Arguing against religion

General discussion on the subject of religion, losing religion, and having no religion to lose...
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:02 pm

Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.


Every time I see this ~ I think of you.
Same sence of humour lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_the_Dog

Jake is only one of many muses that visit me every day. I also draw inspiration from Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, and that guy with the funny hair.

Rick & Morty?

I like Rick & Morty, but I don't draw much behavioural inspiration from it. I think I got more of that from Seinfeld, and I didn't even like or watch Seinfeld.

There's so much out there to train
people to be cartoonish. You toon easy!
Most people do~ makes it easier to accept
they exist. Hehe

Of course cartoons exist. Otherwise, where would all the toasters go?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:34 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I may have done, I may have just heard it somewhere. The consciousness records everything whether you are present of not. Where this figure of speech originated is irrelevant, what matters is its purpose of highlighting your habitual use of formal language. The fact is non verbal, what has a non sequitur have to do with the fact?

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.


Ah! A bewilderment of confusion. It's to be expected. When one is on unfamiliar ground the brain is bound to be bewildered and confused. Especially if one refuses to open ones eye, what do you expect.

Gord wrote:I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit.

For what? I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank.

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.


Belief shapes the experience and the experience shapes the belief. If you think it so shall it be.

Gord wrote: I take credit for your reflexive posting of a non sequitur.


You can have your reflexive non sequitur and be glad of it. But remember as long as you are taking there is no room for you to receive what is given.

Gord wrote:Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Probably for the same reason why you would think that there was credit in the offering in the first place. Who can take credit for a fact? The fact is there before any notion of merit or demerit.

Anyone can take credit for a fact. Nor should one wait for you to offer them credit, where credit is due.



And if there is no credit due? A fact is not an invention, it is already the case and not up for grabs

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

Gord wrote:All I see posted here are opinions.

And that's all you will see unless you investigate further.

Incorrect. All you have posted are opinions, and all I have posted are opinions. There is nothing more to see in our statements, regardless of "further investigation".


It all depends on your stand point. All this exchange of information happens merely for entertainment purposes. Words are not as important to me as you would deem them for yourself. I'm well aware of their limits, mere inventions related by convention to repeated habit and experiences. To you they mean everything, you hang on their every last syllable. If a man digging for water got obsessed with every shovel full of dirt he would never reach the substratum in which the water is contained. To understand what I'm telling you you must go beyond the words into intelligence. Further investigation starts when you are prepared to give up your preoccupation with words and the relative meanings.


Gord wrote:What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

I have nothing against opinions and I do not feel it necessary to post my own, in fact! non compels. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.

And yet all you do is post your own opinions and then complain when others post theirs.


Oh no. You see what you want to see, I make no complaint. Only the urge for you to see the error in you way of thinking.

Gord wrote: I argue with facts quite often. I've uses them in my arguments in the past. Have you ever tried it? It can be quite refreshing.


Yours is the refreshment of a stale beer. You are mistaking the fact with your opinion. And of course if you are interested in the I am the body ideanatural you will be awash with them. There is only consciousness what you claim to be yours is within this consciousness. If you identify with its content naturally you will remain tethered, limited and restricted to realm of dogma.

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Gord wrote:Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here?

I am aware that I am conscious within that focus of awareness there are words that of being exchange.

Just say "no" then.


No is not the whole picture, yes is only half.

Gord wrote:In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across.

You are confused because you think it is really happening - whatever it is you think you know. It is only because of your memory why you think there is continuity in what you say. To me it is all momentary, what is real cannot be contained in a memory.

You are confused because you claim to know what I think when you show no ability to comprehend what I've said.


I do not know what you think only the manner in which you think. You world of thoughts and feelings is a personal and private one. I can only comprehend that it is a misunderstanding. The part cannot be greater than the whole but the whole can be seen in the part, as in a holographic image.

Gord wrote:This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

It is enough to know that words are being exchange, their meaning however sublime do not convey the fact of the matter.

Where's that picture, I need that picture...ah! Here we are:
WRONG.png


From the perspective of the mind it is both right and wrong. I need not give you the ABC here, you know based on your own facts that there will be those who believe it so and those who do not. But beyond the mind it is neither.


Gord wrote:So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

The why cannot be exact for you need to know who is asking before you can know the why. How can two minds agree if they are in different places? It is not a result of what I am saying why I think you are confused it's more to do with how you have understood what you think you already know.

Actually, the "why" can be reasonably exact.


Reasonably exact is not absolute, within the absolute there is no room for reason.

Gord wrote: The reason why you think I'm the one who is confused is because, as usual, you're just wrong and just you don't know it.


Like I said,, it is more to do with how you have understood what you think (and think being the operational word here) you already know.


Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

Neither brain or mind can be seen as an accurate description for they are built on a false notion . The brain is an abstract idea of an abstraction idea.

Nah. Your weird religious beliefs are the ones built on false notions.


false notion :lol: None can be more false than the I am the body idea around it you base all your false assumptions.

Gord wrote: I don't understand why you bother to post them here, on a skeptics website. Are you unable to deal with your uncertainties with your beliefs yourself, and feel the need to get others to critique them for you?


Absolutely not. But try as you might if your critique is done in earnest it will bring you back to yourself. Otherwise your web of confusion merely expands until consumed by its own object of expanse. When the black holes of ignorance are swollow up by their own greatness, there is nothing left but the light of awareness.

Gord wrote: So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things.

NO! How can a memory of a thing be real if a thing in itself is not real? Ultimately no thing can be real. They may have a momentary reality based on your impartation of reality. In other words if you are not there then no-thing is there.

Every thing is real in one sense or another.


Certainly you can say a thing has a temporary reality, it is what we know as the empirical, the actual and the factual. But ultimately these constraint are related to time and space.

Gord wrote: You cannot impart reality on something except by creating the concept in your own brain.


Exactly my points.

Gord wrote:But the thing upon which that concept itself is created was also a real thing, which existed regardless of you or your brain.



In other words the principle prior to the birth. That principle in which the concept is created is the only reality


Gord wrote: The Moon is there whether you look at it or not. It does cease to exist when you blink, and come back into existence when you open your eyes again. Only the imagery in your mind is affected by your blink.


We are almost stand on the same ground here. The moon is there whether you look at it or not because it is a reflection. It is there as long as the consciousness is there. When I look I see a reflection of the consciousness. When you look you see a tree or a cloud, the sun or the moon. If I were to see you in person it would be as if the consciousness is looking back at itself. This consciousness is the same consciousness that resides in me, you a rock or an elephant. The only difference is that the consciousness in the Rock is at rest, whilst the consciousness in the elephant, me or you is on the move. It is only the consciousness that is seeing, hence the reason we all see the tree or the sun or the rock. The seer and the seen are invented by the mind. This consciousness you can call what you like, the observer, God. Essentially it is the principle prior to the birth of the embodiment of this consciousness. When your bodies charge depletes it will be of no use to the consciousness so it evacuates and returns to source.



Gord wrote:You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings,

What is consider general may be wrong altogether. When referring to the fact reality and existence are quite apart. Through no will or imagination can you interchange the two. Reality is not in the picture. The picture is merely a rendition of your brain consciousness , it may as well be smoke. What is real cannot be a product of the imagination. Existence is transient and related to something in time and space, it needs the support of consciousness. Whilst reality is in and of itself, unsupported. In general existence is considered real because of its tangibility but this is only during your waking state. What appears and disappears has no reality. Are you aware of anything tangible existing in your sleep?

I won't quibble between ranks, a general is as good as a major to me, but you're attempting to redefine words in a way I cannot accept.


Naturally you are not going to accept. A word emptied of all preconceived notions is a word you may as well throw in the bin. From the perspective of the body it is meaningless. Until you can take yourself out of the equation you will not see with clarity. There is no attempt to redefine any of the words I use. All I'm doing is using the word in its absolute sense. When addressing the reality you cannot use words based on there relative meaning, the reality is one single homogenous whole, not two. There is no duality in reality. Reality is not a place where you can shop for ideas that best describes it


Gord wrote:Such differentiation may be useful in metaphysics, but not in physics, which is the study of actual reality rather than the mere concepts created by humans in their attempts (often misled) to understand themselves. Reality and existence are effectively synonyms.


That maybe the case in the world of physics but the demarcation line between the two is clearly seen if you look closer. All that exists is based on a human conception. But nothing exists if nobody is there to observe it. Therefore how can there be a relationship between that which is and that which merely appears to exist?


Gord wrote:If all you want to do is think in terms of metaphysics, go right ahead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/ I'll stick with what I consider a more grounded approach, however.


You cannot think in terms of the reality. For me the
metaphysical approach is just another tool for exploring the possibilities. For you it is just another word that you've invented to term that which you do not fully understand.




Gord wrote:while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

The reality cannot be defined so it is not a question of providing a definition. You can know it for yourself by being yourself. Nobody need provide you with a definition. It is self evident when you come to know what you are in reality.

Reality: the state or quality of having existence


Gord wrote:Well, that was easy. Next!


You accuse me of redefining words and here you are doing the same thing. Reality is being actual or true .
A thought exists in the mind but it is not actual it is remembered. Obviously it's not as easy as you imagine, (again imagine being the operational word here).

As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are.

Being cannot be wrong, is it wrong for a tree to bear poisonous fruits? In reality whatever is done in the light of aware is right whatever is done in the darkness of ignorance is wrong. Become more aware of yourself as you are in reality and you will understand that nobody is doing anything, it all happens by itself.

You can be wrong, you've demonstrated it often by doing what you do.


That how you see it, look again. You should never go by the first impression it leaves a stain which can be hard to remove.

Gord wrote: Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.

There is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

There is definitely ignorance.


From your perspective there is obviously both. For you define yourself in such a way that ignorance becomes a necessary corollary.

It is only because you have become self conscious of something in particular that you know of your ignorance and that of the others.

Wait, you just said there wasn't any ignorance. It was literally the previous sentence. You didn't even go 20 words before contradicting yourself.


There is no contradiction, in reality there isn't any ignorance or knowledge. For who is there to be ignorant and of what? To be self conscious and not know it is to be asleep. Unawareness is the birthplace of ignorance.

Gord wrote: This is what I keep telling you. You don't know what you're talking about!


When you know what you teach you can teach what you know.

Gord wrote: You should seriously sit yourself down and figure out what you believe before you try explaining it to anyone else.


Self knowledge is not for those who prefer their dream state.

Gord wrote:Maybe you could read a book on the topic. Or maybe there's a comic book version, with pictures and Batman and stuff. That would be cool. I'd read that.


:lol: Yeah they might have cards that I could collect and trade with others, that would be real cool Gord. I bet ellard knows where to get them. :senile: :lol:

When you go to sleep at night it is all forgotten. Remember your self consciousness is only in your waking state not in your sleep. You are only alive in your sleep.

Uh, no, I remember my day while I'm asleep: It's called dreaming.


It is all the same to me day or night, they are both in dreaming. As a matter of fact all three states, wake, dream and sleep are in dreaming. You dream that you are awake you dream that you are asleep.

Btw REM sleep does not occur in deep sleep. You remember nothing there.

Gord wrote: And I'm alive all the time, otherwise I'd be dead, which is pretty much an irreversible condition.


Of course you are! But you cannot say the same for the self conscious, that is only apparent in you waking state .

