we should consider mathematics in and of itself, without empirical subject. This 'non-empirical' material is yet to be proven doubtable by you or anyone else as far as I know. And who says such 'non empirical' materials are seperate from the undoubted 'self'? They are arguably components within the rational self, because they can exist not as empirical objects but concepts without empirical subject.

Also, you have no grounds to assert that 'objects other than the self' (as in, empirical objects in their totality, apparently) are 'unknowable'. All you can assert is that the knowledge of their existence is at this point doubtable, which as I've just said many many times, is a lot different to 'unknownable'.

Do you think that of the 'crazy person' who sees, and discourses with those whom you cannot?

Can a discourse be held with something that does not exist?

The only existence required is that of the observer. And why not choose to interact? Is that so odd? As AngryFemme has implied herself, she would rather be experiencing an illusion then nothing at all. And I agree ... thats the point of 'life', thats what we are ... 'that which experiences'.

Ultimately, a fundamental proponent of any 'true' discourse is that the interlocutors exist. That is, an observer and the entity which shares in the discourse. Discoursing with something that does not exist is fundamentally impossible, and even if it was, would be an entirely useless and pointless exercise.

But those experiences cannot be known to be true.

'doubtable' =/= 'cannot be known'.

He would certainly believe so ... in exactly the same way you believe you are discoursing with me.

Do I believe I am discoursing with you? I might very well be. You have no grounds to assert I am not. (Before you respond: 'doubting the existence of such a discourse' =/= 'such a discourse cannot be known or is indeed impossible').

That they are confusing and inaccurate is only your perception ... from another's, such mine, its makes perfect sense. Why do I type so much text? To see if anyone else can understand that existence isn't what they currently think it is ... and understand their 'oneness' with reality, and the true meaning of God.

What makes your twisting of the word 'God' more valid than any other? And how does the (hypothetical) validity of Solipsism give any entity 'oneness' with reality? Nice baseless assumptions, there.

Why is an acid trip considered an illusion when compared to your 'usual' experience?

If we consider an 'acid trip' to be hypothetically assuredly existent, as well as the rest of empirical reality, then I would suggest it is because an acid trip is limited, is in response to chemical actors introduced artificially to one's system (and has an entirely different 'source' to 'true empirical experience'), and is completely and utterly unrepeatable in the exact same manner as it 'experienced' by the 'tripping' individual.

The concept I describe here is not at all limited by Solipsism, it is not a 'version' of Solipsism. If anything, an understanding of Solipsism is a component of the concept I describe.

Solipsism an inescapable procedure of doubt, at least until it everything that cannot be doubted is asserted, and/or everything that can be doubted is established. I find it interesting that you use it as a 'component' of your own ideology, since it is absolutely useless as a 'basis' for anything else on the same grounds that I have just described. It seems more like, from my experience of your 'ideology' that you have shown, that you simply rephrase your (false and otherwise) basic assumptions with Hindu terms vaguely similar.

Are you calling AngryFemme defensive, ignorant and incorrect? Because it was her statement which I was mimicking.

You are obviously mistaken about the context of the quoted text. She inserted God and religion, while I was talking about the spreading of 'truth' and the belittling of others 'truths', regardless of the specific topic.

That wasn't atheism, that was ahem. As in, a clearing of the throat.

Mistake on my part, I think.

I think anyone who claims to be an atheist, misunderstands God. For if there were no God, the true One ... then there would be no person making the claim, and there would be no perception of a reality which they would have been speaking to.

Yes, but that's because you changed the definition of 'God', perhaps (and maybe I'm wrong here) knowing full well that Atheists are using an entirely different usage of the word. In otherwords, you just shit up threads with troll responses because you refuse to acknowledge the definition used for the debate.

Have I not, probably repeatedly, stated that open discussion is fine? I'm talking about force, and I'm talking about stating others are wrong and pushing your own beliefs as truth, as that also spreads negativity in a continuous cycle.

So, you say discussion is fine, but it morally wrong to criticise or present alternative views which you personally think hold weight? So discussion is fine, but you can't actually discuss anything by presenting views, according to you. And what do you mean by 'force'? Force as in disagreeing with someone, or force as in coercing them through violence or the threat of violence?

Then how can you hope to understand what I am talking about?

I'm interested in discussing your views on 'reality' less than morality. I'll admit I misread some of your material on one topic as material on another, and for that I'm sorry.

Or have you already decided that I must be wrong, and have decided to try and push your beliefs on me?

That doesn't sound like open discussion.

If we're going to have an open discussion, then maybe you should read and address my conclusions, rather than reassert your views ignoring my refutations of them?

I've never heard of the guy, so don't be too offended.

Which begs the question as to what basis or inspiration your views have at all?

Like you ever understand what that means.

I doubt you've read and understand the original source of that word in it's totality.

Perhaps one day, Hare my little buddy, you'll step out of mommys womb.

Perhaps, one day, Obbe my little buddy, you'll step out of false assumptions and into justifiable philosophy.

Obbe I have never seen someone spend so much time answering every little single point in anothers post and at the same time, say nothing.

The fact that you go into such detail in "disproving" someone's post shows me you are more grounded in the illusions you profess than you would like for us to believe. In short, you don't even buy into your own bullshit and that is very pathetic.

Inconceivable means impossible, not unheard of.

And would such a system not seem impossible to us?

That does not mean one is. And I'm not saying that is grounds to assume the system you believe is truth is untrue, and that another one is. I'm saying that you cannot know that system to be true.

And when compared to what you do know is true, using the same method used to define the reality of an acid trip, the system becomes illusory.

I'd say 'empirical observation', in terms of 'empirical experience'.

Meaning information derived from observation? Observations which cannot be known to be true or illusory?

One does not know 'I AM'

You do not think so? You do not know you exist?

Then how can you make claims of knowing anything, if there is no 'you' to have those beliefs?

Doubtable knowledge when compared to undoubtable knowledge is merely highlighted as doubtable, not illusory, which infers falsehood.

So you do not consider hallucinations to not be illusions? The crazy man really is speaking to someone, you just can't see them?

Any experience is false to a state of simply being, and simply being is all your know is true.

Some argue that there is innate a priori 'knowledge' amongst all people.

Sorry, I don't know the meaning of 'priori'.

Even so, I would like to ask how it is known these other people exist?

Repeating them proves they exist within an empirical realm, yes.

But does not prove truth of that realm. You also cannot you know if the experience of repeating them itself is true or illusory.

You have no grounds to assert that such empirical 'existence' is an 'illusion', however.

Sure I do, the same grounds as someone asserting that a 'crazy' persons visions of other people which they cannot see are 'illusions'. The people this crazy person sees are illusions to the perception of reality you believe is true.

But you do not know that perception is the truth. The 'crazy' person certainly wouldn't call them illusions.

If you were to compare all experience to what you do know to be true ... the conclusion is that all experiences are illusions to that truth. Experience is an illusion to simply being.

Yes, if we assume that Solipsism is a correct viewpoint.

Challenge it ... on your own though, please. If you can find a way to disprove it, do share.

You said theists shouldn't listen to atheists

I've also promoted open discussion, which mean if both parties are open to new ideas, then they should share their ideas.

What I was opposed to, was theists who know there is a God, should not listen to atheists telling them there isn't one. And that goes for anyone ... socratic, if you know there is no God, then don't listen to someone telling you there is. Just don't be a part of the conversation. It'll only spread negativity, unless both parties are open to the others viewpoints.

You're blind and ignorant if you aren't willing to allow your ideologies to be discussed or criticised.

Is that not all I basically do in this forum? Attempt to explain my concept, and deal with the same baseless criticisms over and over?

“I know something truly happened, I experienced it!” - like that. Baseless.

God is, in a 'traditional' definition, a deity whom is omnipotent and omnipresent, but that doesn't mean everything is God unless we change the definition to a Pantheistic one.

Mmmhmmm, and which definition is more 'traditional' ... the Pantheistic one, or a deity? Which do you perceive as being around longer? Deities resulted from dogma changing older belief systems, and the loss of true understandings of God.

There's a big difference between 'doubtable' and 'can't be known'.

If you cannot be sure something is true of false, then you do not know it to be true or false. What is not doubtable, besides you're own existence? How can you ever know the reality of an experience as you know the reality of your being?

You cannot. All those things cannot be known. Disagree? Then try telling me what the big difference is, instead of just declaring there is one.

I can also declare undoubtable that an empirical 'faculty' exists, further refuting you, as there must be a faculty that is experiencing the 'false' empirical material. There we go, that's another thing I can certainly and most assuredly know.

The quote, if you notice, is exactly the same way of knowing 'I AM'. The faculty, that which experiences, is the 'being' I describe. Have I said anything drastically different? Your job is to attempt to demonstrate you know something else. Another thing? Unless I'm missing something, this is the only thing I have said can be known to be true this entire time!

Here's another 'undoubtable' thing; the faculty of 'doubt' or 'rational thought', since for any rational thought to take place, such as doubting the existence of such a faculty, there must be such a faculty.

The experience of doubting something, having these thoughts, may be an illusion for all you truly know.

And, as I have described, when compared to what you know is true, they are illusory.

... even the minor faculties contained within this self which should indeed be considered

Considered what? To be true? Yes, you can consider them so, just as you can consider experience to be truth. But you cannot know it to be, and you cannot know things which you consider to form the self to be true either. All you can know to be true is simply 'being'.

