religion, and atheism, are both wrong? what if there is some "other side" to reality? what if the reason no entities from that place ever help us, is because we decided we did not need their help no matter how much it may feel like we do once we were on this side?

maybe we're all here, doing and thinking exactly what we wanted to be doing to achieve... something.

I approve!

Atheism and religion can be simultaneously wrong if and only if there is a God not conceived of by any religion, for atheism only says there is no God; it says nothing about whether or not there is an "other side", a spiritual life.

What if athiesm/monothiesm/polythiesm is wrong because... *drum roll*. They are just human creations! We are just animals, on a rock in space. The only gods/magic is the laws of nature. When an object is unsupported it falls... gravity wooo. You dont hear me building a church about it though. Just because there is things that at one point are beyond our comprehension doesent mean we need to start making up gods to explain it. In antiquity they thought the gods controlled the rising sun, the weather, the seasons. Nice story, but that is all it was, an entertaining story. Same with god.

What if athiesm/monothiesm/polythiesm is wrong because... *drum roll*. They are just human creations! We are just animals, on a rock in space. The only gods/magic is the laws of nature. When an object is unsupported it falls... gravity wooo. You dont hear me building a church about it though. Just because there is things that at one point are beyond our comprehension doesent mean we need to start making up gods to explain it. In antiquity they thought the gods controlled the rising sun, the weather, the seasons. Nice story, but that is all it was, an entertaining story. Same with god.

Wouldn't that make atheism right?

Wouldn't that make atheism right?


Separate "what if...", but yes it would.

i dont really believe in "god". not in any typical sense anyway. i dont believe there is some uber-being separate from all consciousness, much less one that like, rules/controls everything.

is atheism just a way of saying one doesnt believe in god? i thought they didnt believe in an afterlife or souls or any of that junk.

i dont really believe in "god". not in any typical sense anyway. i dont believe there is some uber-being separate from all consciousness, much less one that like, rules/controls everything.

is atheism just a way of saying one doesnt believe in god? i thought they didnt believe in an afterlife or souls or any of that junk.
well, most of that stuff is associated with god, most people that believe like you do call themselves pantheists, as in everything is god, and so forth.
I think. I may be a little off on that one however.

Pantheism! Brilliant. I never liked the terms mono/polytheistic. And I am not an atheist, so there it is, I have found my word. I am a pantheist, and I am god.

I don't see anything in pantheism but superfluousness. If all of the universe is god, then we can just cut out this word god altogether.

"I don't see anything in pantheism but superfluousness. If all of the universe is god, then we can just cut out this word god altogether."

Indeed, it's just pointlessly defining a god into existence by calling him something that already exists. I could say Phil Collins is god because he exists, for fuck's sake.

I don't see anything in pantheism but superfluousness. If all of the universe is god, then we can just cut out this word god altogether.

I think pantheism sort of implies a consciousness to the universe. It's sort of like saying that the universe is a conscious being itself, unlike hard atheism which says that it's merely ordered chaos.

religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/tran_imm.htm)
"Pantheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe."

Over the years, I have had many conversations with so-called atheists who reject a God which is nothing like the God I know.

"Over the years, I have had many conversations with so-called atheists who reject a God which is nothing like the God I know."

"But my god is different! He really does love everybody and he's totally real and he's my bestest friend ever!"

Yeah, whatever. Unless you back up your assertions with something solid, you're no different than any other theist out there. From what I've seen, that's exactly the case.

its silly how arrogant people can be when no one, on any side, can prove their beliefs any more than anyone else.

its silly how arrogant people can be when no one, on any side, can prove their beliefs any more than anyone else.

This is where you're mistaken. It's only up to ONE side to prove it when it is something non-falsifiable. I can't disprove something non-falsifiable. Surely you wouldn't say you are arrogant because you don't believe that an invisible dragon is currently inside your stomach, would you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I think pantheism sort of implies a consciousness to the universe. It's sort of like saying that the universe is a conscious being itself, unlike hard atheism which says that it's merely ordered chaos.

religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/tran_imm.htm)
"Pantheism - Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe."

Pantheists:
Assert that deity is not transcendent. It has no aspect that is beyond the universe.
Deity may be permanently beyond our ability to perceive and conceptualize.

It seems silly to speak of something you may not even be able to coneptualize. I guess my question is what it means for there to be an omnipresent 'consciousness' in the universe. By what does consciousness mean? By what I know, consciousness requires an entity to 'exist' (I don't really believe in consciousness, as it is just labeling behaviors related to identity theory), such as a brain. It seems like such an overtly airy and ambiguous definition so as to not be further attacked. I mean what does it mean for the UNIVERSE to be conscious?