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:25 pm

Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I may have done, I may have just heard it somewhere. The consciousness records everything whether you are present of not. Where this figure of speech originated is irrelevant, what matters is its purpose of highlighting your habitual use of formal language. The fact is non verbal, what has a non sequitur have to do with the fact?

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

Ah! A bewilderment of confusion. It's to be expected. When one is on unfamiliar ground the brain is bound to be bewildered and confused. Especially if one refuses to open ones eye, what do you expect.

Exactly. That's what I keep telling you.

Gord wrote:I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit.

For what? I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank.

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

Belief shapes the experience and the experience shapes the belief. If you think it so shall it be.

Not exactly. You're conflating "thinking" with "believing". You can also falsify a belief through experience.

Gord wrote:I take credit for your reflexive posting of a non sequitur.

You can have your reflexive non sequitur and be glad of it. But remember as long as you are taking there is no room for you to receive what is given.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.

Gord wrote:Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Probably for the same reason why you would think that there was credit in the offering in the first place. Who can take credit for a fact? The fact is there before any notion of merit or demerit.

Anyone can take credit for a fact. Nor should one wait for you to offer them credit, where credit is due.

And if there is no credit due? A fact is not an invention, it is already the case and not up for grabs

A fact can be discovered, and credit goes to the discoverer. A fact can also be generated through one's actions, such as the fact that Usain Bolt won 9 Olympic gold medals.

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

Gord wrote:All I see posted here are opinions.

And that's all you will see unless you investigate further.

Incorrect. All you have posted are opinions, and all I have posted are opinions. There is nothing more to see in our statements, regardless of "further investigation".

It all depends on your stand point.

Or your awareness of facts.

All this exchange of information happens merely for entertainment purposes.

Duh.

Words are not as important to me as you would deem them for yourself.

And yet, here you are, posting words on an internet forum. Words are so important to you here that you keep coming back.

I'm well aware of their limits, mere inventions related by convention to repeated habit and experiences. To you they mean everything, you hang on their every last syllable.

You've exaggerated the importance of your words, after claiming they mean little. I agree your words mean little.

If a man digging for water got obsessed with every shovel full of dirt he would never reach the substratum in which the water is contained.

Sure he would. There just doesn't seem to be any water where you're digging. You also keep shovelling the same dirt over and over again without ever getting any deeper.

To understand what I'm telling you you must go beyond the words into intelligence.

I have. You haven't.

Further investigation starts when you are prepared to give up your preoccupation with words and the relative meanings.

WRONG.png


Further investigation starts when you actually provide some information. So far, there's nothing here to investigate.

You're posting on the internet, where words and their meanings are all you have to work with when conveying information. Yet you've chosen to get hung up on your inability to communicate, which you somehow feel is your strength. Well, if that's truly where your strength lies, you could achieve the same goal by not posting anything at all.

Gord wrote:What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

I have nothing against opinions and I do not feel it necessary to post my own, in fact! non compels. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.

And yet all you do is post your own opinions and then complain when others post theirs.

Oh no. You see what you want to see, I make no complaint. Only the urge for you to see the error in you way of thinking.

I see what there is to see, and you've made the same complaint over and over again.

If you want to correct an error in thinking, please start with yourself.

Gord wrote:I argue with facts quite often. I've uses them in my arguments in the past. Have you ever tried it? It can be quite refreshing.

Yours is the refreshment of a stale beer.

Then why do you keep coming back? For someone who suggests they don't like stale beer, you certainly seem to enjoy sipping at it.

You are mistaking the fact with your opinion.

No, you.

And of course if you are interested in the I am the body ideanatural you will be awash with them.

I'm interested in reality and the way things work. That requires investigating the facts, to the best of my ability. It's why I keep coming back to your stale beer. I ask again and again for a newer beer, but you are unable to unwilling to provide one. Are you so hung up on stale beer that it's all you have, or are you so hung up on stale beer that it's all you're willing to provide for others?

There is only consciousness what you claim to be yours is within this consciousness. If you identify with its content naturally you will remain tethered, limited and restricted to realm of dogma.

Your dogma seems untethered by any facts. All I see from you is fantasy.

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Gord wrote:Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here?

I am aware that I am conscious within that focus of awareness there are words that of being exchange.

Just say "no" then.

No is not the whole picture, yes is only half.

No, it's the whole picture: You are attempting to communicate through words and images here. There is no "other half" to it. That's all you've got to work with. You're on the internet.

Gord wrote:In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across.

You are confused because you think it is really happening - whatever it is you think you know. It is only because of your memory why you think there is continuity in what you say. To me it is all momentary, what is real cannot be contained in a memory.

You are confused because you claim to know what I think when you show no ability to comprehend what I've said.

I do not know what you think only the manner in which you think.

No, you really don't.

You world of thoughts and feelings is a personal and private one. I can only comprehend that it is a misunderstanding. The part cannot be greater than the whole but the whole can be seen in the part, as in a holographic image.

The only thing you comprehend about me is that you misunderstand me. I have no argument with that, you clearly do.

Gord wrote:This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

It is enough to know that words are being exchange, their meaning however sublime do not convey the fact of the matter.

Where's that picture, I need that picture...ah! Here we are:
WRONG.png

From the perspective of the mind it is both right and wrong. I need not give you the ABC here, you know based on your own facts that there will be those who believe it so and those who do not. But beyond the mind it is neither.

From the perspective of everything about communication, it is wrong. You repeatedly go back to "beliefs" when what we're looking for are "facts". Words are being exchanged, but it is not enough to know only that, otherwise we wouldn't need to be exchanging word at all. To communicate, we must convey meaning in our exchanges. If I write "banana" and you read "orange", our communication is extremely weak and any exchange of knowledge is hampered by corrupted meaning.

If you want to be understood, you need to give the ABC. Otherwise you are just farting in the wind.

Gord wrote:So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

The why cannot be exact for you need to know who is asking before you can know the why. How can two minds agree if they are in different places? It is not a result of what I am saying why I think you are confused it's more to do with how you have understood what you think you already know.

Actually, the "why" can be reasonably exact.

Reasonably exact is not absolute, within the absolute there is no room for reason.

No one is asking you for an absolute, only for reasonable exactness. We're looking for reason, not fantasy.

Gord wrote:The reason why you think I'm the one who is confused is because, as usual, you're just wrong and just you don't know it.

Like I said,, it is more to do with how you have understood what you think (and think being the operational word here) you already know.

I agree. You think I'm the one who is confused because your understanding of what you think (and think is the operation word here) you already know.

I, on the other hand, keep asking for more information. Your inability or unwillingness to provide it leads me to make my preliminary conclusions based on what little I can glean from your poor communication skills.

Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

Neither brain or mind can be seen as an accurate description for they are built on a false notion . The brain is an abstract idea of an abstraction idea.

Nah. Your weird religious beliefs are the ones built on false notions.

false notion :lol: None can be more false than the I am the body idea around it you base all your false assumptions.

It's not an assumption, it's the result of investigation. You may not like the facts and are therefore willing to ignore them, but I am not.

If you wanted to change my mind (and it's clear that you don't), you would gladly provide me with more information with which to work. But instead, we are just exchanging posts designed to take up time. This is my hobby, I assume (yes, this time it is an assumption) that it's yours now too.

Gord wrote:I don't understand why you bother to post them here, on a skeptics website. Are you unable to deal with your uncertainties with your beliefs yourself, and feel the need to get others to critique them for you?

Absolutely not. But try as you might if your critique is done in earnest it will bring you back to yourself. Otherwise your web of confusion merely expands until consumed by its own object of expanse.

"Absolutely not," he says, and then keeps on doing it.

Critiquing you does not lead me back to myself in any particularly powerful way. The flimsy "web of confusion" you've tried to weave isn't exactly a cornucopia of epiphanies.

Gord wrote:So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things.

NO! How can a memory of a thing be real if a thing in itself is not real? Ultimately no thing can be real. They may have a momentary reality based on your impartation of reality. In other words if you are not there then no-thing is there.

Every thing is real in one sense or another.

Certainly you can say a thing has a temporary reality, it is what we know as the empirical, the actual and the factual. But ultimately these constraint are related to time and space.

Do you find meaning in what you've typed? All reality is "related to time and space".

Gord wrote:You cannot impart reality on something except by creating the concept in your own brain.

Exactly my points.

No, your point is that nothing else exists except the things created in your own brain. My point is that other things do exist regardless of your own brain.

Gord wrote:But the thing upon which that concept itself is created was also a real thing, which existed regardless of you or your brain.

In other words the principle prior to the birth. That principle in which the concept is created is the only reality

No. Principles are created by the brain, not the other way around. They are meanings created in order to understand the reality around you.

Gord wrote:The Moon is there whether you look at it or not. It does cease to exist when you blink, and come back into existence when you open your eyes again. Only the imagery in your mind is affected by your blink.

We are almost stand on the same ground here.

Except I'm on Earth and you're on the Moon.

The moon is there whether you look at it or not because it is a reflection. It is there as long as the consciousness is there.

The Moon is not a reflection. It is a physical object that exists whether you know about it or not.

When I look I see a reflection of the consciousness.

No, when you look, you create a mental landscape describing your physical environment, derived from incoming sensory information imparted to you by the effects of that physical environment upon your physical form.

When you look you see a tree or a cloud, the sun or the moon. If I were to see you in person it would be as if the consciousness is looking back at itself.

If you were to see me in person, it would be as if a mental patient were staring at me with hungry eyes.

This consciousness is the same consciousness that resides in me, you a rock or an elephant.

No, the consciousness is created by the brain, and does not extend beyond it. Nor can a rock create a consciousness.

The only difference is that the consciousness in the Rock is at rest, whilst the consciousness in the elephant, me or you is on the move.

That's not even wrong.

It is only the consciousness that is seeing, hence the reason we all see the tree or the sun or the rock. The seer and the seen are invented by the mind. This consciousness you can call what you like, the observer, God. Essentially it is the principle prior to the birth of the embodiment of this consciousness. When your bodies charge depletes it will be of no use to the consciousness so it evacuates and returns to source.

Nah. Your religious belief is not compelling to me. Rather than explaining anything to me, it just suggests there is nothing to investigate.

Gord wrote:You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings,

What is consider general may be wrong altogether. When referring to the fact reality and existence are quite apart. Through no will or imagination can you interchange the two. Reality is not in the picture. The picture is merely a rendition of your brain consciousness , it may as well be smoke. What is real cannot be a product of the imagination. Existence is transient and related to something in time and space, it needs the support of consciousness. Whilst reality is in and of itself, unsupported. In general existence is considered real because of its tangibility but this is only during your waking state. What appears and disappears has no reality. Are you aware of anything tangible existing in your sleep?

I won't quibble between ranks, a general is as good as a major to me, but you're attempting to redefine words in a way I cannot accept.

Naturally you are not going to accept.

Naturally. Accepting the unacceptable would not be a very skeptical thing to do.

A word emptied of all preconceived notions is a word you may as well throw in the bin.

A word "emptied of all preconceived notions" has no meaning and isn't even a word. It's not even a sound. Or an image.