... first you need to prove that everything else doesn't exist. All you can 'prove' is that everything empirical is doubtable, which does not refute it's existence.

The truth of 'everything empirical' is unknowable, and when compared to what you do know to be true, using the same method you agree with below, it becomes an illusion.

But, I really don't first have to prove, or even believe, that everything else is false. Lets assume that everything else is real:

You perceive another person ... from their own perspective, they can also understand that nothing can be known to be true except for their existence. That truth is their 'being'. Lets say you perceive a ball. What is the perspective of that ball? Does it 'know' anything? Is it in a state of 'awareness of nothing'? A state of simply 'being'?

'Being' is the base of all things. Nothing can exist without 'being', no experience can be had without 'being'.

It seems that this 'being', or God, is all.

You can be certain there is a faculty 'experiencing' this doubtable empirical experience, but that is only a minor element within the entirety of an 'entity' that is 'I'.

I disagree. I believe that which experiences is all that can be known to be true. Anything other then that cannot truly be known. Being is the absolute truth.

Explain to me what you believe makes up 'I', and how these components can be known to be true.

Yes, 'we' do.

I'm glad you agree. However, other statements you've made above and below do not seem to correlate with this statement.


Once again, if we compare something that is completely undoubtable to something that is doubtable, then the only assertion we can make is that the latter is indeed doubtable and the former isn't- it has nothing to do with the falsehood of either of the compared matters.

Then why agree with the above?

parts of the self are undoubtable

I disagree.

... it is false to doubt the existence of an experience in which we 'realise' the undoubtability of the existence of such 'parts'.

How? All we know true reality to be is simply existence. Simply being ... no thoughts, no recognitions, no realizations, no knowledge. This would include the experience of knowing that you exist ... knowing you are is not true to simply being.

your false assumptions are critical to your argument

Back at ya!

This 'non-empirical' material is yet to be proven doubtable by you or anyone else as far as I know.

Hahaha, thats like saying the rules to a card game have yet to be proven doubtable. That the rules to blackjack are true, despite there actually being cards or not. Yes, they are 'true', because they are what define blackjack as blackjack, and not crazy 8's. True within their own system.

But there is nothing 'true' about the concept, the idea, the belief in blackjack. And same with mathematics, or the concept of separation. There is only one absolute truth.

... <doubtable> is a lot different <then> 'unknownable'.

Explain why you think so.

Can a discourse be held with something that does not exist?

If you declare the person he is discoursing with to be an illusion, then apparently so.

Discoursing with something that does not exist ... would be an entirely useless and pointless exercise.

Unless entertainment and experience are valued.

Do I believe I am discoursing with you? I might very well be. You have no grounds to assert I am not.

I have no grounds to assert anything, other then 'I AM'. I can never know if I am truly discoursing with another person, and when I compare the experience to what I do know is true, I find the experience is illusory to that truth.

I can only believe that I am discoursing with you. And If I assume that you actually exits, I can just as easily assume that you can only believe I exist ... but not know it.

doubting the existence of such a discourse' =/= 'such a discourse cannot be known ...

No, but I do profess that it cannot be known. Demonstrate something doubtable becoming something known.

... or is indeed impossible'

Nice, projecting now? Did it tear a little when you pulled that out of your ass?

What makes your twisting of the word 'God' more valid than any other? And how does the (hypothetical) validity of Solipsism give any entity 'oneness' with reality?

Try reading what you found to be irrelevant.

If we consider an 'acid trip' to be hypothetically assuredly existent, as well as the rest of empirical reality

ALthough such cannot be known,

... is limited ...

So is this 'life'. So is a moment.

... is in response to chemical actors introduced artificially to one's system (and has an entirely different 'source' to 'true empirical experience') ...

Everything is a chemical reaction ... why should 'artificially introduced' chemicals be considered an illusion? Does this mean that as DMT is produced by and contained within the brain, a DMT trip is not illusory?

If truly existent, someone using psychedelic drugs is still receiving the same 'empirical' stimuli as you are, its entirely the same 'source'. Their brains, temporarily using alternative circuitry, are interpreting the information differently. How do you conclude that their interpretation is 'wrong'?

... completely and utterly unrepeatable ...

Nothing you believe has repeated can be known to have happened once before ... perhaps its happening for the first time, and the memories of its repetition are illusions. You do not know.

I find it interesting that you use it as a 'component' of your own ideology, since it is absolutely useless as a 'basis' for anything else on the same grounds that I have just described.

I said an understanding of Solipsism is a component.


you changed the definition of 'God'

No, the definition of God seems to have changed over time, and between religions. The one you refer to is false, obviously.

In otherwords, you just shit up threads with troll responses because you refuse to acknowledge the definition used for the debate.

Threads get 'shat-up' because certain atheists refuse to acknowledge that God can mean something else, and refuse to acknowledge the truth that is God, and is the 'oneness' of all.

Troll-responses? Just STFU.

So, you say discussion is fine, but it morally wrong to criticise or present alternative views which you personally think hold weight? So discussion is fine, but you can't actually discuss anything by presenting views, according to you.

*sigh*

I believe open discussion is fine, as in, it does not create negativity. Criticisms and alternative views are fine to be presented, as long as both parties are open to such.

Discussions where you try to convince another they must be wrong, and you must be right tend to spread negativity. Discussions which are not open, and are usually just attempts to boost ones ego and hurt the other party, should simply be left. You know what you know, they know what they know. If you or they are not willing to be open to alternatives, the discussion will cause no peace for humanity.

And what do you mean by 'force'? Force as in disagreeing with someone, or force as in coercing them through violence or the threat of violence?

How is it forceful to disagree with someone?

Of course I mean violence, etc.

... what basis or inspiration your views have at all?

What 'inspiration' do I need? I know that I am. What more is needed?

I doubt you've read and understand the original source of that word in it's totality.

Nope.

... you'll step out of false assumptions and into justifiable philosophy.

What am I assuming? I know I am, not assuming.

You are assuming that your experience is real.

... shows me you are more grounded in the illusions you profess than you would like for us to believe.

Hahaha, what well usage of the scientific method. Yes, you certainly know everything about me, BP. No assumptions whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

In short, you don't even buy into your own bullshit and that is very pathetic.

Why? Because if you 'bought into it', you would choose to ignore illusions? More assumptions about me. Nice.

No, the definition of God has changed. The one you refer to is false.

Love it! ^ Classic rendition of My God Can Beat The Shit Out Of Your God.


Discussions where you try to convince another they must be wrong, and you must be right tend to spread negativity. Discussions which are not open, and are usually just attempts to boost ones ego and hurt the other party, should simply be left. You know what you know, they know what they know. If you or they are not willing to be open to alternatives, the discussion will cause no peace for humanity.

Are you willing to be open to alternatives, Obbe? Could you possibly be wrong? Are you open to considering that all is not an illusion, and that there are no absolutes that bind us to only ONE truth?

Are you willing to be open to alternatives, Obbe? Could you possibly be wrong?

Yes, but none have been demonstrated ... none can be known. At least, so far.

Are you open to considering that all is not an illusion, and that there are no absolutes that bind us to only ONE truth?

Yes, I am open to it. Can it be demonstrated?

Can it be demonstrated that I am wrong?

I am open to your answer ... and if I believe you are wrong, I will openly state that opinion, and why, as I often do.

Yes, but none have been demonstrated ... none can be known. At least, so far.

Not while you're in a state of denial about the only reality you will ever know, which is this one, right here, the one you and I are conversing on. You will just refuse to acknowledge that my presence is more than just an illusion.


Yes, I am open to it. Can it be demonstrated?

Can you demonstrate (goes beyond just assertions) your concept? Nope. Why do you ask the impossible, when it really doesn't serve either position since this is a limited, text-based discussion?

Can it be demonstrated that I am wrong?

Can it be demonstrated that you are right?

I am open to your answer ... and if I believe you are wrong, I will openly state that opinion, and why, as I often do.

Oh, mercy. You have misinterpreted my mission in that last paragraph. I'm not trying to open your mind to what I think is right ... I am pointing out how the advice you gave to others about being flexible in what you believe should also apply to you, the purporter of the (according to Obbe) only "known" truth out there. You asking for a demonstration for validity purposes when you cannot even provide your own just furthers my point.

Not while you're in a state of denial about the only reality you will ever know, which is this one, right here, the one you and I are conversing on.

A state of denial? As in refusing to accept the world I perceive as around me is reality?

In your opinion, what makes your perception undeniable?

Simply the experience of it? Thats the same reason the 'crazy' person would not ever believe the people they talk to are merely illusions. Because thats the 'reality' they 'know', the one they are in 'right now', and are conversing with a person the 'know' is really there.

You will just refuse to acknowledge that my presence is more than just an illusion.

Not if I had any reason to believe otherwise. Using the logical method used to determine if experiences are illusions by comparing them to the 'reality' you strongly believe you 'know' is true, I compare that 'reality' to what actually, truly, is known to be true. And discover that all experience is an illusion to the absolute truth.

Can you demonstrate (goes beyond just assertions) your concept? Nope.

Nope, but I find its inability to be demonstrated is a demonstration of what I'm saying. You cannot know any experience to be true, except that 'I AM'.

Why do you ask the impossible, when it really doesn't serve either position since this is a limited, text-based discussion?

Even if this discussion weren't limited to text, any demonstration would be impossible to know is true. I ask the impossible, to demonstrate that it is impossible.