This is where you're mistaken. It's only up to ONE side to prove it when it is something non-falsifiable. I can't disprove something non-falsifiable. Surely you wouldn't say you are arrogant because you don't believe that an invisible dragon is currently inside your stomach, would you? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

i still choose to believe you are silly.

"i still choose to believe you are silly."

Yeah! I mean, all he did was explain logically and concisely why talking out of one's ass isn't condusive to proving anything. That doesn't mean shit, man! If you wanna believe in fairies and fucking pixie dust for no logical reason, go right the fuck ahead! You're right and the guy who actually backs up his shit is wrong! FUCK YEAH!

...

you are definitely being more silly than i am.

i am open-minded to the idea that maybe, just maybe, theres more going on than we know, in this universe that is surely far more complex than we can ever hope to explain. and you are saying based on what tiny bits of information we know to be true, that it is not possible for there to be more (by which i mean souls, afterlife, whatever).

why the fuck are you guys so up tight? jesus. i dont want to listen to angry internet nerds, so i dont think i will come back here to argue anymore. you know as well as i do, no matter how logically one side seems to think they explain something, the other side will not accept it, no matter how much bitching and moaning is involved.

good day sir.

it's just pointlessly defining a god into existence by calling him something that already exists

Why is that pointless?

Perhaps the definition you'd rather go by is the result of what thousands of years of corruption, war, and greed have done to the original meaning. What about the whole 'omni-everything' definitions? That god is the idea of 'allness' and 'oneness', the alpha and the omega?

Why are you the one to decide how to define a concept you lack belief in?

I guess my question is what it means for there to be an omnipresent 'consciousness' in the universe. By what does consciousness mean?

I believe that it is a reference to the concept of simply 'being', or "aware ... of nothing" that I often try to describe.

I mean what does it mean for the UNIVERSE to be conscious?

What does it 'mean'? What do you mean?

good day sir.

Good job. Thats one of the best things you could do.

"Why is that pointless?"

Because the only way to do that is to ascribe gods mundane aspects. Sure, you can define god into existence, but that doesn't really matter if he's a toaster.

What does it 'mean'? What do you mean?


I mean it takes a brain of a being to have what people call "consciousness" or self-awareness. To say the universe itself, without any actual deity being in existence, has consciousness, seems absurd.

Why is that pointless?


It has no point.

Because the only way to do that is to ascribe gods mundane aspects. Sure, you can define god into existence, but that doesn't really matter if he's a toaster.

huh?

it takes a brain of a being to have what people call "consciousness" or self-awareness.

I think this is just where language confuses things. I think the people who have said 'the universe' (or, if we should use a term synonymous with God, then reality, or all, as it would include alternative universes) has consciousness is referring to 'that which experiences', 'that which is aware', 'being' ... even if the being is aware of nothing at all.

You, and others, would refer to consciousness or awareness as being aware of something.

It has no point.

Sure it does. Its a word used to describe the allness and oneness of existence and reality.

Sure it does. Its a word used to describe the allness and oneness of existence and reality.

To which you have no evidence whatsoever. You do not even have a flimsly line of bullshit to give your claims of oneness even a small notion of credibility.

To which you have no evidence whatsoever. You do not even have a flimsly line of bullshit to give your claims of oneness even a small notion of credibility.

As long as you continue to think anything I could ever say would allow you to know anything more then you already do, you will never understand.

The 'evidence', if we are going to call it that, is the absolute truth.

The 'evidence', if we are going to call it that, is the absolute truth.

Right. The only thing anyone can know for certain for absolution is that "I AM". How does this convey everything is one? It cannot. THE ONLY ABSOLUTE IS SINGULAR. I (singular) AM. Perhaps you misunderstand absolute.

Right. The only thing anyone can know for certain for absolution is that "I AM". How does this convey everything is one? It cannot. THE ONLY ABSOLUTE IS SINGULAR. I (singular) AM. Perhaps you misunderstand absolute.

Yes, absolute truth is what is recognized in the knowledge that 'I AM', absolute truth is simply 'being'. All that can be known is 'I AM'.

Under the assumption that separate things exist, one could also assume (using what is known to be true) that if these things were to have their own perspectives, all that they too could truly know is the same as what you do. Assuming that another person exists, although that cannot be known, it is logical that the absolute truth would be the same to them. That all they could possibly know to be true, is 'I AM'. They would not be able to know you exist, anymore then you know they do. Thats an assumption, an illusion to the absolute truth.