From the perspective of the body it is meaningless. Until you can take yourself out of the equation you will not see with clarity. There is no attempt to redefine any of the words I use. All I'm doing is using the word in its absolute sense. When addressing the reality you cannot use words based on there relative meaning, the reality is one single homogenous whole, not two. There is no duality in reality. Reality is not a place where you can shop for ideas that best describes it

If you take yourself out of the equation, you can't discover anything about yourself.

All you're doing is using words in absolute nonsense. When addressing reality, all you have to communicate with are words in their relative meanings. Reality is a place where you must, and do, and are highly encouraged to, shop for ideas and words that best describe it. That's what communication is all about. If you say it is impossible to describe something at all, then you are claiming it is impossible to know that thing at all, and any claim you can make about it is going to be false (including the one you just made about it being impossible to know).

Gord wrote:Such differentiation may be useful in metaphysics, but not in physics, which is the study of actual reality rather than the mere concepts created by humans in their attempts (often misled) to understand themselves. Reality and existence are effectively synonyms.

That maybe the case in the world of physics but the demarcation line between the two is clearly seen if you look closer. All that exists is based on a human conception. But nothing exists if nobody is there to observe it. Therefore how can there be a relationship between that which is and that which merely appears to exist?

All that exists does so regardless of human conception (or perception for that matter). The everything that exists (outside of the mind) does so regardless of anyone there to "observe" it.

Gord wrote:If all you want to do is think in terms of metaphysics, go right ahead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/ I'll stick with what I consider a more grounded approach, however.

You cannot think in terms of the reality. For me the
metaphysical approach is just another tool for exploring the possibilities. For you it is just another word that you've invented to term that which you do not fully understand.

I didn't invent the word, it's been around since at least the 17th century. As a tool, is does a poor job of exploring reality and a very good job of confusing people like yourself.

Gord wrote:while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

The reality cannot be defined so it is not a question of providing a definition. You can know it for yourself by being yourself. Nobody need provide you with a definition. It is self evident when you come to know what you are in reality.

Reality: the state or quality of having existence


Well, that was easy. Next!

You accuse me of redefining words and here you are doing the same thing.

No, I looked it up on google.

Reality is being actual or true .

Huh, I'd like to see the link to that definition.

A thought exists in the mind but it is not actual it is remembered. Obviously it's not as easy as you imagine, (again imagine being the operational word here).

Thoughts are actual things. It exists, as you say, which makes it an actual thing. Remembering is the way the brain acts with thoughts.

As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are.

Being cannot be wrong, is it wrong for a tree to bear poisonous fruits? In reality whatever is done in the light of aware is right whatever is done in the darkness of ignorance is wrong. Become more aware of yourself as you are in reality and you will understand that nobody is doing anything, it all happens by itself.

You can be wrong, you've demonstrated it often by doing what you do.

That how you see it, look again. You should never go by the first impression it leaves a stain which can be hard to remove.

I look again and again, and you remain wrong.

If I had gone with my first impression of you, I would have been correct: After all this time, after all your posts, you remain a stain. ;)

Gord wrote: Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.

There is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

There is definitely ignorance.

From your perspective there is obviously both. For you define yourself in such a way that ignorance becomes a necessary corollary.

I define you in such a way that ignorance becomes a necessary descriptive term.

It is only because you have become self conscious of something in particular that you know of your ignorance and that of the others.

Wait, you just said there wasn't any ignorance. It was literally the previous sentence. You didn't even go 20 words before contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction, in reality there isn't any ignorance or knowledge. For who is there to be ignorant and of what? To be self conscious and not know it is to be asleep. Unawareness is the birthplace of ignorance.

In reality there is ignorance and knowledge, based upon the definitions of those two words. You, for instance, are ignorant of everyone whose existence you remain unaware. You can't be self-conscious and not know it, those are synonyms. Unawareness is ignorance (which, incidentally, you just said doesn't exist in reality, and then three sentences later you implied there was).

Gord wrote:This is what I keep telling you. You don't know what you're talking about!

When you know what you teach you can teach what you know.

Then I will teach everyone that you don't know what you're talking about. I guess. Wait, do I have to? :pardon: I'm pretty sure you can do that yourself, even if you don't know it yourself.

Gord wrote: You should seriously sit yourself down and figure out what you believe before you try explaining it to anyone else.

Self knowledge is not for those who prefer their dream state.

Yes, you certainly seem averse to self-knowledge.

Gord wrote:Maybe you could read a book on the topic. Or maybe there's a comic book version, with pictures and Batman and stuff. That would be cool. I'd read that.

:lol: Yeah they might have cards that I could collect and trade with others, that would be real cool Gord. I bet ellard knows where to get them. :senile: :lol:

I don't think they have trading cards in Australia. Just beer and koalas. Or have I been watching the wrong tv shows?

When you go to sleep at night it is all forgotten. Remember your self consciousness is only in your waking state not in your sleep. You are only alive in your sleep.

Uh, no, I remember my day while I'm asleep: It's called dreaming.

It is all the same to me day or night, they are both in dreaming. As a matter of fact all three states, wake, dream and sleep are in dreaming. You dream that you are awake you dream that you are asleep.

That's not what "dreaming" means. You're redefining words again, but at least this time I can determine what you mean by them.

And of course I disagree. There seems no point in taking a word that defines things narrowly, and redefining it in a broader sense. That's like taking the word "yellow" and defining it to also mean "orange" and "red". You don't need to do that. Just create a new term to mean "yellow/orange/red". For example, "autumn colours" or "warm colours" or "yellow-red colours".

Btw REM sleep does not occur in deep sleep. You remember nothing there.

You didn't specify "deep sleep", just just said "waking state" and "sleep". It's right there in the quote. You didn't even need to remember it, you could have gone back and checked.

Gord wrote:And I'm alive all the time, otherwise I'd be dead, which is pretty much an irreversible condition.

Of course you are! But you cannot say the same for the self conscious, that is only apparent in you waking state.

I can be self-conscious while asleep. And I'm not dead while I'm asleep; my consciousness is merely less obvious while my brain is in a semi-dormant state.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Gord on Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Lausten » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:33 pm

Wow
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5985
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Flash » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:22 pm

Exactly! OMG aka WTF :mrgreen:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Nobrot » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:12 pm

Long time lurker.. bla bla.

I have registered to express my utter contempt with regard these goings on. How does the saying go: an outsider looking in would be hard pressed to tell who are the idiots.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:11 am

Nobrot wrote:Long time lurker.. bla bla.

I have registered to express my utter contempt with regard these goings on. How does the saying go: an outsider looking in would be hard pressed to tell who are the idiots.

Hi how ya doin'! :wave:

Yes, we're all idiots here. :mrgreen:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18907
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:59 am

Yay, where is your Mandel, Nobrot? :-P

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Nobrot » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:50 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Yay, where is your Mandel, Nobrot? :-P


Nobrot: I'm kind of nervous when I take tests.

scrmbldggs: Uh, just please don't move.

Nobrot: Oh, sorry. I already had an IQ test this year, I don't think I've ever had one of these.

scrmbldggs: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you see a mandel.

Nobrot: mandel, what's that?

scrmbldggs: Know what a mandolin is?

Nobrot: You mean a Fender Stratocaster?

scrmbldggs: Same thing.

Nobrot whips out his Mandelbrot and hoses the lot of um! And there was much rejoicing.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18907
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:05 am

 
Spoiler:
 

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:13 am

Nobrot wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Yay, where is your Mandel, Nobrot? :-P


Nobrot: I'm kind of nervous when I take tests.

scrmbldggs: Uh, just please don't move.

Nobrot: Oh, sorry. I already had an IQ test this year, I don't think I've ever had one of these.

scrmbldggs: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you see a mandel.

Nobrot: mandel, what's that?

scrmbldggs: Know what a mandolin is?

Nobrot: You mean a Fender Stratocaster?

scrmbldggs: Same thing.

Nobrot whips out his Mandelbrot and hoses the lot of um! And there was much rejoicing.

:befuddled: Are you me?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:54 am

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:My stance is from the real. From there nothing happens, nobody is doing anything.

You don't even know what it is you're saying. I'm sure you think you're using real words to mean real things, but you're actually contradicting yourself when you apply the words the way you do.

:lol: :lol: :lol: There are no real words just Mickey Mouse communications. You lot wouldn't know the definition of a contradiction if it hit you in the face. The facts are non- verbal remember, words do not convey them they can only signal them. Have you shaved yet? This could be your problem :lol: :lol:

That's what I thought: You literally have no idea what you're saying.

:lol: :lol: Whilst scratching your head you've thought a lot of things, whether it has made any difference remains to be seen.

You haven't made me scratch much of anything. Nor could you tell the difference if you had, since you still struggle with the concept of what is real. Despite all the time wasted on you, you seem unable to learn.

Whether mental or physical a reflex is not a voluntary action so there is no question of anybody making you do anything it all happens by itself.

You reflexively stated a non sequitur, for which I gladly take credit.

I wasn't asking you to accept anything I was stating a fact. But if you insist on using verbal acrobatics you might want to have a safety net in place. Otherwise you are destined to fall and hurt yourself.

"Verbal acrobatics?" Did you get that out of a book somewhere?

I may have done, I may have just heard it somewhere. The consciousness records everything whether you are present of not. Where this figure of speech originated is irrelevant, what matters is its purpose of highlighting your habitual use of formal language. The fact is non verbal, what has a non sequitur have to do with the fact?

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

Ah! A bewilderment of confusion. It's to be expected. When one is on unfamiliar ground the brain is bound to be bewildered and confused. Especially if one refuses to open ones eye, what do you expect.

Exactly. That's what I keep telling you.


Lol!! So why don't you listen?

Gord wrote:I gladly take credit not because you asked me to, but simply because I gladly take credit.

For what? I didn't state a non sequitur, I stated a fact. A fact is not a non sequitur it is a fact, point simple point blank.

You do not have the facts, you have a confusing bewilderment.

Belief shapes the experience and the experience shapes the belief. If you think it so shall it be.

Not exactly. You're conflating "thinking" with "believing". You can also falsify a belief through experience.


And vice versa. Needless to say unless you make the two one there is no clarity.

Gord wrote:I take credit for your reflexive posting of a non sequitur.

You can have your reflexive non sequitur and be glad of it. But remember as long as you are taking there is no room for you to receive what is given.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.


Again, none is given.

Gord wrote:Whyever do you think I would only take credit for something if you had asked me to do it?

Probably for the same reason why you would think that there was credit in the offering in the first place. Who can take credit for a fact? The fact is there before any notion of merit or demerit.

Anyone can take credit for a fact. Nor should one wait for you to offer them credit, where credit is due.

And if there is no credit due? A fact is not an invention, it is already the case and not up for grabs

A fact can be discovered, and credit goes to the discoverer. A fact can also be generated through one's actions, such as the fact that Usain Bolt won 9 Olympic gold medals.


The real fact of the matter does not change with the times and events. The discovery of a real fact is timelessly in the now. Usain Bolt having won his 9 Olympic gold medals will in time be relegated to the footnote of history and then forgotten completely. So what?

Still I'm not surprise if you find it difficult to differentiate between the voluntary and the involuntary.

From what I've seen of your posts, you cannot claim to be able to differentiate between between voluntary and involuntary reactions.

On your part that is merely a matter of opinion, for which I am not in the least interested. And since an opinion is invariably attached to the mind you might want to look elsewhere.