Can it be demonstrated that you are right?

That depends ... can you know anything other then 'I AM'?

If not, then I would say that inability is a demonstration that I am right.

I am pointing out how the advice you gave to others about being flexible in what you believe should also apply to you, the purporter of the (according to Obbe) only "known" truth out there.

Oh, I understand that. And I am attempting to have an open discussion. If someone disagrees, then fine. They can go on their way if they would like to, continue to believe what they would like.

Its when people tell me that I am wrong, that more can be known to be true, that I will ask how so.

You asking for a demonstration for validity purposes when you cannot even provide your own just furthers my point.

The inability of either party to demonstrate their 'truth', in my opinion, is a demonstration of what I am saying about truth.

There is nothing to discuss Obbe. Your views are so basic and simple I thought about them as well when I was a child.

Fact is, you spend so much time on your self-refuting pointless and painfully simple argument that I don't believe you really believe in what you spend half and hour puking onto this thread.

If you truly practiced what you preached you would believe us to be illusions and stop spending so much time arguing with yourself (your illusions).

Your views are so basic and simple I thought about them as well when I was a child.

I'm a child, eh? Another grand display of the scientific method here?

Fact is, you spend so much time on your self-refuting pointless and painfully simple argument that I don't believe you really believe in what you spend half and hour puking onto this thread.

Then leave. You've already expressed this opinion.

If you truly practiced what you preached you would believe us to be illusions and stop spending so much time arguing with yourself (your illusions).

No, thats something you assume. Thats what you would do, if you believed experience to be illusory.

In short ... you disagree BP. So why are you still here?

There is nothing to discuss Obbe. Your views are so basic and simple I thought about them as well when I was a child.

Fact is, you spend so much time on your self-refuting pointless and painfully simple argument that I don't believe you really believe in what you spend half and hour puking onto this thread.

If you truly practiced what you preached you would believe us to be illusions and stop spending so much time arguing with yourself (your illusions).

Why not use the ignore function?

Why not use the ignore function?

I despise censorship. I genarally do ignore everything he says b/c I completely understand everything within his simplistic "philosophy", I just find it amazing that he can eat up half a page or more and in this monstrosity of a post SAY NOTHING. I cannot help but to read what he has to say to see if he can ever make a point worth noting, or a case for his self-refuting argument. An exercise in futility if there ever was one.

In short, I find Obbe to be quite entertaining and at the same time annoying. Like Carrot Top, or Dubya.

I completely understand everything within his simplistic "philosophy"

By now, I should hope so. And you seem to disagree with it.

But I do not recall you ever describing a reason why you disagree with it.

Besides your argument itself being self-refuting, it serves no realistic purpose whatsoever. As blind and full of shit as a Xtians beliefs are it does have some good philosophical points which if followed correctly, and minus the church, would help society.

Your philosohpy of "Everything is an illusion b/c the only thing a person truly knows is I AM." is completely and utterly useless in the areas of ethics, economics, society, culture, science, and just about everything else known to man.

I would challenge you to tell me what POSSIBLE uses your middle school philosophy holds for humankind. Please try to do this with as little ass talk as you can muster. I have to repeat.....with as little talking out of your poopy hole as possible.

Besides your argument itself being self-refuting, it serves no realistic purpose whatsoever.

This leads me to believe that you do not truly understand it.

Yes, it is self-refuting. Which is a demonstration of the truth it describes. All experience and recognition is an illusion to the absolute truth. The concept causes all to be illusion, even recognition of the concept itself ... leaving only 'being', as truth.

"Realistic purpose"? By using such terms, in such a manner, you again do not seem to actually understand the ideas I try to communicate. A realistic purpose in relation to what, BP?

Your philosohpy of "Everything is an illusion b/c the only thing a person truly knows is I AM." is completely and utterly useless in the areas of ethics, economics, society, culture, science, and just about everything else known to man.

I would challenge you to tell me what POSSIBLE uses your middle school philosophy holds for humankind. Please try to do this with as little ass talk as you can muster. I have to repeat.....with as little talking out of your poopy hole as possible.

Sure, as long as you accept that simple sentence is not my entire philosophy. Yes, everything is an illusion to what is known to be true ... and everything is one.

As everything is one, when choosing to interact you should treat everything as you would treat yourself. Economically, we should strive to be neither selfish and greedy, nor lazy and dependent on our perceptions of others. Science should be used in the pursuit of improving the quality of life for all, not for selfish and greedy reasons.

If the apparent world is really illusion, as you say, and time and space aren’t real, which they wouldn’t be because they are a part of the apparent world, then your Golden Rule dissolves into selfishness and greed. For the distinction between you and others would no longer be there. There would be but yourself. But I believe that is what you are saying: don’t hurt them, because you’re hurting yourself. Effectively, you’re saying to do unto yourself what you would do unto yourself. Now there are some very screwed up people in the world, such as the sadomasochist the Marquis de Sade, who was imprisoned for writing violent pornography and buggery. He would, subversively, agree with you. He would rape a little girl, and then pronounce with a cackle that it’s OK because he’s raping himself. Then if someone says “well what if I would rape your body in the maya?”, he would bend over and beg you to fuck him up the ass and simultaneously frig him, as he would put it.

Your philosophy, as you can see, gives excuse to these monsters. I can easily see it being bent to the selfish greed of many. Plus, of course, it results in paradox after paradox. Another way Sade’s situation would go is this: he would rape the little girl and say it’s OK because he’s raping himself. Then if someone says “well what if I would rape your body in the maya?”, he can ask him if he himself would like to be raped. The person, obviously, would say no. So the Sade would say “don’t rape me then, because I am you”. But then, to be a bit malicious, the Sade would rape the boy and say “but I am you and I most certainly do!” As you can see, by this extreme example, your philosophy results in conflicts and creates a chaotic oneness. Why would there be any less chaos if we accept all is one then? Would the Sade really change his ways if he accepted these metaphysical principles? Or would he be like you, who made fun of my OCD and therefore effectively made fun of yourself?

Frankly, Obbe, I'm not interested in debating with you if your response to arguments is to ignore some and restate your opinions at the others, even if the ones you ignored are challenging said opinions. This is futile.

Meanwhile, I do encourage you to at least give a few of the things I said some rational consideration. You might learn something.

In your opinion, what makes your perception undeniable?

Simply the experience of it?

The fact that I can report on it, the fact that I have retrospect, from memories of it. The fact that, like you, there is evidence of my reality by the "footprints" we leave behind, such as our text and our photos and the multitude of witnesses who can validate that they know us and have experienced us. Do you have lovers, Obbe? Or parents? Or children of your own, perhaps? Would you describe their recollection of you to be an illusion?

Thats the same reason the 'crazy' person would not ever believe the people they talk to are merely illusions. Because thats the 'reality' they 'know', the one they are in 'right now', and are conversing with a person the 'know' is really there.

No, that's not the same reason at all. There are physical processes in the brain that cause hallucinations and delusions. Science has already worked that out. Consider schizophrenia. Patients have been tested and have consistently shown increased dopaminergic activity in the mesolimbic pathway of their brains. It's an illness, not an undisputed state of reality that these people live in. We don't "deny" their realities, we know it's a result of irregular brain activity within this reality.

Same for hallucinogenic drugs. Sure, they thwart the reality of the user. But it doesn't separate them from THIS reality. Thus, it's called an "altered" state. That is, an altered state within this reality. A state caused by the chemical reactions the drugs have on our brain.

A person diagnosed with schizophrenia and a person tripping balls on a couple hits of blotter are both actual agents experiencing altered states within this reality.


Not if I had any reason to believe otherwise. Using the logical method used to determine if experiences are illusions by comparing them to the 'reality' you strongly believe you 'know' is true, I compare that 'reality' to what actually, truly, is known to be true. And discover that all experience is an illusion to the absolute truth.

After reading your explanations on this time and again, it's clear that you choose to reduce your entire perception down to one truth, and embracing this most reduced form of simplicity, of I AM, is what you're going to measure all your other experiences by. You say this, but you don't practice it. When called on it, you ascribe it as mere entertainment. But like BP said, you've yet to demonstrate how your ideology is beneficial to the individual, the society, the world at large. When you're caught being a major participant of these "illusory" experiences, you chalk it up to "mere entertainment". Is that also going to be the driving factor, entertainment, when your concept is put to use for economical, scientifical, intellectual exercises that further humanity?


Nope, but I find its inability to be demonstrated is a demonstration of what I'm saying. You cannot know any experience to be true, except that 'I AM'.

Sure I can. I know that I was conceived as a result of two other people breeding. "I" am a result of their past experience. I know that there is an entity out there I refer to as Obbe, who I can judge to be true, by the clues he leaves such as his responses to my questions and his participation in dialogue. If I really were second-guessing that fact, I could venture to find Obbe and shake his hand, hear his voice, touch his skin - all things I trust my senses to report accurately on and to validate this "truth".

Even if this discussion weren't limited to text, any demonstration would be impossible to know is true. I ask the impossible, to demonstrate that it is impossible.

It's only impossible for you to KNOW it's true if you consistently DENY your sensory experiences as illusions.

That depends ... can you know anything other then 'I AM'?

Again, yes. Unless I deny the validity of the truths my senses "report" to me. But I don't, because I trust these senses, because they are the embodiment of who I am, as they are the only faculties in place that I can use to determine what's real and what's not. I don't undermine these faculties like you do, because I feel that would be undermining every sensory perception out there and available to me.