But you can imagine their perspective of reality, even if their existence is only an illusion to the absolute truth. How are you and the other 'one'? Because the absolute truth of your perspectives would be the same. Beneath all illusions, they are as you are; simply being. All they are is another perspective for this 'being' to have, just as you are (as in your ego). Things we define as being 'unaware', what is their ... "perspective"? Awareness of nothing, simply being.

All things you can imagine or assume to exist would share this 'being'. From each of their own perspectives, all is illusion compared with what is known. Each of these perspectives, in the heat of truth, boil down to simply being. As I have said before, all comes forth from and reverts back to the absolute truth. This is the allness that is simply 'being'. This is the oneness that is simply 'being'. This is God.

"huh?"

Man, you're stupid.

Man, you're stupid.

You're the one who doesn't explain yourself.

Why does it not matter if God is a toaster?

And where did you get the idea that God is just a toaster? God is better defined as the allness and oneness of reality/existence that is simply 'being'.

Yes, absolute truth is what is recognized in the knowledge that 'I AM', absolute truth is simply 'being'. All that can be known is 'I AM'.

NO you fucking tool.

If ALL that can be known is 'I AM' then you CAN FUCKING NOT know anything else. If you purpose ANYTHING else as any kind of truth you will have to redefine the word ALL in your definitive philosophy here.

You CAN say It can be known that 'I AM'. It can also be known that we are all one.

You CANNOT say ALL that can be known is 'I AM'. THEN say, We are all one.

You are a fool for attempting it. PERIOD. We have been over this. You cannot say "ALL that can be known is I AM" then pretend or assume to "know" anything else. If you believe ALL that can be known is I AM, then that is the extent of your knowledge, everything else is just fantasy, bullshit and illusion.

A ridiculous view but I must remind you that it is yours and tell you how it has to be, BY YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS. This makes you a tool.

You CANNOT say ALL that can be known is 'I AM'. THEN say, We are all one.

I am not saying its is known. I clearly said, it is an assumption. The existence of all can only ever be assumed, never known.

Under that assumption, all ... a collection of perspectives ... will in the heat of truth, boil down to simply 'being'.

You cannot say "ALL that can be known is I AM" then pretend or assume to "know" anything else.

Sure I can. Just as you are pretending to know Obbe exists. You cannot know I do. But under the assumption, the illusion that I do, you can imagine that my own perspective boils down to the same absolute truth as your own. That is, simply being.


everything else is just fantasy, bullshit and illusion.

Yes.

I am not saying its is known. I clearly said, it is an assumption. The existence of all can only ever be assumed, never known.

Under that assumption, all exists ... a collection of perspectives ... in the heat of truth, boils down to simply 'being'.

Okay, it seemed to me at time you pass off your "we are all one" notion as ANY form of truth. It is merely an assumption of what is an illusion. So, what is your point for passing around this assumption gleaned from bullshit, I mean an illusion? Your assumption has no more validity than my assumption the universe is made of chocolate cake. The illusion we see is quite different, but I assume it is really cake.

Pointless like the rest of your philosophy. Has no merit or value for society or humankind, whatsoever. It is then just ass talk.

So, what is your point for passing around this assumption gleaned from bullshit, I mean an illusion?

That if you choose to interact with illusion, to recognize separation instead of focusing only on absolute truth, then the things you expereince as separate are in truth, you. You are, in absolute truth, simply 'being'. Anything you expereince from one perspective, is also just another perspective for this 'being' to have. Absolute truth is the same from that perspective. As time and separation are illusions, all is one. The point is, that this 'oneness' and 'allness' of reality/existence is God.

Has no merit or value for society or humankind, whatsoever.

I think it inspires compassion.

That if you choose to interact with illusion, to recognize separation instead of focusing only on absolute truth, then the things you expereince as separate are in truth, you. You are, in absolute truth, simply 'being'. Anything you expereince from one perspective, is also just another perspective for this 'being' to have. Absolute truth is the same from that perspective. As time and separation are illusions, all is one. The point is, that this 'oneness' and 'allness' of reality/existence is God.

I think it inspires compassion.

No. First of all, why interact with an illusion? Second, you make no sense saying that the illusion I choose to interact with is really me. NONE. Look up the word illusion. You cannot know or realize this oneness. EVER. The ONLY thing you can KNOW is that I AM. Period. End of story.

The completely illuminated human being knows, with Law, that God "is present in the deepest and most central part of his own soul"; but hs is also and at the same time one of those who, in the words of Plotinus,

See all things, not in process of becoming, but in Being, and see themselves in the other. Each being contains in itself the whole intelligible world. Therefore All is everywhere. Each is there All, and All is each. Man as he now is has ceased to be the All. But when he ceases to be an individual, he raises himself again and penetrates the whole world.