All I see posted here are opinions.

And that's all you will see unless you investigate further.

Incorrect. All you have posted are opinions, and all I have posted are opinions. There is nothing more to see in our statements, regardless of "further investigation".

It all depends on your stand point.

Or your awareness of facts.


If you are in full awareness you will know the fact.

All this exchange of information happens merely for entertainment purposes.

Duh.


At least we agree on something.

Words are not as important to me as you would deem them for yourself.

And yet, here you are, posting words on an internet forum. Words are so important to you here that you keep coming back.


Like I said, words are merely for entertainment, I love the banter, especially with you. When can we have tea and cookies Gord?

I'm well aware of their limits, mere inventions related by convention to repeated habit and experiences. To you they mean everything, you hang on their every last syllable.

You've exaggerated the importance of your words, after claiming they mean little. I agree your words mean little.


You obviously misunderstand, yet expect me to present a case for arguments sake. How contradictory.

If a man digging for water got obsessed with every shovel full of dirt he would never reach the substratum in which the water is contained.

Sure he would. There just doesn't seem to be any water where you're digging.


There's plenty of water, just nobody there to drink it.


You also keep shovelling the same dirt over and over again without ever getting any deeper.


It's hardly surprising. Where there is no depth you are bound to the surface.


To understand what I'm telling you you must go beyond the words into intelligence.

I have. You haven't.


Now that's a matter of opinion.

Further investigation starts when you are prepared to give up your preoccupation with words and the relative meanings.

WRONG.png


It is also right as well.

Further investigation starts when you actually provide some information. So far, there's nothing here to investigate.


Turn your lights on. What do you expect to see in the dark?

You're posting on the internet, where words and their meanings are all you have to work with when conveying information.


The facts are available as well, you just can't convey them in words.

Yet you've chosen to get hung up on your inability to communicate, which you somehow feel is your strength. Well, if that's truly where your strength lies, you could achieve the same goal by not posting anything at all.


Of course you are basing this little insight on the autonomy of an individual. Which to all intent an purpose jus doesn't exist. Can you prove that you have an independent existence? For communication to be effective there must be a reception, then and only then can the event becomes useful and purposeful.

Gord wrote:What have you got against opinions, and why do you feel it necessary to keep posting your own if you don't like them in the first place?

I have nothing against opinions and I do not feel it necessary to post my own, in fact! non compels. A fact is a fact whether you agree or not, you cannot argue with the fact.

And yet all you do is post your own opinions and then complain when others post theirs.

Oh no. You see what you want to see, I make no complaint. Only the urge for you to see the error in you way of thinking.

I see what there is to see, and you've made the same complaint over and over again.


Then you have seen nothing but an error of judgment. Appearances are misleading as well you know. You cannot judge a book by its cover.

If you want to correct an error in thinking, please start with yourself.


I am doing nothing but! You are as I am, we are one of the same. We are different but not separate. There is only the self. It is one not two.

Gord wrote:I argue with facts quite often. I've uses them in my arguments in the past. Have you ever tried it? It can be quite refreshing.

Yours is the refreshment of a stale beer.

Then why do you keep coming back? For someone who suggests they don't like stale beer, you certainly seem to enjoy sipping at it.


There is obviously some enjoyment. But who is enjoying and what is being enjoyed I do not know.

You are mistaking the fact with your opinion.

No, you.

Me?

And of course if you are interested in the I am the body ideanatural you will be awash with them.

I'm interested in reality and the way things work. That requires investigating the facts, to the best of my ability. It's why I keep coming back to your stale beer. I ask again and again for a newer beer, but you are unable to unwilling to provide one. Are you so hung up on stale beer that it's all you have, or are you so hung up on stale beer that it's all you're willing to provide for others?


You are interested in your dream and nothing else. It is the variety of colour, shape and form that distracts you. I offer you the taste of pure water but unless there is hops present you will not drink from the cup. You cannot know the nature of reality by examining the picture it projects. You can know what it is not in this way. Otherwise it is like trying to adjust the tie on the image in the mirror.

There is only consciousness what you claim to be yours is within this consciousness. If you identify with its content naturally you will remain tethered, limited and restricted to realm of dogma.

Your dogma seems untethered by any facts.


Of course, the fact do not bind, they set free.

You have yet to figure out the difference between the actual and the remember, remember. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand that memories are actual things.

It is your obsession with words and images that confuses you.

Are you unaware that you're attempting to communicate through words and images here?

I am aware that I am conscious within that focus of awareness there are words that of being exchange.

Just say "no" then.

No is not the whole picture, yes is only half.

No, it's the whole picture: You are attempting to communicate through words and images here. There is no "other half" to it. That's all you've got to work with. You're on the internet.



I am not attempting to do anything. I am aware that there is a line of communication open. It is not bound by any definition of yes or no.

Gord wrote:In other words, if you think I'm confused, then you must think it's because of what you're saying and the way you are failing to get your meaning across.

You are confused because you think it is really happening - whatever it is you think you know. It is only because of your memory why you think there is continuity in what you say. To me it is all momentary, what is real cannot be contained in a memory.

You are confused because you claim to know what I think when you show no ability to comprehend what I've said.

I do not know what you think only the manner in which you think.

No, you really don't.


The mind and its working mechanisms are quite easy to understand, the trick is to silence it first. It is not rocket science. Similarly you cannot work on a car engine whilst it is running.

You world of thoughts and feelings is a personal and private one. I can only comprehend that it is a misunderstanding. The part cannot be greater than the whole but the whole can be seen in the part, as in a holographic image.

The only thing you comprehend about me is that you misunderstand me. I have no argument with that, you clearly do.


A misunderstanding is not in the nature of comprehending. Like I said the me is private and personal. I have no argument with that .

Gord wrote:This is, in fact, what I've said to you before -- that you don't know what you're actually saying.

It is enough to know that words are being exchange, their meaning however sublime do not convey the fact of the matter.

Where's that picture, I need that picture...ah! Here we are:
WRONG.png

From the perspective of the mind it is both right and wrong. I need not give you the ABC here, you know based on your own facts that there will be those who believe it so and those who do not. But beyond the mind it is neither.

From the perspective of everything about communication, it is wrong. You repeatedly go back to "beliefs" when what we're looking for are "facts". Words are being exchanged, but it is not enough to know only that, otherwise we wouldn't need to be exchanging word at all.


And we need not, I've already told you the fact is non verbal. You perceive because of that which is unperceived, you think because of that which is unthinkable, you feel because of that which is unfelt, you see because of that which is unseen. When you look at the sun do you think about it or see it? Let me put it in a more simplified way. When you look at the sun do you have to think about it in order for you to see it? The problem we have here is the same as what I have with the other members. You do not see things as they are, you involve the imagination and see what you want to see.

Gord wrote:To communicate, we must convey meaning in our exchanges.


It is for you to become more receptive, but for your preconceived ideas of relative meanings and their conventional relations you do not see the obvious.

Gord wrote:If I write "banana" and you read "orange",


Such is the nature of reality. You cannot pin it. It pins you.


Gord wrote:our communication is extremely weak and any exchange of knowledge is hampered by corrupted meaning.


It is the mind that is corrupt. The words that it uses are neutral, the mind will not look at something unless it is coloured and has some sort of shape or form to it, then it is all eyes. If it is formless, shapeless and colourless the mind cannot catch hold of it, thus it is deem unworthy.


Gord wrote:If you want to be understood, you need to give the ABC. Otherwise you are just farting in the wind.


Lol!! On the contrary, there need not be any alphabet involved, I can be understood, but only if the recipient wants to understand. Otherwise as you say it is just farting in the wind.

Gord wrote:So, you seem to be in agreement with me here, and yet you refuse to try to do a better job. Why is that, exactly?

The why cannot be exact for you need to know who is asking before you can know the why. How can two minds agree if they are in different places? It is not a result of what I am saying why I think you are confused it's more to do with how you have understood what you think you already know.

Actually, the "why" can be reasonably exact.

Reasonably exact is not absolute, within the absolute there is no room for reason.

No one is asking you for an absolute, only for reasonable exactness. We're looking for reason, not fantasy.


A fantasy is a happy medium. A reasonable exactness implies a fear of an absolute. Unless you are rid of fear you will not know the fact.


Gord wrote:The reason why you think I'm the one who is confused is because, as usual, you're just wrong and just you don't know it.

Like I said,, it is more to do with how you have understood what you think (and think being the operational word here) you already know.

I agree. You think I'm the one who is confused because your understanding of what you think (and think is the operation word here) you already know.

I, on the other hand, keep asking for more information. Your inability or unwillingness to provide it leads me to make my preliminary conclusions based on what little I can glean from your poor communication skills.


I'm only giving you the shovel and showing you where to dig. It is for you to do the digging. Now! You must use your intelligence. If I give you something then it is just another concept, idea or belief. Such will only serve to undermine the value and true worth of self knowledge. You must do the searching, the investigating the analysing. You must come to your own conclusion. If you don't you might as well sit down and read a book. The truth is not in the information it is what the information is pointing at. You want me to give you some information that you can hold and put in your pocket so you can say here! Look! I have it. You can't hold this, the moment you try it evaporates. It is a paradox.


Memories are made up of thoughts and images, images are symbols that represent the spoken word. Words make up your thoughts. These are things, they actually appear in the mind as do the images -you remember them. But definitely not in the reality. There are no thing's in reality. Things come after the deed, not before. Remember being is not in existence.

I believe you have misused the term "mind" when you meant "brain", so I'll respond as if you had phrased it with the more accurate term.

Neither brain or mind can be seen as an accurate description for they are built on a false notion . The brain is an abstract idea of an abstraction idea.

Nah. Your weird religious beliefs are the ones built on false notions.

false notion :lol: None can be more false than the I am the body idea around it you base all your false assumptions.

It's not an assumption, it's the result of investigation. You may not like the facts and are therefore willing to ignore them, but I am not.




An investigation based on desire and fear cannot be a thorough one. Nevertheless the body is as good a starting point as anywhere else. Where ever you start if it is done in earnest you will reach the core of your investigation. You are merely kicking dust around on the surface and creating dust which serves only to obscure your vision. Facts based on your desires and fears are not the real facts.


Gord wrote: If you wanted to change my mind (and it's clear that you don't), you would gladly provide me with more information with which to work.


Of course I don't. The mind simply moulds itself to the conditions it which it is exposed to. The circumstances dictate how and when it will change. Sure it is the mind that knows but you are the knower of the mind. If anything I'm asking you to pay no attention to it. It functions by itself, you need not goad it.

Information changes with the circumstances. Consciousness is of change. What is that which does not change in you? You have passed through your infancy, adolescent, possibly you middle age and if you are lucky you will not suffer to much with old age.The same consciousness that will be with you in your old age is the same consciousness that was with you in your childhood.


Gord wrote: But instead, we are just exchanging posts designed to take up time. This is my hobby, I assume (yes, this time it is an assumption) that it's yours now too.


As I've already said exchanging information is purely for entertainment purpose, so your assumption is a valid one. But let us not rule out the possibilities.

Gord wrote:I don't understand why you bother to post them here, on a skeptics website. Are you unable to deal with your uncertainties with your beliefs yourself, and feel the need to get others to critique them for you?