Its when people tell me that I am wrong, that more can be known to be true, that I will ask how so.

But when they point out the similarities in both their experiences and your experiences, you deny it by reducing every known truth to the simplest form of "I AM", and refuse to acknowledge anything else. You're the one assigning "illusion" to everyone's personal experiences. The onus should be on YOU to demonstrate that these people are merely being tricked into believing they are sensitive creatures with a whole range of their own personal truths that go far, far beyond your own simplistic version of "I AM".

The inability of either party to demonstrate their 'truth', in my opinion, is a demonstration of what I am saying about truth.

Their inabilities only shine through to you because you deny anything other than I AM. Widen your scope, be respectful of other people's reports of THEY ARE, stop selfishly believing that you are trapped in an illusion bubble where you are here: [ . ] and everything outside of HERE I AM is discounted as nonsense.

The fact that I can report on it, the fact that I have retrospect, from memories of it...

... Is meaningless. Our hypothetical crazy man or person on acid can report on his illusions, gain retrospect from them, memories from them. The concepts he contemplates can not be known to be true or real any more then their apparent inspirations, and the same goes for memory. All illusions.

... there is evidence of my reality by the "footprints" we leave behind, such as our text and our photos ...

They cannot be known to be true.

... and the multitude of witnesses who can validate that they know us and have experienced us.

Can the hypothetical crazy persons 'hallucinations' of other people not validate the same thing? But those experiences cannot be known to be real and true, or illusory. Compared to the known truth, the experience of them is illusory.

Do you have lovers, Obbe? Or parents? Or children of your own, perhaps? Would you describe their recollection of you to be an illusion?

No children. And yes, compared with what I know is true reality, my experience of their existence and recollections of me are not but illusions. Does that mean I somehow do not value my apparent experience of these individuals? No.

Thats just something a lot of people are assuming.

We are that which experiences. Experiences should be valued.

There are physical processes in the brain that cause hallucinations and delusions.

Likewise, there are processes in the brain which cause you to perceive as you would call 'correctly', or 'normally'. Without them you would be blind, deaf, etc. There is no reason to conclude that 'unique' processes are wrong ... merely different.

Not to mention, that your perception of processes going on in anyones brain, of other people, or of ... anything, for that matter, cannot be known to be true.

Consider schizophrenia. Patients have been tested and have consistently shown increased dopaminergic activity in the mesolimbic pathway of their brains. It's an illness, not an undisputed state of reality that these people live in.

Is it an illness? How do you know their not seeing more 'truth' then you are? How do you know that your perception is 'truer'?

There is no 'truth' to any perception. None of them can ever be known to be true.

... we know it's a result of irregular brain activity within this reality.

Within a reality, the one which you perceive other people, some who act strangely and have different brain processes compared with yourself and the majority of those you perceive.

From another perspective, another 'reality', someone lives in a land where the majority of the people they encounter act very different, and if this individual could look inside their heads, this majority of differently-acting people would all have similar brain processes, different from his own. This individual might conclude that the majority of the people in his land are insane, and he is the only one he knows who truly understands reality.

Yet, neither of these perspectives can be known to be true. Compared to the known truth, they are both illusory. Both are just simply perspectives, both right and both wrong.

But it doesn't separate them from THIS reality. Thus, it's called an "altered" state. That is, an altered state within this reality. A state caused by the chemical reactions the drugs have on our brain.

Again, who's to say which is the correct perception? Who's to say the chemical reactions which occur naturally to allow you to perceive reality in the way you do, are any more 'correct' then hopped-up-johnny, or a buddy sitting next to you who's qualia you can never really know? Who's to say the others perspective is not clearer, not truer?

Again, all perspectives are illusory.

... within this reality

Which cannot be known to be true.

After reading your explanations on this time and again, it's clear that you choose to reduce your entire perception down to one truth, and embracing this most reduced form of simplicity, of I AM, is what you're going to measure all your other experiences by. You say this, but you don't practice it.

What does considering my experiences to be illusions to what I know is true, have anything to do with ending participation with those illusions?

Back when we were discussing your experiences with acid, you said something along the lines that 'if they did not produce the illusions, you did not want it', something like that. That you wanted to experience it, fully 'knowing' in advance that you would be experiencing illusions.

Why should I be any different? If I should stop participating simply because I find experience to be illusion, should any hallucinogenic-drug user stop using their drugs simply because the effects they desire are illusory?

When you're caught being a major participant of these "illusory" experiences, you chalk it up to "mere entertainment".

You yourself have said that you would rather experience illusions then nothing at all.

Yet, I should be so different?

Is that also going to be the driving factor, entertainment, when your concept is put to use for economical, scientifical, intellectual exercises that further humanity?

Indeed.

Humanity could benefit greatly with a little more humor in all those fields.

I know that I was conceived as a result of two other people breeding. "I" am a result of their past experience. I know that there is an entity out there I refer to as Obbe, who I can judge to be true, by the clues he leaves such as his responses to my questions and his participation in dialogue. If I really were second-guessing that fact, I could venture to find Obbe and shake his hand, hear his voice, touch his skin - all things I trust my senses to report accurately on and to validate this "truth".

I disagree that any of the above can actually be known to be true.

It's only impossible for you to KNOW it's true if you consistently DENY your sensory experiences as illusions.

And what reason do you have not to?

When compared with what you do know to be true, experiences, memories and contemplations are illusions.

... I trust these senses ...

For what reason(s)?

... they are the embodiment of who I am ...

You do not know that.

... they are the only faculties in place that I can use to determine what's real and what's not ...

Tell me, how do your senses tell you when you are having a false experience? They don't. As far as your senses can tell, anything they are experience is real, for they are experiencing it. You decide whats 'real' or not, through comparison to what you have already decided is 'real'. What you have experienced most, what you believe to be 'the norm'.

And it cannot be known to be true.

You're the one assigning "illusion" to everyone's personal experiences.

They are all assigning 'truth' to mine. Which cannot be known.

... a whole range of their own personal truths that go far ...

Nothing can be done to show that, no more then anything can be done to show them that their personal 'truths', are not really true. All I can do is continue to speak, hoping they realize on their own that there are no 'personal truths' which can be known to be true, other then 'I AM'. Which does not really matter to me, either way ... they are only an illusion to me, just another experience to be had.

Their inabilities only shine through to you because you deny anything other than I AM.

What else can I know?

Widen your scope, be respectful of other people's reports of THEY ARE

These reports cannot be known to be true, but I fail seeing my disrespect to anyone, other then Hare and occasionally BP.

stop selfishly believing that you are trapped in an illusion bubble where you are here: [ . ] and everything outside of HERE I AM is discounted as nonsense.

Selfish, as in concerned with advancing only my own experience? In order for that to be selfish, it would be advancing me in something. In what? The infinite nothingness?

* * * * *

Hare,

He would rape a little girl, and then pronounce with a cackle that it’s OK because he’s raping himself.

Himself as a little girl who does not want to be raped. As in, he is doing harm to her(himself), because as the little girl, he would not want to be raped.

Yes, you can twist the “golden rule” Hare. But whenever you do so, it loses its meaning ... the twisted version does not represent the concept you understand it is supposed to.

... would he be like you, who made fun of my OCD and therefore effectively made fun of yourself?

You should be asking why I single you out. Why I would make fun of you, or myself.

Hey ... I thought you stopped talking to me, on account of it being a 'waste of time'.

Frankly, Obbe, I'm not interested in debating with you...

Well, I wish you would consider these before you vanish:

“Meaning information derived from observation? Observations which cannot be known to be true or illusory?”

“You do not know you exist? Then how can you make claims of knowing anything, if there is no 'you' to have those beliefs?”

“... how it is known these other people exist?”

“Sure I do, the same grounds as someone asserting that a 'crazy' persons visions of other people which they cannot see are 'illusions'. The people this crazy person sees are illusions to the perception of reality you believe is true.

But you do not know that perception is the truth. The 'crazy' person certainly wouldn't call them illusions.

If you were to compare all experience to what you do know to be true ... the conclusion is that all experiences are illusions to that truth. Experience is an illusion to simply being.”

“... which definition is more 'traditional' ... the Pantheistic one, or a deity?”

“Explain to me what you believe makes up 'I', and how these components can be known to be true.”

“If truly existent, someone using psychedelic drugs is still receiving the same 'empirical' stimuli as you are, its entirely the same 'source'. Their brains, temporarily using alternative circuitry, are interpreting the information differently. How do you conclude that their interpretation is 'wrong'?”

“You are assuming that your experience is real.”

Oh, and feel free to present any of your information you think I have ignored.

[...]

You don't seem to understand the paradoxes that are derived from how you formulate the golden rule, not the golden rule as it is generally.

You should be asking why I single you out. Why I would make fun of you, or myself.

I'll take that as a yes then.

...
You aren't viewing it from the perspective of all. We are all one through 'being', right?

So sure, one individual who enjoys being raped, could bend the rule and begin raping everyone, saying that is OK, he's merely raping himself. But its his illusory ethics, his beliefs within the maya from his perspective that cause him to think being raped is 'good'. Little girls most likely view being raped as 'bad', and therefore he is causing them harm, it is breaking the golden rule, and he is doing himself harm ... because as that particular little girl, he would not want to be raped.

I'll take that as a yes then.