Behold but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray.
Kabir


The knowledge and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge.
Eckhart

Obbe, or anyone who is interested, you may want to checkout the book
The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perennial_Philosophy)

First of all, why interact with an illusion?

Why not? It is either that, or the awareness of nothing that is simply being.

You cannot know or realize this oneness.

Because absolute truth is simply being. I'm not implying you can know anything else.

All illusory experiences are simply other possible perspectives coming forth from simply 'being'. Just as the perspective of BrokeProphet comes forth from being, and in the heat of absolute truth, boils back down to simply being, so would the perspective of Obbe, in the illusion of Obbes existence.

Obbe, or anyone who is interested, you may want to checkout the book

It looks very interesting, especially that 'Ground of all being' part.

Will defiantly look into it. ;)

I cannot see why your assumptions should hold anymore authority than any other.

For me and another possible perspective to not be assumed as one, the origin of the other perspective would have to be assumed to be something other then simply 'being'.

If another assumption is to be made, another origin would have to be presented. What other assumptions do you suggest?

I can easily imagine the Sade poking fun at you through raping “himself” because it’s what he desired, yet wholeheartedly believing all is one.

His desire to rape himself is an illusion to simply being. It is a part of Sades perspective. If he decided under this philosophy it would be fine to rape a little girl, because that little girl is him and he himself desires to be raped, then he does not understand this philosophy.

If he did, he would understand that he and the little girl are one, but the little girls perspetive is different from his, and is one which does not desire to be raped. That would be seen as harm from her perspective, and by understanding that he is the little girl, he would not want to do harm to himself.

It cannot lift itself up outside of the fray to grasp pure knowledge. When you are born into a language, you are imbued into biases and baggage.

Makes it hard.

If you change you’re not being, and if you’re being you don’t change.

Change occurs around simply being, change is an illusion to its absolute truth.

You put down this life of change in the name of a better world, an eternal world where one is one with God.

Not at all. Experience is the 'purpose' of existence. I have never said we should abandon it and only revel in absolute truth.

In short, you’re part of the problem, not the solution

The problem is selfishness and greed. The problem is claiming anything which cannot be known, as truth. I am not.

So ... what is your solution?

I’m sick of you gurus who pretend to be enlightened. You’re nothing but a fuckhead… and now I’m ranting, so that’s the end of this post.

Thats nice. :rolleyes:

Being is just an empty, catch all phrase.

All words are empty.

But when I say it, simply 'being' is the allness and oneness of reality and existence.

The Sade is a sadomasochist. To inflict pain on himself unwillingly would only heighten his desire.

If he really understands this philosophy, he understands that his sadomasochism is part of Sades perspective of maya, not the little girls. He would understand they are one, and her perspective is that willful rape is undesired. The desires of his own perspective have nothing to do with not harming others in this philosophy.

Makes it impossible.

I disagree.

Presupposition of substance is a product of language.

And?

Not to make the mistake of proposing solutions.

Then sit back, and watch everyone else do so.

Which is a notion impossible without empty words imbued with bias.

I know you like talking like this, but ... what?

Like her perspective has any authority over his and vice versa. Anything goes.

Her perspective of harm should, as I have been trying to explain to you.

Who says anything goes?

Oneness and unity is a mere presupposition.

As is the existence of anything you are uniting with the absolute truth.

If you don't get it, I'm posting one statement long replies to poke fun at you. I cannot take you as anything but a troll. In short, I cannot take you seriously.

In short, I cannot take you seriously.

Then ignore me man!

Or speak in layman's terms. If you're just going to 'poke fun' at me then you're not really countering my argument, when I can't understand yours.

Simply 'being' is the allness and oneness of reality and existence. Feel free to explain why you feel thats wrong.

"Why does it not matter if God is a toaster?"

It's truly impressive how wrapped up in your own bullshit you are. Even to most religious shitheads, something like that would be easy to figure out.

It's truly impressive how wrapped up in your own bullshit you are.

Thats not my own bullshit. You decided to define God as a toaster here, and declared such a God would not matter.

... where did you get the idea that God is just a toaster? God is better defined as the allness and oneness of reality/existence that is simply 'being'.

"Thats not my own bullshit. You decided to define God as a toaster here, and declared such a God would not matter."

No, you jackass. The fact that you need to ask "why does it not matter if God is a toaster" showcases the stupidity that is inherent in every single thing you post. Were you capable of rational thought, you would have long since realized that defining shit into existence is an idiot's game.

Of course, you don't understand any of that, and so you ask stupid questions like that one. This is because you're playing in your own little fairy tale fantasy land.