Absolutely not. But try as you might if your critique is done in earnest it will bring you back to yourself. Otherwise your web of confusion merely expands until consumed by its own object of expanse.

"Absolutely not," he says, and then keeps on doing it.


Gord wrote: Critiquing you does not lead me back to myself in any particularly powerful way. The flimsy "web of confusion" you've tried to weave isn't exactly a cornucopia of epiphanies.



then you critiquing is not really a critique. Whatever you investigate if it is done sincerely and thorough enough it cancels everything out, including yourself. Only you mustn't be afraid of loosing a fictitious identity. Namely the person you take yourself to be.

Gord wrote:So in other words, you are aware that memories are real things.

NO! How can a memory of a thing be real if a thing in itself is not real? Ultimately no thing can be real. They may have a momentary reality based on your impartation of reality. In other words if you are not there then no-thing is there.

Every thing is real in one sense or another.

Certainly you can say a thing has a temporary reality, it is what we know as the empirical, the actual and the factual. But ultimately these constraint are related to time and space.

Do you find meaning in what you've typed? All reality is "related to time and space".


There's no relation whatsoever. They are related to one another, your body occupies space whilst your mind is in time. You are not in time or space, they are in you. Look closer.

Gord wrote:You cannot impart reality on something except by creating the concept in your own brain.

Exactly my points.

No, your point is that nothing else exists except the things created in your own brain. My point is that other things do exist regardless of your own brain.


Lol! You do not exist never mind the other thing.

Gord wrote:But the thing upon which that concept itself is created was also a real thing, which existed regardless of you or your brain.

In other words the principle prior to the birth. That principle in which the concept is created is the only reality


No. Principles are created by the brain, not the other way round. They are meaning created in order to understand the reality around you.



No. Words are created by the mind. A principle is a general truth. I'm sure I told you to get a dictionary. What you see around you is a product of your imagination. You need not have to create a meaning for the things you see in your imagination, you just see them for what they are. When you go to sleep it is all forgotten. Now how are you going to prove otherwise in your sleep?

Gord wrote:The Moon is there whether you look at it or not. It does cease to exist when you blink, and come back into existence when you open your eyes again. Only the imagery in your mind is affected by your blink.

We are almost stand on the same ground here.

Except I'm on Earth and you're on the Moon.


It was intended as a figure of speech. There is neither the moon or the earth, all is imagined.

The moon is there whether you look at it or not because it is a reflection. It is there as long as the consciousness is there.

The Moon is not a reflection. It is a physical object that exists whether you know about it or not.


You have only your senses to verify its physicality and location. Cut them and you and your objects are in limbo.

When I look I see a reflection of the consciousness.

No, when you look, you create a mental landscape describing your physical environment, derived from
incoming sensory information imparted to you by the effects of that physical environment upon your physical form.


Lol that's me seeing my seeing lol! There is no physical environment, it is conjured via brain consciousness. How is that sensory information coming in? Via light! It is only light you see. Inside, outside the light and its information is a rendition of brain consciousness. When the brain consciousness is suspended as in deep sleep it all disappears. Stop reading books or should I say surfing the Internet and do your own investigation, start with what you know out of your own experience.

When you look you see a tree or a cloud, the sun or the moon. If I were to see you in person it would be as if the consciousness is looking back at itself.

If you were to see me in person, it would be as if a mental patient were staring at me with hungry eyes.


Lol if that's how you see yourself then yes.


This consciousness is the same consciousness that resides in me, you, a rock or an elephant.

No, the consciousness is created by the brain, and does not extend beyond it.


As long as your awareness is limited to its reflection in consciousness you will never know. If the consciousness is created by the brain you wouldn't be aware of a brain. There must be something prior to the object in order for there to be any recognition of it. Awareness is the cognisance if consciousness, it pervades the whole of consciousness and beyond

Gord wrote:Nor can a rock create a consciousness


No, a rock does not create consciousness, it is consciousness.

The only difference is that the consciousness in
the rock is at rest, whilst the consciousness in the elephant, me or you is on the move.
That's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ even wrong.[/url]


It is only the consciousness that is seeing, hence the reason we all see the tree or the sun or the rock. The seer and the seen are invented by the mind. This consciousness you can call what you like, the observer, God. Essentially it is the principle prior to the birth of the embodiment of this consciousness. When your bodies charge depletes it will be of no use to the consciousness so it evacuates and returns to source.

Nah. Your religious belief is not compelling to me. Rather than explaining anything to me, it just suggests there is nothing to investigate.


That's what the mind think. Now you use the mind like you would use any other tool and tell me what you think? Do not give me this reflexive auto suggestion routine.

Gord wrote:You are simply confused by something else, and insist on using the words "reality" and "existence" in a way that is contrary to their generally accepted meanings,

What is consider general may be wrong altogether. When referring to the fact reality and existence are quite apart. Through no will or imagination can you interchange the two. Reality is not in the picture. The picture is merely a rendition of your brain consciousness , it may as well be smoke. What is real cannot be a product of the imagination. Existence is transient and related to something in time and space, it needs the support of consciousness. Whilst reality is in and of itself, unsupported. In general existence is considered real because of its tangibility but this is only during your waking state. What appears and disappears has no reality. Are you aware of anything tangible existing in your sleep?

I won't quibble between ranks, a general is as good as a major to me, but you're attempting to redefine words in a way I cannot accept.

Naturally you are not going to accept.

Naturally. Accepting the unacceptable would not be a very skeptical thing to do.


If you accept just for a moment then it would not be unacceptable, not only that, you would also be in a position to investigate further.

A word emptied of all preconceived notions is a word you may as well throw in the bin.

A word "emptied of all preconceived notions" has no meaning and isn't even a word. It's not even a sound. Or an image.]%*


You have misunderstood, it is like emptying a cup of its content. It makes no difference to the cup itself. Whether the content is there or not, it is still a cup. For instance if I say there is love, a preconceived notion of the word love would have to be the love of something in particular which basically limits the word to its relative meaning. The word love without its preconceived notion makes it all inclusive and exclusive of none. The mothers love for the child is boundless, she will protect it by any means necessary even if it means killing another, this is love in action. A rapist loves to rape, it is love in action. The vital urge of existence is love in action. The lioness will tear a hyena to shreds so she can feed her young. This is love in action


From the perspective of the body it is meaningless. Until you can take yourself out of the equation you will not see with clarity. There is no attempt to redefine any of the words I use. All I'm doing is using the word in its absolute sense. When addressing the reality you cannot use words based on there relative meaning, the reality is one single homogenous whole, not two. There is no duality in reality. Reality is not a place where you can shop for ideas that best describes it

If you take yourself out of the equation, you can't discover anything about yourself.


You need not know what you are, for what you are is indescribable, it is enough to know what you are not. You mistake yourself for the idea, which is nothing but a bundle of desires and fears, hopes a dreams, habits and reactions in reality all these thing are what you are not.

Gord wrote: All you're doing is using words in absolute nonsense. When addressing reality, all you have to communicate with are words in their relative meanings.


There need not be any communication to discover the real. In fact your mind must be in its place, silenced before the real can be seen. Otherwise you are going to be distracted by its vagaries.


Gord wrote: Reality is a place where you must, and do, and are highly encouraged to, shop for ideas and words that best describe it.


You are mistaking the reality for your dreaming


Gord wrote:That's what communication is all about.


No doubt communication is all about expressing ideas exchanging information and conceptualising. All this implies a dual which jus doesn't exist in reality.

Gord wrote:If you say it is impossible to describe something at all, then you are claiming it is impossible to know that thing at all, and any claim you can make about it is going to be false (including the one you just made about it being impossible to know).


Do you need to describe the process of hunger in order to satisfy it? No! Of course not, you just eat. It is the same with reality, you need not verbalise it you just see it. Reality is not an experience. But it can be experienced. In the moment the reality is there but once you take that moment and file it to your account it becomes an experience, it is no longer the real but a memory. A memory taken for the real is a false notion. When you look effectively you are taking a snap shot, every moment is a snapshot that the consciousness records. You take all the momentary snapshots that make an impression on you and string them together on a thread of consciousness. It is the stringing together of these snapshots in memory that creates time and the illusion of continuity. There is no time or continuity in reality because reality is not a process, it is immovable. You create the idea of movement in your mind when shuttle between past and future, here and there, now and then. There is only here and now, now is always here is everywhere. It is the sense of being, you carry it everywhere you go.


Gord wrote:Such differentiation may be useful in metaphysics, but not in physics, which is the study of actual reality rather than the mere concepts created by humans in their attempts (often misled) to understand themselves. Reality and existence are effectively synonyms.

That maybe the case in the world of physics but the demarcation line between the two is clearly seen if you look closer. All that exists is based on a human conception. But nothing exists if nobody is there to observe it. Therefore how can there be a relationship between that which is and that which merely appears to exist?

All that exists does so regardless of human conception (or perception for that matter). The everything that exists (outside of the mind) does so regardless of anyone there to "observe" it.


There's nothing outside, mere postulation for which you have no proof whatsoever. All that is conceive is within the realms of your consciousness. Go beyond consciousness into awareness and you will see your dream bubble from a different perspective, you are only dreaming Gord.

Gord wrote:If all you want to do is think in terms of metaphysics, go right ahead: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/ I'll stick with what I consider a more grounded approach, however.

You cannot think in terms of the reality. For me the
metaphysical approach is just another tool for exploring the possibilities. For you it is just another word that you've invented to term that which you do not fully understand.

I didn't invent the word, it's been around since at least the 17th century.



You misunderstand, when I say you I'm referring to the consciousness as a whole. You are only consciousness Gord. Forget this individual person, it just does not exist. It is an illusion, a figment of your imagination.

Gord wrote:As a tool, is does a poor job of exploring reality and a very good job of confusing people like yourself.


The tool is neutral, poor workmanship is usually down to the lack of skill on the users part. To get the best out of your tool kit you must be time served in your field of interest.

Gord wrote:while refusing to provide your own alternative definitions so as to make your claims from being understandable enough to refute.

The reality cannot be defined so it is not a question of providing a definition. You can know it for yourself by being yourself. Nobody need provide you with a definition. It is self evident when you come to know what you are in reality.

Reality: the state or quality of having existence


Well, that was easy. Next!

You accuse me of redefining words and here you are doing the same thing.

No, I looked it up on google.


Lol! You looked it up on google? That explains everything.

Reality is being actual or true .

Huh, I'd like to see the link to that definition.


There need not be any definition, just revert back to your true nature and you will come to know it as a matter of fact.

A thought exists in the mind but it is not actual it is remembered. Obviously it's not as easy as you imagine, (again imagine being the operational word here).

Thoughts are actual things. It exists, as you say, which makes it an actual thing.


They are things but a thing is not actual it is remembered.

Gord wrote: Remembering is the way the brain acts with thoughts.


This maybe the case but it is not how you work. If there is no being then there is no brain to act on or remember anything. Your being is the fundamental principle. All that happens in your dream world is underpinned by this obvious fact .


As I said, you seem unable to learn.

I need not learn a thing to be, only to understand is the key

You need to learn in order to understand how wrong you are.

Being cannot be wrong, is it wrong for a tree to bear poisonous fruits? In reality whatever is done in the light of aware is right whatever is done in the darkness of ignorance is wrong. Become more aware of yourself as you are in reality and you will understand that nobody is doing anything, it all happens by itself.