I'm sure you would ... sadly.

Really, Hare, what reasons would I single you out? Why would I make fun of myself so?

What good could possibly come of it, hmm?

And ... why are you speaking to me?

[...]

It's that little girl's illusory "maya" self that makes her think she doesn't like being raped, because her other self, the Sade, does. So why does she have any priority over him when they're the same thing?

It's that little girl's illusory "maya" self that makes her think she doesn't like being raped, because her other self, the Sade, does. So why does she have any priority over him when they're the same thing?

Its whats-his-nuts illusory perception that makes him think he likes raping/being raped.

What would give either belief priority?

Edit - illusory maya doesn't make sense ... maya is illusion. It means perception, 'reality', is an illusion. Illusory illusions?? :)

Obbe, I'll make this as brief as possible, knowing that you will stretch a page with line-per-line responses that will only say the same thing over and over again.

Here is what I understand from your perspective:
(And I will speak in first person, if you don't mind)

The only thing I know to be true is I AM.

Therefore, all that I experience must be an illusion.

I AM, but at the same time, I AM THAT WHICH EXPERIENCES.

Experiences being illusions, I cannot trust my senses or perception to be valid.

However, I have no choice but to trust my senses and perceptions, because that's what keeps me from walking directly into traffic or burning myself near fire.

I still call them illusions, even though they are pretty accurate and can be called upon time and time again.

Experiences I participate in, I do so merely for "entertainment", because a sense of humor is valuable to have within the maya.

I have no solid proof that anyone/anything truly exists outside of my own being. I am certain that other people are illusions also.
__________________________

Did I misrepresent any of the above?

Please answer before I go any further.

What would give either belief priority?

Nothing, the whole system collapses in on itself and that's why it's a failure.

Atheism =/= rationality.

Personally, I find it to be more reasonable and rational not to rule out the existence of some sort of higher power based on current evidence, then to blindly assume there cannot be one.

Just like when people blindly assumed the earth was the center of the universe, based on the evidence they had.

Of course any idiot can blindly say that its impossible for a God not to exist, but the converse is true too.

QFT

and shitty wok, where did he say he believed in any text? It's pretty obvious by his post he doesn't believe in any particular religion. You're basically saying "atheism is more logical than christianity", and really, I have to agree. But atheism, is certainly not more logical than theism.

and theists, aren't the one's with the ACLU who bitched about prayer in school. christianity and all other religions are absurd, but I have no problem, and am not offended by anyone praying. I dont argue with them, unless they try to tell me Im wrong, for not believing in their ancient man written books. So I dont understand why your trying to say they're the ones who are unhappy.

Did I misrepresent any of the above?

Yes.

I have no choice but to trust my senses and perceptions, because that's what keeps me from walking directly into traffic or burning myself near fire.

'Walking into traffic, or burning myself near fire' are also illusions. You have the choice to do whatever you want to, within or without it all.

I still call them illusions, even though they are pretty accurate and can be called upon time and time again.

Their accuracy itself is an illusion. Recalling past experiences, 'time' ... is an illusion.

Yes, 'remembering' that fire can hurt you and taking precautions to avoid that is real ... within the illusion that the fire exists, you have had experience with it before, and that pain is to be avoided.

Experiences I participate in, I do so merely for "entertainment", because a sense of humor is valuable to have within the maya.

A sense of humor is valuable, but thats not the reason I interact with illusions.

I am certain that other people are illusions also.

All I am certain of is 'I AM'. By comparing the experience of other people to that known truth, they become illusions.

* * * * *

Nothing, the whole system collapses in on itself and that's why it's a failure.

How? By not doing harm to others, using both your and their definition of 'harm'?

I do not see that as a failure.

We should just have a sticky on what you believe Obbe. It would only require one page and one post to sum up your ENTIRE philosophy.

The only thing anyone can know is I AM, thus everthing else is an illusion.

DONE. Why you take up a whole page to say this I will never know. The above is the whole of your argument. There is no deviation from the ONE sentence above is there? There cannot be.

Why don't you just type this ANYTIME you wish to comment on your "philosophy". I think EVERYONE can pretty much understand where you are coming from b/c it is so very, very simple.

Your philosophy does NOT have anything of value to offer anyone or anything. Your philosophy is also completely self-refuting and unprovable. These three things leads a person to believe another very, very simple statement: Your philosophy is a waste of time and energy.

The only thing you need reply with is this: The only thing anyone can know is I AM, thus everthing else is an illusion. Print it on a T-shirt and have your mother dress you in it before she powders your bottom and ushers her little tyke off to school.

We should just have a sticky on what you believe Obbe.

Oooo, and what next? A sticky for the definition of Atheism, and everything its not? One for Christianity? How about Buddhism? Hinduism? Should we have stickies for certain repetitive debates? How about a sticky for the 'jesus vs. mothra' threads?

No, because this is the fucking forum, not the text archives.

Why you take up a whole page to say this I will never know.

"I lack a belief in God and hate the viral infection that is theism, specifically Christianity." sums up your perspective pretty damn well. Why so many threads attacking theists? Why so many threads proclaiming the glory of atheism?

The posts get so long because people begin to incorrectly recite my concept to me, and I like to comment on every point I think needs to be addressed.

Your philosophy does NOT have anything of value to offer anyone or anything. Your philosophy is also completely self-refuting and unprovable.

The value you give it comes from your own perspective. You do not like me, you do not understand the meaning of it being self-refuting or unprovable, and this effects the value you assign it.

... have your mother dress you in it before she powders your bottom and ushers her little tyke off to school.

You're such a spiteful asshole, and a really poor agitator ... always using the same material.

But whatever makes you feel like you're the smartest motherfucker in class, right? Anything to feel like you know something ... desperately grasping for a material and objective reality. Whatever you need, brother. It's all good.

It would be nice if you weren't such an asshole, but its your own loss that you present yourself that way. Such attempts at causing negativity do not affect anyone who understands it doesn't have to bother them. Too bad.

'Walking into traffic, or burning myself near fire' are also illusions. You have the choice to do whatever you want to, within or without it all.

Would you demonstrate how positive you are that they are but mere illusions to you by walking into traffic? I bet you won't, because you're far more attached to this physical dimension than you'd ever admit to letting on about ;)

Their accuracy itself is an illusion. Recalling past experiences, 'time' ... is an illusion.

Yes, 'remembering' that fire can hurt you and taking precautions to avoid that is real ... within the illusion that the fire exists, you have had experience with it before, and that pain is to be avoided.

So what you're basically spouting here is that everything should be considered an illusion, but we should act in accordance to the physical laws in place because they're actually real, "within this illusion" ... which is why many have pointed out that your concept is mere words of denial, while practicing what you preach is impossible.

A sense of humor is valuable, but thats not the reason I interact with illusions.

When asked before why you chose to interact with illusions, your answer was "entertainment".

Why do you interact with illusions?

All I am certain of is 'I AM'. By comparing the experience of other people to that known truth, they become illusions.

I am certain that you enjoy denying anything but "AM". Even by using "I" am, you're validating that there is a YOU to consider, which then can be plausible that there is a ME to consider, and several of US to consider, and ... you will continue to deny all these things you KNOW, in light of one obvious truth that is a given to any sentient being.

Why we will never have to worry that the entire human race will jump on Obbe's bandwagon and pretend that their sensory perceptions are all fake:

1. People recognize that there are individual "truths" beyond the scope of their own private qualia. This is the complete opposite of self-centeredness.

2. As much as you undermine the recollection process that is the pinnacle of learning and experience, that is how our brains are hardwired and no amount of new-age spirituality is going to reverse that fact. People will always value their experiences as "true" because that's what makes up the qualia that leads them to even possess the realization of "I AM".

You might reel in a few with the Leary-esque "tune in, turn on, drop out" mentality associated with ritualistic drug use, but just like in the walking-into-fire/traffic example, these "converts" wouldn't put your "illusion" theory to the test, because they KNOW their experiences are real.

Would you demonstrate how positive you are that they are but mere illusions to you by walking into traffic? I bet you won't, because you're far more attached to this physical dimension than you'd ever admit to letting on about.

Of course I won't. That would cause the experience of an 'end' to the experience of everything I believe I am experiencing right now. Of course I am attached to my perception ... that does not make it a real 'physical dimension' as you assume it to be.

So what you're basically spouting here is that everything should be considered an illusion, but we should act in accordance to the physical laws in place because they're actually real, "within this illusion" ... which is why many have pointed out that your concept is mere words of denial, while practicing what you preach is impossible.

If continuing to experience is valued to you, then yes, you should avoid the things which you believe would end that experience. That does not make the experience reality.

When did I ever say illusions were completely chaotic with no rhyme or rule, Femme?

A card game is not 'real' ... it exists within the heads of the players. And that card game only makes 'sense', is only a card game ... by following the rules defining it as, lets say poker, and not blackjack. In the experience that fire will burn you, of course you should not touch it if you desire to stay unburned. That does not make it a reality.

Impossible to practice what I preach? Someone must be hacking into my account, if you remember me ever telling anyone to jump into a fire pit because its only an illusion, and that they won't be harmed. No, I think its more likely that you just assumed that.

What I 'preach' is that absolute truth, God, is simply 'being'. And compared to that truth, experiences become illusions. I see no reason understanding this, and the benefits of understanding it while choosing to experience, are in any way impossible.

When asked before why you chose to interact with illusions, your answer was "entertainment".