You can be wrong, you've demonstrated it often by doing what you do.

That how you see it, look again. You should never go by the first impression it leaves a stain which can be hard to remove.

I look again and again, and you remain wrong.


Until you know where to look the you will always remain wrong

Gord wrote: If I had gone with my first impression of you, I would have been correct: After all this time, after all your posts, you remain a stain. ;)


A regular wash should do the trick. No stain can survive a good regular scrub.


Gord wrote: Refusing to do so means you are wallowing gleefully in your own ignorance. I don't understand why you would choose such a life.

There is neither ignorance nor knowledge.

There is definitely ignorance.

From your perspective there is obviously both. For you define yourself in such a way that ignorance becomes a necessary corollary.

I define you in such a way that ignorance becomes a necessary descriptive term.


However descriptive your terminology it cannot define the reality.

It is only because you have become self conscious of something in particular that you know of your ignorance and that of the others.

Wait, you just said there wasn't any ignorance. It was literally the previous sentence. You didn't even go 20 words before contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction, in reality there isn't any ignorance or knowledge. For who is there to be ignorant and of what? To be self conscious and not know it is to be asleep. Unawareness is the birthplace of ignorance.

In reality there is ignorance and knowledge, based upon the definitions of those two words.


In reality there is no ignorance. Ignorance presupposes knowledge. Are you aware of any knowledge in your sleep?
Remember Gord, consciousness is one whole there is no separation. It is only when the mind comes in a division is created.

Gord wrote:You, for instance, are ignorant of everyone whose existence you remain unaware.


If I am aware of my body I am aware of everybody. Everybody is my body and my body is everybody.

Gord wrote:You can't be self-conscious and not know it, those are synonyms.
\l

Being and knowing are one. If you look closer you will see gaps in your consciousness. What is those gap but your real being, do you know it? Everything you do is base on the idea of the self, not the self itself, but you do not know it. You function below the level of consciousness where there is a conflict between two opposing forces. You can become more aware by making the subconscious one with the conscious and there is no problem.

Gord wrote: Unawareness is ignorance (which, incidentally, you just said doesn't exist in reality, and then three sentences later you implied there was).


Let me put it simpler. If you go into a dark room and turn on the light where does the darkness go? It goes nowhere because it wasn't there to begin with. Similarly you only imagine ignorance because you are unaware of the fact. In reality there nobody only light, in that light everything appears and disappears including knowledge and ignorance.


Gord wrote:This is what I keep telling you. You don't know what you're talking about!

When you know what you teach you can teach what you know.

Then I will teach everyone that you don't know what you're talking about. I guess. Wait, do I have to? :pardon: I'm pretty sure you can do that yourself, even if you don't know it yourself.



In your frustration you are starting to drag the dialogue down to the level of infancy. It seems to be the chosen defence strategy here on this forum Lol! Just because you do not understand it doesn't mean I do not know what I'm talking about, It just means you do not understand. Obviously.


Gord wrote: You should seriously sit yourself down and figure out what you believe before you try explaining it to anyone else.

Self knowledge is not for those who prefer their dream state.

Yes, you certainly seem averse to self-knowledge.


When I refer to self knowledge I mean knowing all that you are not.


Gord wrote:Maybe you could read a book on the topic. Or maybe there's a comic book version, with pictures and Batman and stuff. That would be cool. I'd read that.

:lol: Yeah they might have cards that I could collect and trade with others, that would be real cool Gord. I bet ellard knows where to get them. :senile: :lol:

I don't think they have trading cards in Australia. Just beer and koalas. Or have I been watching the wrong tv shows?


Is that castlemane 4X?

When you go to sleep at night it is all forgotten. Remember your self consciousness is only in your waking state not in your sleep. You are only alive in your sleep.

Uh, no, I remember my day while I'm asleep: It's called dreaming.

It is all the same to me day or night, they are both in dreaming. As a matter of fact all three states, wake, dream and sleep are in dreaming. You dream that you are awake you dream that you are asleep.

That's not what "dreaming" means. You're redefining words again, but at least this time I can determine what you mean by them.


I am not redefining words - I'm taking them to the absolute. What difference does it make whether you lie down in your REM sleep and watch images go by or you are walking about in your waking state watching images go by. Both are states of mind in dreaming. Your REM dream state is merely the echoes of your waking state. All that you suppress will naturally come out in your REM sleep because you are no longer self conscious of a person anymore. You are just consciousness.


Gord wrote:And of course I disagree. There seems no point in taking a word that defines things narrowly, and redefining it in a broader sense.


When dealing with the real there's no point involving the inessential either. You are just playing with words and not quite getting to the point. The broader the sense the wider the margin for error. I keep trying to tell you. Reality cannot be reach via the five senses. Your senses are memory based, reality is not in the memory. You cannot catch hold of it. The moment you try that's another moment gone by.

Gord wrote:That's like taking the word "yellow" and defining it to also mean "orange" and "red". You don't need to do that. Just create a new term to mean "yellow/orange/red". For example, "autumn colours" or "warm colours" or "yellow-red colours".


And here lies your problem, you invent words to suit the need of the moment and all the time you move further away from the truth. Reality is simple, so simple that no language is necessary.

Btw REM sleep does not occur in deep sleep. You remember nothing there.

You didn't specify "deep sleep", just just said "waking state" and "sleep". It's right there in the quote. You didn't even need to remember it, you could have gone back and checked.


Isn't it pretty obvious? When you lie down you are falling into sleep. REM is just a phase you pass through to get down into sleep.
When I said wake, dream and sleep I thought it would have been clear enough for you to be able to differentiate between the three states. I gave you a big enough clue when I said it is all forgotten in your sleep. This is the problem you have with words and there relative meanings. Wake is when you are moving about the place, dream is when you are lying down and all the thoughts and image come to the surface of the mind and plays havoc with your brain. Sleep is when you blank out and all that play of brain consciousness subsides, where nothing is recorded and nothing is remembered. But this is just another way to arrange word in order to explain the inexplicable. It is all in dreaming because awareness does not sleep.


Gord wrote:And I'm alive all the time, otherwise I'd be dead, which is pretty much an irreversible condition.

Of course you are! But you cannot say the same for the self conscious, that is only apparent in you waking state.

I can be self-conscious while asleep.


Of course but only in your dreaming. In deep sleep you know and remember nothing because the part of the brain that generates this illusion is offline.

And I'm dead while I'm asleep; my consciousness is merely less obvious while my brain is in a semi-dormant state.


This maybe true for your body but not you. You are most alive in your sleep, you just don't know it. The self conscious part is suspended along with your brain consciousness.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:39 am

Azania wrote:Lol!! So why don't you listen?

I've been "listening", but you aren't saying anything sensible.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.

Again, none is given.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.

The real fact of the matter does not change with the times and events. The discovery of a real fact is timelessly in the now.

Facts change over time. "The discovery of a real fact is timelessly in the now" is gibberish -- did you intend to mean anything by it, and if so, can you please rephrase it so that it carries some identifiable meaning?

If you are in full awareness you will know the fact.

Your statement doesn't change the fact that all we're posting here is our opinions.

Like I said, words are merely for entertainment, I love the banter, especially with you.

Why?

You obviously misunderstand, yet expect me to present a case for arguments sake. How contradictory.

I understand your words. You do not. I ask you to rephrase your statements so that they make sense.

You also keep shovelling the same dirt over and over again without ever getting any deeper.

It's hardly surprising. Where there is no depth you are bound to the surface.

At least we agree there is no depth to your shovelling.

Now that's a matter of opinion.

Everything we've been posting has been opinion.

Further investigation starts when you are prepared to give up your preoccupation with words and the relative meanings.

WRONG.png

It is also right as well.

No, it's just plain wrong.

Further investigation starts when you actually provide some information. So far, there's nothing here to investigate.

Turn your lights on. What do you expect to see in the dark?

Nothing, which is exactly what you've brought to us.

You're posting on the internet, where words and their meanings are all you have to work with when conveying information.

The facts are available as well, you just can't convey them in words.

If you can't convey the facts, then you've been wasting everyone's time here.

Yet you've chosen to get hung up on your inability to communicate, which you somehow feel is your strength. Well, if that's truly where your strength lies, you could achieve the same goal by not posting anything at all.

Of course you are basing this little insight on the autonomy of an individual. Which to all intent an purpose jus doesn't exist. Can you prove that you have an independent existence? For communication to be effective there must be a reception, then and only then can the event becomes useful and purposeful.

Yes, I can prove that I have an "independent existence". For communication to be effective there must be the conveyance of meaning between two or more individuals. You've admitted you are unable to do this with words.

So why are you posting in an online forum, then?

I see what there is to see, and you've made the same complaint over and over again.

Then you have seen nothing but an error of judgment.

Yes, I have repeatedly seen your error of judgement.

If you want to correct an error in thinking, please start with yourself.

I am doing nothing but!

You are doing everything but.

You are as I am, we are one of the same. We are different but not separate. There is only the self. It is one not two.

Nah.

Then why do you keep coming back? For someone who suggests they don't like stale beer, you certainly seem to enjoy sipping at it.

There is obviously some enjoyment. But who is enjoying and what is being enjoyed I do not know.

So you do things and you don't know why. I can agree with you on that.

You are interested in your dream and nothing else. It is the variety of colour, shape and form that distracts you. I offer you the taste of pure water but unless there is hops present you will not drink from the cup. You cannot know the nature of reality by examining the picture it projects. You can know what it is not in this way. Otherwise it is like trying to adjust the tie on the image in the mirror.

Blah blah blah, more meaningless new-age mumbo-jumbo.

Of course you can know the nature of reality by examining "the picture it projects", that how you observe it in the first place.

Of course, the fact do not bind, they set free.

Blah blah blah, more meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

I am not attempting to do anything. I am aware that there is a line of communication open. It is not bound by any definition of yes or no.

Then you're wasting your time, and the time of other people as well. The line of communication you have opened has been empty of the meaning it promised people by its existence.

I do not know what you think only the manner in which you think.

No, you really don't.

The mind and its working mechanisms are quite easy to understand, the trick is to silence it first. It is not rocket science. Similarly you cannot work on a car engine whilst it is running.

The mind and its working mechanisms are harder to understand than you appear able to understand. And you can work on a car engine while it's running.

A misunderstanding is not in the nature of comprehending.

And what is it you think those words mean?

You perceive because of that which is unperceived, you think because of that which is unthinkable, you feel because of that which is unfelt, you see because of that which is unseen.

More gibberish.

When you look at the sun do you have to think about it in order for you to see it?

Yes, that is what "seeing" is.

You do not see things as they are, you involve the imagination and see what you want to see.

:sigh: You see things as your brain deals with the sensory input from your visual system.

To communicate, we must convey meaning in our exchanges.

It is for you to become more receptive, but for your preconceived ideas of relative meanings and their conventional relations you do not see the obvious.

I can only receive what you send. As the saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out. What you think is "obvious" is not evident in your communication style. Misusing the language to mask what you mean so that others cannot debunk your nonsense is not good communication.

If I write "banana" and you read "orange",

Such is the nature of reality. You cannot pin it. It pins you.