Which has nothing to do with a sense of humor being important in the maya.

Why do you interact with illusions?

Entertainment, something to 'do', an 'activity which holds the attention'. Because, without illusions, I would be experiencing nothing Femme. You yourself said you would rather experience illusion then nothing at all.

And its not that I find that to be worthless ... if I did, I would not meditate to reach a state of 'being'. Its that I like to have a balance.

I am certain ...

Hahahaha.

Whatever you say.

Even by using "I" am, you're validating that there is a YOU to consider, which then can be plausible that there is a ME to consider, and several of US to consider, and ...

Of course theres an 'I' which I consider. If not, there would be no 'I' to consider anything! Thats why its existence is so obvious. And yes, of course its plausible that there is a YOU, an US, a world we exist in ... and that little pink fairies fly around changing the seasons. But you cannot know any of that, like you know 'I AM'. When compared to what you know, any experience of them is an illusion!

... you will continue to deny all these things you KNOW, in light of one obvious truth that is a given to any sentient being.

How does knowing that 'I AM', become knowing that 'you are'? It doesn't. I don't know you are, I cannot, and I fail to see how you connect the two. You only have one truth, and you seem to agree to that above ... but that truth is all you can know.

So how can you know “all these things”?

... wouldn't put your "illusion" theory to the test, because they KNOW their experiences are real.

What test? WTF are you talking about?

No, it wouldn't be because they KNOW the experience would be real. They do not.

It would be either because they understand the concept, and simply do not want to end experience right now, or because they strongly believe they would 'end'. That their being would cease to exist ... and therefore do not really understand the concept.

Most of my perception of humanity will never accept my concept, because I perceive them as being far too dependent on the need for something to be real, for the feeling that they know things. Too bad.

But whatever makes you feel like you're the smartest motherfucker in class, right? Anything to feel like you know something ... desperately grasping for a material and objective reality. Whatever you need, brother. It's all good.

It would be nice if you weren't such an asshole, but its your own loss that you present yourself that way. Such attempts at causing negativity do not affect anyone who understands it doesn't have to bother them. Too bad.

I am merely an illusion Obbe. YOUR illusion Obbe. So if I told you to go and fist your mother very hard tonight it would really just be you seeing the illusionary text on your illusionary computer. It is then all in your mind. Has to be, right? Then you have a sick, sick mind Obbe. Thinking about fisting mommy. Very fucked up Obbe. Very fucked up indeed.

I still like the old material better. :)

I still like the old material better. :)

I'm sure you do, but as I said ... choosing to use either insult is your loss.

Then you have a sick, sick mind Obbe.

Good and bad are only perspectives.

I'm sure you do, but as I said ... choosing to use either insult is your loss.

Good and bad are only perspectives.

My loss of what? I FULLY and COMPLETELY understand your philosophy. A 10 year old can. Seriously. You may take THAT as insulting but it is the truth.

I do not understand why you take so long to say this: The only thing one can know is that I AM; everything else is illusion. That is the whole of your philosophy. IT HAS TO BE!!!

Why you piss all over pages upon pages of threads saying this SIMPLE, SIMPLE statement in a long winded and round about way is nearly beyond me. My theory is that you like to feel like you happen to know or realize a greater concept than others when in fact yours is the most useless concept known to man.

You still cannot answer one simple question: What value does your philosophy hold for the world, for humanity? It CANNOT hold any. Your inability or refusal to recognize this bespeaks your folly. You are wasting energy on a pointless and painfully simple philosophical outlook. PERIOD. You are almost like a philosophical punching bag here. No matter how bat shit crazy a theists views are they can always say to themselves " At least I am not as fucking ass backwards as Obbe." This is the role you fill here at Totse, in my humble opinion, a joke.

My loss of what?

Of another's respect. Of the chance to stop a continuous cycle of negativity.

You may take THAT as insulting ...

I don't, nor would I ... it is my intent for you to understand it.

What I would find insulting, if I was bothered by such things, would be the numerous times you've referred to me as a young child, who is apparently somewhat retarded.

... but it is the truth.

hahaha.

What value does your philosophy hold for the world, for humanity?

As we are all one, it is very uniting, bringing peace and happiness.

As we are all one, it is very uniting, bringing peace and happiness.

THIS is what you think your philosophy:

The only truth is that I AM; everthing else is an illusion.

Does? IMPOSSIBLE. We are not all one by your philosophy. I AM and that is all. There is no fucking we in your philosophy. 'We' is an illusion by your line of thinking.

There is NOTHING about your idea that I AM so you are an illusion that will begat peace. NOTHING. IF everyone truly believed...I mean truly believe in your philosophy we would feel no pity for murdering an illusion. We would not concern ourselves with pain illusions would have us believe they feel.

This is your simple philosophy and I seem to understand it better than you.

THIS is what you think your philosophy:

No. Thats how you've limited it.

Yes, all I know is I am, and all things are illusion to that truth. But lets assume other things are real, even though we cannot possibly know it.

From anything else's perspective, such as another person, reality can be broken down to the absolute certainty of simply 'being'. How about a rock? Does it 'know' anything, or is it simply ... 'being'?

This is how being is all, why being is God, and why all is one. Illusion, truth, they are just different perspectives of the same thing.

Like rizzo had said:

... there is no such thing as a hallucination

or rather, "reality" is a collective hallucination

'We' is an illusion by your line of thinking.

'We' is an illusion to what I know is true, and all I can ever know to be true. But if I am choosing to interact with illusions, to interact with perceptions of others, I can understand that they cannot be absolutely certain of anything more then 'I AM'.

That, if other things do exist, then 'being' is the absolute truth to their reality as well. We are all simply 'being', all things come from that source ... all is one.

... would feel no pity for murdering an illusion. We would not concern ourselves with pain illusions would have us believe they feel.

I do, as they are me.

No. Thats how you've limited it.

Yes, all I know is I am, and all things are illusion to that truth. But lets assume other things are real, even though we cannot possibly know it..

IF you KNOW ..... K N O W the only truth is I AM and everything else is an illusion to that truth; WHY, for fucks sake, would you E V E R assume illusions are real? WHY? EVER? If you KNOW.

The only purpose you have in this case is to attempt to prove a point that your philosophy is more complex than what it truly is. You fail.

'We' is an illusion to what I know is true, and all I can ever know to be true. But if I am choosing to interact with illusions, to interact with perceptions of others, I can understand that they cannot be absolutely certain of anything more then 'I AM'..

Perceptions of WHAT OTHERS? ALL that can be known is I AM. There are no others to have perceptions. Only illusions. Illusions cannot percieve. Illusions ARE NOT REAL, that is why they are FUCKING illusions. You fail.

That, if other things do exist, then 'being' is the absolute truth to their reality as well. We are all simply 'being', all things come from that source ... all is one.

Again, by your own philosophy ALL that can be known is I AM. That is the (according to you) extent of knowledge one can ever hope to TRULY possess. EVER. This we and being, others flys in the face of your own philosophy. It truly does. You refuse to acknowledge or see it. You fail.

IF you KNOW ..... K N O W the only truth is I AM and everything else is an illusion to that truth ...

I do not know everything else is illusion ... that is a belief, based on what I do know, 'I AM'.

You fail.

No, you misunderstand.

Perceptions of WHAT OTHERS?

The illusions that we are talking about ... your expereince of others.

There are no others to have perceptions. Only illusions. Illusions cannot percieve. Illusions ARE NOT REAL, that is why they are FUCKING illusions. You fail.

Illusions to what you know is true, to all you can know is true. You cannot know they are, anymore then you can know them to be real.

Gee, you seem hostile.

Again, by your own philosophy ALL that can be known is I AM.

Yep. That is all that you can know to be true. And, assuming your perception of other observers is accurate, meaning other observers exist ... even though you cannot know them to ... they would also only be able to know 'I AM'.

If they exist, then the only absolute truth they will ever know is 'I AM'. Does a rock know anything? Or is it simply 'being'?

You fail.

You really seem to want me to.

No. Thats how you've limited it.

Yes, all I know is I am, and all things are illusion to that truth. But lets assume other things are real, even though we cannot possibly know it.

Now wait just a second, Obbe. He's forced into limiting it, because you have set very strict parameters for knowing anything outside of I AM. Those parameters aren't even really parameters, in your opinion it's an absolute, not being able to KNOW anything outside of I AM.

But then you go on to "let's assume other things are real...", which you pretty much have to, to be able to consider ANYTHING other than I AM (which would become tiresome, and not even worth contemplating after the first realization). Do you see where this becomes futile? If all is an illusion compared to what you KNOW, then in order to live in this illusion, we must be able to assume that we KNOW other things as well, in order to sustain life and interact with each other.

From anything else's perspective, such as another person, reality can be broken down to the absolute certainty of simply 'being'. How about a rock? Does it 'know' anything, or is it simply ... 'being'?

Rocks are unaware. Rocks exist (not live, exist) alongside other rocks in what is seemingly complete harmony because rocks can't compare with one another their state of being. Rocks can't KNOW they ARE. Suggesting that a perspective of a rock (which doesn't even have perspective) is the same as the state of being a human possesses is ridiculous.


This is how being is all,

"Being" is the common denominator to anything we can possibly discuss. That's it. To call it "ALL" is to deny that there are other processes, other phenomena that results from this very pertinent commonality. It's to deny that everything above and beyond being is irrelevant to this one GIVEN.

why being is God, and why all is one.