More nonsense that has nothing to do with what I just said.

our communication is extremely weak and any exchange of knowledge is hampered by corrupted meaning.

It is the mind that is corrupt.

If your mind is so corrupt that you cannot communicate effectively, then I should give up any further attempts at communicating with you.

So be it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:54 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
 
Spoiler:
 


Is this a true brain scan or a creation ?

Lovely image. :-)
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:03 pm

I don't understand you people or
religious people or any people anymore.

Your wedding vows~ forsaking ALL others~
What part of ~ ALL~ do people not get?
Jesus promoted staying single as to forsake
all others and serve God. As his family ~ friend
and lover. Once you have had God as your lover~
there's no desire for what you had before.
Marriage becomes a matter of science.
Marrying bloods. Then to top it off ~ you
rob the earth of its presious stones & metals
in order to guild each other. That means ~
silence each other to the will of ? Fight begins.... Never ends... Divorce...
Dumb patterns repeated for why?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:35 pm

Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:
Angel wrote:
Gord wrote:I love childish exchanges, but only in the form of mockery of childish exchanges and the love of same.

That probably doesn't come through in my posts thought.


Every time I see this ~ I think of you.
Same sence of humour lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_the_Dog

Jake is only one of many muses that visit me every day. I also draw inspiration from Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, and that guy with the funny hair.

Rick & Morty?

I like Rick & Morty, but I don't draw much behavioural inspiration from it. I think I got more of that from Seinfeld, and I didn't even like or watch Seinfeld.

I watched Seinfeld but I don't know why. Lol
Like all shows though ~ it starts out good
then becomes repetitive . Shows need to
learn to evolve.

There's so much out there to train
people to be cartoonish. You toon easy!
Most people do~ makes it easier to accept
they exist. Hehe

Of course cartoons exist. Otherwise, where would all the toasters go?


My brother use to animate the appliances.
Funny how stories really get started.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:59 am

Angel wrote: Jesus promoted staying single as to forsake.....
Can you stop spreading your Christian bull-shit on this forum. Jesus is a fictional character from the fairy tales of bronze age sheep herders in the Middle East.

You may as well quote Harry Potter or the Easter Bunny.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:59 am

Angel wrote:Funny how stories really get started.

Yes, hilarious.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:36 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote: Jesus promoted staying single as to forsake.....
Can you stop spreading your Christian bull-shit on this forum. Jesus is a fictional character from the fairy tales of bronze age sheep herders in the Middle East.

You may as well quote Harry Potter or the Easter Bunny.


Please provide a clear list of things
I am allowed to discuss.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:52 pm

More religious things I don't get ~
The first creation was made
of earth/dirt. Then the second was
created from the flesh of the first
creation. Then a new creature was
created. I'm guessing this creation
comes from the living waters .
Mind control ~ master the bait ~
draw the water and heat it up.
Let's see what grows.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:47 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:Lol!! So why don't you listen?

I've been "listening", but you aren't saying anything sensible.


It is due to the interference of your mind that prevents you from hearing what I'm saying. Until you can learn to put your mind aside (the content) and use it for the things which it is best suited for (negation - knowing what is not) you will never know what really is.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.

Again, none is given.

And again, I won't wait or care for any credit you give.

Again, none is given

The real fact of the matter does not change with the times and events. The discovery of a real fact is timelessly in the now.

Facts change over time.

Your facts. Not the real fact.


"The discovery of a real fact is timelessly in the now" is gibberish -- did you intend to mean anything by it, and if so, can you please rephrase it so that it carries some identifiable meaning?


There is no identifiable meaning. I've already told you reality is not contained in a memory however sublime. It is self explanatory. It is the source of all that is, was and ever will be. It does not change along with the times nor is it bound by time. Whilst all your facts based on empirical data come and go the real fact remains.



If you are in full awareness you will know the fact.

Your statement doesn't change the fact that all we're posting here is our opinions.


In full awareness you disappear, what's to say about your opinions?

Like I said, words are merely for entertainment, I love the banter, especially with you.

Why?


Don't ask why, there's no end to reason.

You obviously misunderstand, yet expect me to present a case for arguments sake. How contradictory.

I understand your words. You do not. I ask you to rephrase your statements so that they make sense.


Reality is a paradox, naturally it makes very little sense to the mind. What the mind cannot understand, control or regulate it fears.

You also keep shovelling the same dirt over and over again without ever getting any deeper.

It's hardly surprising. Where there is no depth you are bound to the surface.

At least we agree there is no depth to your shovelling.


I was referring to your shallow little mind.

Now that's a matter of opinion.

Everything we've been posting has been opinion.


As long as you think so you will see me doling out opinions.

Further investigation starts when you are prepared to give up your preoccupation with words and the relative meanings.

WRONG.png

It is also right as well.

No, it's just plain wrong.


Very well.

Further investigation starts when you actually provide some information. So far, there's nothing here to investigate.

Turn your lights on. What do you expect to see in the dark?

Nothing, which is exactly what you've brought to us.


Then do the needful, turn your lights on, pay attention and listen.

You're posting on the internet, where words and their meanings are all you have to work with when conveying information.

The facts are available as well, you just can't convey them in words.

If you can't convey the facts, then you've been wasting everyone's time here.


Words cannot convey a fact. A signal is sufficient enough to alert you to a fact, but like an infant you want pictures and lots of them so you can create an image based on personal bias.

Yet you've chosen to get hung up on your inability to communicate, which you somehow feel is your strength. Well, if that's truly where your strength lies, you could achieve the same goal by not posting anything at all.

Of course you are basing this little insight on the autonomy of an individual. Which to all intent an purpose jus doesn't exist. Can you prove that you have an independent existence? For communication to be effective there must be a reception, then and only then can the event becomes useful and purposeful.

Yes, I can prove that I have an "independent existence".


Do not give me this horse manure. Your body cannot live without sustenance, you are dependent upon your world as much as your world is dependent on you. You are interdependent and interconnected. If you are not, the world is not and vice versa. There is no world separate from yourself. This idea of a world separate from yourself is delusional and only meant for infants and the ignorant masses.

For communication to be effective there must be the conveyance of meaning between two or more individuals. You've admitted you are unable to do this with words.


Language is but one form of communication, there are other forms that are not so cumbersome. In language one word can have several different meanings and contradictions simultaneously. It's Mickey Mouse :lol:

So why are you posting in an online forum, then


Do not ask why, there is no end to reason.

I see what there is to see, and you've made the same complaint over and over again.

Then you have seen nothing but an error of judgment.

Yes, I have repeatedly seen your error of judgement.


Whether error or judgement you see whatever you want to see, that does not make it my error.

If you want to correct an error in thinking, please start with yourself.

I am doing nothing but!

You are doing everything but.


From the minds perspective whatever you say will be both right and wrong. The truth is not in the nature of mutual discrepancies.

You are as I am, we are one of the same. We are different but not separate. There is only the self. It is one not two.

Nah.


Are my essential needs any different from yours or anybody else's?

Then why do you keep coming back? For someone who suggests they don't like stale beer, you certainly seem to enjoy sipping at it.

There is obviously some enjoyment. But who is enjoying and what is being enjoyed I do not know.

So you do things and you don't know why. I can agree with you on that.


Things happen as they should. The reason for which you think something should happen has nothing to do with why it actually happens. You need not have to know the reason why. Do you know every process that goes on in your body, what's more do you need to? It is only the mind that needs to know everything so that it can feel safe and secure. In the light of awareness the mind is no more.

You are interested in your dream and nothing else. It is the variety of colour, shape and form that distracts you. I offer you the taste of pure water but unless there is hops present you will not drink from the cup. You cannot know the nature of reality by examining the picture it projects. You can know what it is not in this way. Otherwise it is like trying to adjust the tie on the image in the mirror.

Blah blah blah, more meaningless new-age mumbo-jumbo.


Call it what you like but the age old problem of mankind still continues, that being the suffering and the ending of suffering, despite all efforts man remains stupid, heartless and greedy.

Of course you can know the nature of reality by examining "the picture it projects", that how you observe it in the first place.


Of course! But the picture merely tells you what it is not. You cannot know the immensity of the ocean beneath the surface just by look at the surface, you must dive in.

Of course, the fact do not bind, they set free.

Blah blah blah, more meaningless mumbo-jumbo.


:lol: All this indolence shows your ignorance and inability to think for yourself.

I am not attempting to do anything. I am aware that there is a line of communication open. It is not bound by any definition of yes or no.

Then you're wasting your time, and the time of other people as well. The line of communication you have opened has been empty of the meaning it promised people by its existence.


Does a telephone line promise anything? No! It just makes communication possible, lies and deceit are what people bring to it.

I do not know what you think only the manner in which you think.

No, you really don't.

The mind and its working mechanisms are quite easy to understand, the trick is to silence it first. It is not rocket science. Similarly you cannot work on a car engine whilst it is running.

The mind and its working mechanisms are harder to understand than you appear able to understand.


The ability to understand appearances is not my problem. It is you who takes them for reality hence the reason you do not understand my understanding.

And you can work on a car engine while it's running.


Relatively yes. Absolutely, not. You wouldn't attempt to replace a cam belt on an engine whilst it is running unless you are real stupid. In reality there is no question of relativity only the absolute matters.

A misunderstanding is not in the nature of comprehending.

And what is it you think those words mean?


The right comprehension leaves no room for misunderstandings.

You perceive because of that which is unperceived, you think because of that which is unthinkable, you feel because of that which is unfelt, you see because of that which is unseen.

More gibberish.


More indolence.

When you look at the sun do you have to think about it in order for you to see it?

Yes, that is what "seeing" is.


No. The image of the sun has already been recorded in the memory of the consciousness. So you need not have to verbalise every time you look at the sun or indeed any object. You just look, the chattering mind is habitual. What is the pointing of recognition if you have to go through the thinking process every time you see the same thing over and over again? You see the object the mind recognises it. This is all done in a nano second. Lol what are you, a parrot? Jesus four kings Christ Gord.

You do not see things as they are, you involve the imagination and see what you want to see.

:sigh: You see things as your brain deals with the sensory input from your visual system.


... Based on your imagination and memory content. I've already told you in a number of different ways. The brain creates the appearance via, as you've pointed out sensory input. I do not take appearances for reality regardless of the visual display the brain presents. When it is offline there is nothing.

To communicate, we must convey meaning in our exchanges.

It is for you to become more receptive, but for your preconceived ideas of relative meanings and their conventional relations you do not see the obvious.

I can only receive what you send.


From the minds perspective you can only receive what the mind wants you to receive. There is no question of choice .

As the saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.
Yes that's normally what goes into the mind if left to its own devices.

What you think is "obvious" is not evident in your communication style.


Then look elsewhere. The mind is only useful as looking glass.

Misusing the language to mask what you mean so that others cannot debunk your nonsense is not good communication.


:lol: The reality cannot be debunked :sigh: It is not rocket science, you do not need an encryption code to decipher the language. Just use your intelligence. I am not going to say what you want to hear, it wouldn't be real otherwise.

:sigh: By deeming what I say nonsense you defeat yourself before you have given yourself a chance to understand. There is no misuse of language, language is neutral. Due to its relative nature it can be manipulate by the mind to suit the need of the moment. Unless it is used absolutely it will go on evolving. Language was not discovered, it was invented by the mind for the mind. Where I look at the birth of the consciousness The One you look at the birth of body The Many. Where you deal with the Personal I on the other hand deal with the Impersonal. Reality is not exclusive it is all inclusive.