Why can't being just be "being" without calling it God? Why is naming it God (a concept constructed by humans) necessary? It would seem like the concept of "being" being defined as God would seem like yet another illusion we should discard as an illusion to the only thing (that you claim) we can really KNOW.

'We' is an illusion to what I know is true, and all I can ever know to be true. But if I am choosing to interact with illusions, to interact with perceptions of others, I can understand that they cannot be absolutely certain of anything more then 'I AM'.

Then you cannot be absolutely certain that "being" is God. You cannot ever KNOW God to be true, and simply redefining "being" as God is just assigning your own illusory perspective to being, and concocting something you think you KNOW as compared to the only thing you claim we CAN know.

That, if other things do exist, then 'being' is the absolute truth to their reality as well. We are all simply 'being', all things come from that source ... all is one.

If we all exist, than we all share one thing in common: being. What the fuck does that have to do with God? God is just a concept we concocted with our minds. Rocks don't conceptualize God. God, and any concept of awareness of being, is an impossibility for rocks. We share the same state of "being" that rocks have, and animals have, except we conceptualize God, and they aren't able to. Therefore, we are NOT all one, in that some of us have higher cognitive states that allow them to assign the value of worth to concepts such as "being" and "God".

If you're wanting to point out that the one thing every person, animal or thing has in common is their "being", then why unnecessarily thrust the God concept into it? Seems like even believing in that would someone go against your measurement of the one thing we can only KNOW to be true.

I do, as they are me.

But Obbe, how can you be CERTAIN they are you? How can you be certain of anything besides I AM?? How can you be CERTAIN that "we are all one", when all you can admittedly KNOW for sure is that YOU ARE?

One contradiction after another, after another, after another.....

"I lack a belief in God and hate the viral infection that is theism, specifically Christianity." sums up your perspective pretty damn well. Why so many threads attacking theists? Why so many threads proclaiming the glory of atheism?

Too bad.

lol :D

Obbe seems to support ontological monism and epistemological solipsism, but these are incompatible. For if all you can know in the strict sense is your own existence from a confined first person perspective, then to assert that what is vividly presented to you is an illusion is as unjustifiable as to assert that it is a distinct being; for it is possibly real and possibly unreal and therefore uncertain. Hence you cannot maintain the ontological position that everything is you, for this is as unknowable as saying some things aren’t you.

He may only support ontological monism and not epistemological solipsism. But if this is so, it doesn’t really follow that all he can know is that he is. Surely he can illuminate properties of himself, such as colours, thoughts, tastes, and smells. And I’ve already explained in other threads why his epistemology collapses, if he supports epistemological solipsism. Really, I think he’s a waste of time. He doesn’t respond to criticism, he simply reasserts a poor version of I think, therefore I am.

I need to take a page from your book from time to time Hare as you are the only one who can apparently shut Obbe up.

... you have set very strict parameters for knowing anything outside of I AM.

Which limits assumptions how?

... would become tiresome, and not even worth contemplating after the first realization ...

I think not.

... we must be able to assume that we KNOW other things as well, in order to sustain life and interact with each other.

Yes, because I never said that maya was chaotic and without order. My point is thats all they are ... assumptions. Illusions to the absolute truth.

Rocks are unaware.

I prefer the term aware of nothing.

Yes, they may be unaware of a perception, of maya. But as 'being' is that which experiences, that which is 'aware' ... then something such as a rock, which is simply being, is then simply 'aware of nothing'. Things can only be unaware of other things, of perceptions ... I think if anything was truly unaware (completely) it would be the same as not existing. It would be being the nothing.

Rocks can't KNOW they ARE.

I DID NOT say they DO. Please, don't turn into BP with the capital letters ... bold and italics have purpose.

I said they are simply 'being'. I know what 'being' means for you, how you have defined it ... do you need a recap on mine? Simply 'being' is existence without thought, without recognition of anything. Including self-recognition.

Suggesting that a perspective of a rock (which doesn't even have perspective) is the same as the state of being a human possesses is ridiculous.

I didn't, I suggested that assuming a rock exists, its state is simply 'being'. I suggested that you cannot know the rock exists, all you can know is 'I AM', which is recognition of simply being, which is the absolute truth. Assuming that the rock is real, its 'true state' is equal with yours. Assuming all is real, all is the absolute truth, all is one. God.

Why is naming it God (a concept constructed by humans) necessary?

Its not. I've simply been explaining what God truly means.

It would seem like the concept of "being" being defined as God would seem like yet another illusion we should discard as an illusion to the only thing (that you claim) we can really KNOW.

It cannot be known, and when compared to absolute truth of course tis just another illusion. When have I ever declared that illusions need be discarded?

Then you cannot be absolutely certain that "being" is God.

No, all you can be absolutely certain of is 'I AM'. I don't claim to know anything else. However, if God means all, and 'being' is all, then would it not be logical to call 'being' God while choosing to recognize such illusions?

simply redefining "being" as God

Is that what I am doing?

In my experiences (ahem, maya), the common usage of God is a mistaken definition of the true meaning, through thousands of years of corrupt religious intervention and redefining.

... we are NOT all one ...

If 'we' exists, 'we' are all 'being' in absolute truth. One.

... some of us have higher cognitive states that allow them to assign the value of worth to concepts such as "being" and "God".

Illusions?

... why unnecessarily thrust the God concept into it?

To suggest that all separate perceptions, all possibilities ... are not really separate. Like Arms suggests about each of 'us' only being able to perceive a billionth of the information out there, each perception is just a broken-down way of experiencing all. To suggest that all is one, all is happening at once, all in the exact same time and space-less 'moment'.

... how can you be CERTAIN they are you?

I'm not. Absolute truth is 'I AM'. I have already explained why I believe they are me, based on what is known and assuming the possible perspective of the illusory person I am experiencing. The absolute truth would be the same.

Yes, because I never said that maya was chaotic and without order. My point is thats all they are ... assumptions. Illusions to the absolute truth.

These assumptions we're talking about ... are correct on a nearly astronomical basis. Once learned, these assumptions aren't really assumptions anymore, they're more like guidelines that we follow in order to keep us alive. From having learned how fire is hot, if you're contemplating sticking your arm in a furnace, you don't just assume you'll get burned. You know for a fact that you'll get burned. And those aren't illusions, Obbe. That's a process going on in your brain that serves as a mechanism for keeping you from having to learn something over and over and over again. Why else would we have evolved such a huge, information-hoarding big brain? So we don't have to make assumptions each time we put ourselves in harm's way. We have an acquired learning system that we use to base the "absolute truths" we need to get by on a day-to-day basis.

I prefer the term aware of nothing.

That's good, because that's what it means. Unaware = aware of nothing.

Yes, they may be unaware of a perception, of maya. But as 'being' is that which experiences, that which is 'aware' ...then something such as a rock, which is simply being, is then simply 'aware of nothing'.

It exists, that's all. It doesn't have the capacity to do anything else. If we were to take the perspective that the maya we live in is nothing more than an illusion to the absolute truth (which is the simplicity of "just being", much like the rock), then seekers-of-truth would be doubly damned that 1) their mere awareness of the concept is a strike against them being unaware, and 2) in order to get closer to the absolute truth, they'd have to perform like a rock. How impossible would that be for a thinking human being? More importantly, why would any human being strive to let loose of his abilities to accept the world before them as tangible, as realistic as any reality they'll ever experience? Why would someone opt out of believing their actual experiences, in lieu of ...nothing?


do you need a recap on mine? Simply 'being' is existence without thought, without recognition of anything. Including self-recognition.

Do you aspire to be like a rock, Obbe? Free of these pesky illusions and finally untethered to the maya that's surely holding you back from experiencing this ultimate state that we should all strive for, that somehow brings us unity and would further humanity? This would be an opportune time to tell of the benefits of comparing our true state of being to that of a rock, which is essentially what you've painted your concept of "perfect state of being" to revolve around.

I think if anything was truly unaware (completely) it would be the same as not existing. It would be being the nothing.

You're bound and determined to make rocks somehow aware, aren't you? :p They truly are unaware, Obbe. You're just going to have to swallow that one down.

I didn't,

You did. Look, two sentences later. I bolded it for you:

Assuming that the rock is real, its 'true state' is equal with yours.

So yes, you are suggesting that the true state of a rock (which doesn't even have perspective) is the same as the true state of a human being. Either rephrase your statement or admit that you are suggesting it.

Should I feel guilty next time I inadvertently drive over a whole community of pea-gravel? After all, their state of being is equal to mine.

Here, I'll save you the keystrokes:

"Guilt is an illusion to the only thing we can really know"
:rolleyes:

Assuming all is real, all is the absolute truth, all is one. God.

If your basis of defining God is that "all is real", then you're stepping outside the boundaries of your "all is an illusion" context and admitting that "maya" is all that you'll ever know. Actually, you should amend your whole concept to: "Everything is real; God is an illusion" ... and it would make better sense.

When have I ever declared that illusions need be discarded?

Right here, in so many words:

No, all you can be absolutely certain of is 'I AM'. I don't claim to know anything else.

You don't claim to have use for any of your experiences? And if you do have use for them, why don't you claim them? Because it would bust up your whole theory? I know you won't say they need to be discarded, but every other principle you assert points to how false they are, how compared to the absolute truth, they are nothing at all ... except illusions. Why wouldn't you discard these things if they were of no use to you? And if you're using them, why is it necessary to call them an illusion, since it helps put you in the know about experiences you are going to be bound to have to make assumptions on?


However, if God means all, and 'being' is all, then would it not be logical to call 'being' God while choosing to recognize such illusions?

If your experiences are illusions, you don't get the luxury to "choose" to recognize anything. You don't choose to recognize your experiences. If you open your eyes in sunlight, you can't choose to see the absent of light. Your pupils will dilate, and you have no choice in the matter. If you stick you arm in boiling water, you can't choose to recognize the heat. It will blister your skin, and you have no choice in the matter.

Back to those ever-so-reliable assumptions we make as a result of our learned experience, which again points to how they aren't illusions, but all we can know to be real.

In my experiences (ahem, maya), the common usage of God is a mistaken definition of the true meaning, through thousands of years of corrupt religious intervention.

Newsflash! Your usage of God is a concept which relies in the maya also, as it is bound to reside wherever it's central nerve center (that would be Obbe) is currently residing. Therefore, your concept of God could very well be an illusion, or yet another unnecessary definition of God.

If 'we' exists, 'we' are all 'being' in absolute truth. One.

Okay, so we all exist. Why is a God concept necessary to adapt that view?

Obbe, the statement that "we are all being" is not equivalent to saying "we are all one". If a car is red and a ball is red, it does not follow that the car is the ball and the ball is the car. Likewise, if one were to say "we are all red", it does not follow that we are all one. You really must stop getting astonished by words.

You know for a fact that you'll get burned.

Yes, within that perception, that version of reality, and they would still only ever be illusions to what you know is absolute truth.

And those aren't illusions, Obbe. That's a process going on in your brain that serves as a mechanism for keeping you from having to learn something over and over and over again. Why else would we have evolved such a huge, information-hoarding big brain?

That certainly seems very real. Based on what you believe you have truly experienced and believe is real, it is. Compared with all you can absolutely know to be true, it is illusion.

So we don't have to make assumptions each time we put ourselves in harm's way.

You do make the assumptions that your current experience of harm is real, and your memories of past ones are as well. But if you think I'm saying that life (experience) is random and chaotic, then no. I'm not. Simply because you can 'understand' a current experience basing on the experience of remembering similar past experiences, doesn't make it or the memories real. It makes life ... all experience ... illusory to what you know is true. You have chosen to view 'life' experiences separately from each other. But you cannot know thats real, you cannot know life is a 'series of events', a flowing river of time. You cannot know past memories to be real. Thats why they are illusions ... sure, 'remembering' not to touch fire is real, within the illusion of that experience, within the illusion of your 'series of events'. But compared to what is known to be true, the entire 'series of events', is illusory.

1) their mere awareness of the concept is a strike against them being unaware

And is an experience, which we know are illusions to the truth. I'm not saying they are truly
'unaware', as you say. I am saying their awareness of things, their sense of experiencing stuff, is an illusion to what is known to be true, a state of simply being. A state of awareness ... of nothing.

2) in order to get closer to the absolute truth, they'd have to perform like a rock. How impossible would that be for a thinking human being?

Check out meditation.

Why would someone opt out of believing their actual experiences, in lieu of ...nothing?

To understand the truth. To better their experience of the grand illusion.

Do you aspire to be like a rock, Obbe?

Before meditating.

his would be an opportune time to tell of the benefits of comparing our true state of being to that of a rock

I have told this tale before.

Within the illusion of this version of 'humanity' living on this Earth, if everyone truly understood that illusions of separate entities (anything...an electron, a person) is another perspective of a possible reality for 'being' ... that they are all one in the same, and so all played by the golden rule, then there would be no harm ... there would be no selfishness, there would be compassion and peace and happiness.

While simply being, there is no humanity. There is no 'reality'. There is simply being. 'Benefits' of understanding that simply 'being' is the absolute truth, only exist while experiencing illusions to that truth. Only while experiencing a 'reality', or 'life', can understanding the truth have benefit. Individual benefits are being calm, relaxed, comforted. Hard experiences become easier to handle, good ones are enjoyed more. But the benefits I talk about above only happen when your perception of other people understand it as well.

You're bound and determined to make rocks somehow aware, aren't you? They truly are unaware, Obbe.

As I said, they can only be unaware of things. Of illusions. They are simply being, their 'perspective' is the absolute truth. You decide a rock is unaware become it shows no recognition of you, or anything. As far as you know. The rock is 'unaware' ... of maya. It is aware of nothing.

I have said that I equate 'unaware' with 'non-existent'. Under the assumption that the rock is real, is really simply 'being', then it not 'non-existent', and is not truly unaware. It may be unaware of you ... but you are only maya to its state of simply being. If existent, it is truly aware, Femme ... just, of nothing.

So yes, you are suggesting that the true state of a rock (which doesn't even have perspective) is the same as the true state of a human being. Either rephrase your statement or admit that you are suggesting it.

Yes I am. But thats not what you're blathering on about. Heres the problem:

In response to “Suggesting that a perspective of a rock (which doesn't even have perspective) is the same as the state of being a human possesses is ridiculous.”, I said “No I didn't, I suggested that assuming a rock exists, its state is simply 'being'.”

What I am saying, is that the rock's 'perspective', if we are going to call it that, is the absolute truth. A 'non-perspective', or a 'lack of perspective'. Awareness of nothing. Simply 'being'.

I am sure you'll agree, that state is not the same as a human beings perspective. A human being's perspective is that of experience. But all that experience is illusory to what they know is true. An illusion to simply being, the absolute truth. Which is the same as that of the rock.

Clear things up?



Should I feel guilty next time I inadvertently drive over a whole community of pea-gravel?

I wouldn't. What harm has it done? Can gravel experience harm?

If your basis of defining God is that "all is real", then you're stepping outside the boundaries of your "all is an illusion" context and admitting that "maya" is all that you'll ever know.

Not at all. I am simply assuming that experiences are real, while keeping the full understanding that all I can know to be true is simply 'being', in mind. Maya can never be known ... thats why its called maya! All is still illusion to what I know is real. But if these other things happen to be real, in some way, the absolute truth ... all that can be known, is the same.

Actually, you should amend your whole concept to: "Everything is real; God is an illusion" ... and it would make better sense.

Actually, that would make no sense at all. “Everything (which cannot be know to be true) is real; God (which is all you can know to be true) is an illusion.” No. No sense. Man, what grass are you smoking?

You don't claim to have use for any of your experiences?

Yeah, thats exactly what I said above. Good comprehension. :rolleyes:

No. I am claiming they are illusions to absolute truth.

If you open your eyes in sunlight, you can't choose to see the absent of light. Your pupils will dilate, and you have no choice in the matter. If you stick you arm in boiling water, you can't choose to recognize the heat. It will blister your skin, and you have no choice in the matter.

Because its all one big illusion.

Therefore, your concept of God could very well be an illusion

Pssst.

I never made that claim. Experience is illusion! That includes self-recognition, that includes understanding anything.

Okay, so we all exist.

No, that cannot be known. But, if we all exist, we are all one through being. Being is God.

Why is a God concept necessary to adapt that view?

What do you mean by 'God concept'? This is what God is. What the word truly means.


* * * * *


the statement that "we are all being" is not equivalent to saying "we are all one"

Nope. But 'we' cannot be known to be true. Its an illusion. The infinite 'we', the countless possible perspectives of a reality, are all different perspectives of 'being'. A different perspective of God. We are all one, as in we are all God. But, observing through these illusory perspectives, 'we' ... separation ... becomes an illusory experience.

Once again Obbe, you've managed to somehow take your one belief and, without any explanation other than than sounding like a broken record with all the:

illusions to what you know is absolute truth.

Compared with all you can absolutely know to be true, it is illusion.

life ... all experience ... illusory to what you know is true.

All is still illusion to what I know is real.

I am claiming they are illusions to absolute truth.

But 'we' cannot be known to be true. Its an illusion

So go on, meditate if it helps reduce your experiences down to that of a rock and call on your very own existence as your solid proof of God while you consistently deny other's experiences as valid.

But don't think for a moment that you're the only one out there who believes their concept of God is the true concept of God, and that everyone else is just sadly mistaken. We can't have you feeling all superior in what you believe is your vast understanding of a concept that somehow seems to elude other people.

But there again, it would really make no difference to you, since it is highly questionable from your perspective that other people exist, who might have assigned their own validations of truth to their own experiences. It makes utterly no sense to converse with someone who doubts you exist.

I see no point in kicking this dead horse over and over again while you remain in a steadfast position of denial concerning everything except for your own existence, which you then define as the ultimate understanding of God.

I have recognized the futility in attempting discourse with you.

Nope. But 'we' cannot be known to be true. Its an illusion. The infinite 'we', the countless possible perspectives of a reality, are all different perspectives of 'being'. A different perspective of God. We are all one, as in we are all God. But, observing through these illusory perspectives, 'we' ... separation ... becomes an illusory experience.

AngryFemme is right, you repeat your conclusion and give no argumentation. My last two posts were deathblows to your idea. You have essentially ignored them both.

I have recognized the futility in attempting discourse with you.

I guess this is where this discussion ends, with you still not understanding what I've been trying to communicate. Oh well.

Hare, you too just don't understand what I am trying to communicate. You don't understand the complexity of time and space I am trying to describe, how everything you perceive is you in another state.

But whatever. I guess its over now.