If I write "banana" and you read "orange",

Such is the nature of reality. You cannot pin it. It pins you.

More nonsense that has nothing to do with what I just said.


I've already told you, the reality is paradoxical.

our communication is extremely weak and any exchange of knowledge is hampered by corrupted meaning.

It is the mind that is corrupt.

If your mind is so corrupt that you cannot communicate effectively, then I should give up any further attempts at communicating with you.


Don't give me this automated conformity, use your intelligence and think for yourself. It is only corrupt when it has free reign. When in its right place it settles down and become more responsive. Like the root system in a pot, mind moulds itself to the condition in which it is exposed to. You are giving me an attitude that merely highlights your ligeance to a system of indentured servitude indicative of the status quo. Like the chick in the shell if it does not break free it will suffer a die. The worst thing about your predicament is that you don't even know you are imprisoned, in you delusion you think your are free.

So be it.


:sigh: Very well.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:29 pm

Angel wrote:Please provide a clear list of things I am allowed to discuss.


1) You must only post on the thread's topic
That means when two forum members are discussing DNA in human evolution, you can't spam "God is the only vision in our lives and we must all follow God". By doing that you are ruining other people's conversation to spread your unrelated religious propaganda.


2) You have to back up your statements
You can't make up Biblical stories that don't actually exist in the Bible. For example you posted your religious propaganda that Jesus told man to return food to the land. However there is no bible verse that says that. You simply made it up. and next time, quote the actual Biblical verse.


3) Stop Lying
For example, after you made ten posts in a row about what Jesus and God did or said, you turn around and said "I'm Not a Christian" which is a complete lie.


4) Stop Spamming Christian propaganda on a Skeptic Forum.
Do you post "pro-rape" stories on a rape victim's forum? No, as that would be unfair.
Do you post photos of naked children on a anti-pedophilia form. No, as that would be unfair.
Do you posts photos of Priests raping young boys on the Catholic Church's forum? No as that would be unfair.
So WTF do you spam our scientific skeptic forum with your propaganda about your Christian God?


5) Always preview your Draft post first / Is it coherent English?
Half of your posts do not make any sense. Check your posts before submitting them. Can other people understand your point? Is you post on topic? Have you simply made another propaganda post about your God? Things like that.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4787
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Austin Harper » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:28 am

6) Don't double-post. If you have more to say after you finish writing your post, edit it to add the extra material (if it is before somebody else has posted).
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18907
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:29 am

Angel wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
 
Spoiler:
 


Is this a true brain scan or a creation ?

Lovely image. :-)

It's a DeviantArt piece. Dunno what they combined - if at all - or how. :pardon:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 18907
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Arguing for beauty

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:36 am

Ooh, I like this stuff. :-D

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:21 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:Please provide a clear list of things I am allowed to discuss.


1) You must only post on the thread's topic
That means when two forum members are discussing DNA in human evolution, you can't spam "God is the only vision in our lives and we must all follow God". By doing that you are ruining other people's conversation to spread your unrelated religious propaganda.


2) You have to back up your statements
You can't make up Biblical stories that don't actually exist in the Bible. For example you posted your religious propaganda that Jesus told man to return food to the land. However there is no bible verse that says that. You simply made it up. and next time, quote the actual Biblical verse.


3) Stop Lying
For example, after you made ten posts in a row about what Jesus and God did or said, you turn around and said "I'm Not a Christian" which is a complete lie.


4) Stop Spamming Christian propaganda on a Skeptic Forum.
Do you post "pro-rape" stories on a rape victim's forum? No, as that would be unfair.
Do you post photos of naked children on a anti-pedophilia form. No, as that would be unfair.
Do you posts photos of Priests raping young boys on the Catholic Church's forum? No as that would be unfair.
So WTF do you spam our scientific skeptic forum with your propaganda about your Christian God?


5) Always preview your Draft post first / Is it coherent English?
Half of your posts do not make any sense. Check your posts before submitting them. Can other people understand your point? Is you post on topic? Have you simply made another propaganda post about your God? Things like that.


What would you debate if we were all
on your side?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:23 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Angel wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
 
Spoiler:
 


Is this a true brain scan or a creation ?

Lovely image. :-)

It's a DeviantArt piece. Dunno what they combined - if at all - or how. :pardon:


There's some major talent on that site!!
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:18 am

Azania wrote:
If your mind is so corrupt that you cannot communicate effectively, then I should give up any further attempts at communicating with you.

Don't give me this automated conformity, use your intelligence and think for yourself. It is only corrupt when it has free reign. When in its right place it settles down and become more responsive. Like the root system in a pot, mind moulds itself to the condition in which it is exposed to. You are giving me an attitude that merely highlights your ligeance to a system of indentured servitude indicative of the status quo. Like the chick in the shell if it does not break free it will suffer a die. The worst thing about your predicament is that you don't even know you are imprisoned, in you delusion you think your are free.

So be it.

:sigh: Very well.

Write if you find work.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:02 am

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:
If your mind is so corrupt that you cannot communicate effectively, then I should give up any further attempts at communicating with you.

Don't give me this automated conformity, use your intelligence and think for yourself. It is only corrupt when it has free reign. When in its right place it settles down and become more responsive. Like the root system in a pot, mind moulds itself to the condition in which it is exposed to. You are giving me an attitude that merely highlights your ligeance to a system of indentured servitude indicative of the status quo. Like the chick in the shell if it does not break free it will suffer a die. The worst thing about your predicament is that you don't even know you are imprisoned, in you delusion you think your are free.

So be it.

:sigh: Very well.

Write if you find work.


Then we can have tea and cookies right?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:13 am

Angel wrote:What would you debate if we were all on your side?
You're not debating anyone. You are spamming your Christian propaganda here. Azania is spamming his religious propaganda. Gorgeous is spamming his religious propaganda. That's all you people can do.

The fact you have to come here, a science forum, simply shows how repulsive people like yourself are, otherwise you would be posting on a Christian forum, Azania would be posting on a Buddhist forum and Gorgeous would go back to posting on the David Icke forum.

You can't stand people like yourself, can you?
:D

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:What would you debate if we were all on your side?
You're not debating anyone. You are spamming your Christian propaganda here. Azania is spamming his religious propaganda. Gorgeous is spamming his religious propaganda. That's all you people can do.

The fact you have to come here, a science forum, simply shows how repulsive people like yourself are, otherwise you would be posting on a Christian forum, Azania would be posting on a Buddhist forum and Gorgeous would go back to posting on the David Icke forum.

You can't stand people like yourself, can you?
:D


:lol: :lol: Ellard you are like a child with a lollie in one hand and a sparkler in the other and whilst you are sucking your lollie you rant and rave at other members on this forum just because they refuse to discuss your early learnt topics. Then you have the audacity to talk about spamming and propaganda, do you actually know the meaning of the word propaganda? :lol: :lol:

Ellard you have been moulded into a state approved homogenous drone that cannot think outside the prescribed consensus. You've learnt to repeat information rather than think for yourself . You have not even enough intelligence to figure out that this prescription is merely so that you don't become a threat to the status quo. You do your job and pay your taxes whilst inadvertently perpetuating this corporate system of indolence and indentured servitude. If you could manage to think outside this prescribed consensus for just one moment, you could keep your head out of your rear end long enough for you to realise that the word socpuppet was actually invented for people like you. :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28717
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Gord » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:37 am

Azania wrote:Ellard you are like a child

Azania, you figuratively have nothing to say, and you insist on saying it over and over again.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:32 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:What would you debate if we were all on your side?
You're not debating anyone. You are spamming your Christian propaganda here. Azania is spamming his religious propaganda. Gorgeous is spamming his religious propaganda. That's all you people can do.

The fact you have to come here, a science forum, simply shows how repulsive people like yourself are, otherwise you would be posting on a Christian forum, Azania would be posting on a Buddhist forum and Gorgeous would go back to posting on the David Icke forum.

You can't stand people like yourself, can you?
:D


LMAO ~ how old are you?
I didn't originally come here to debate
religion but that's where it ended up.
You ASSUME anything outside of the
norm of your puny sciency imagination
is religious. It's not.

I love love love myself.
Just ask God ~ I'm the sinner that makes
love not war. ;-)

This just in ~ a lover is an existential
healer that's why God is my lover. <3
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:23 pm

Gord wrote:
Azania wrote:Ellard you are like a child

Azania, you figuratively have nothing to say, and you insist on saying it over and over again.


Well Gord, when all you have is Mickey Mouse language to work with speaking metaphorically and figuratively is about the best you can do. If the wood is dense you have to repeatedly hit the nail on the head with the same hammer until it is driven home. Unfortunately.

The real is an absolute fact not a prerequisite to some relative condition in consciousness. Consciousness is a play of opposite mutual destructive discrepancies. As long as you think along these lines you will contradict yourself.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:04 pm

Azania wrote:[you could keep your head out of your rear end long enough for you to realise that the word socpuppet was actually invented for people like you. :lol: :lol:
The word is sock puppet. You simply can't get anything right, can you? :lol:

My name is Matthew Ellard, which is my real name. You have used a series of sock puppet names here simply to repeat your religious spams. Clarifyit4me, Placid, Shaka, Azania and so on.

You seem more confused than normal, at the moment.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:23 pm

Angel wrote:What would you debate if we were all on your side?
Matthew Ellard wrote: You're not debating anyone. You are spamming your Christian propaganda here. Azania is spamming his religious propaganda. Gorgeous is spamming his religious propaganda. That's all you people can do.
Angel wrote: I didn't originally come here to debate religion but that's where it ended up.
You haven't debated anything. You are spamming your religious propaganda and never backing up your religious claims.
Angel wrote: You ASSUME anything outside of the norm of your puny sciency imagination is religious. It's not.
"God" and "Jesus" are religious characters. You are spamming propaganda about "God" & "Jesus". Are you denying you do this?
Angel wrote:I love love love myself. Just ask God ~ I'm the sinner that makes love not war.
And how exactly am I meant to ask "God"? Send him a letter? Use the telephone? God and Jesus are fictional characters and don't exist in the real world.

Azania
Access Suspended
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Azania » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:My name is Matthew Ellard, :senile: which is my real name. :lol:


Really? Would you like a cookie? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25974
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:58 am

Azania wrote:you could keep your head out of your rear end long enough for you to realise that the word socpuppet was actually invented for people like you
Azania wrote:Really? Would you like a cookie?
How are your adult illiteracy spelling lessons going? Are you still struggling with the word sock puppet ? :lol:

Do you remember when you claimed to be a high school teacher? :lol:

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:02 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Angel wrote:What would you debate if we were all on your side?
Matthew Ellard wrote: You're not debating anyone. You are spamming your Christian propaganda here. Azania is spamming his religious propaganda. Gorgeous is spamming his religious propaganda. That's all you people can do.
Angel wrote: I didn't originally come here to debate religion but that's where it ended up.
You haven't debated anything. You are spamming your religious propaganda and never backing up your religious claims.
Angel wrote: You ASSUME anything outside of the norm of your puny sciency imagination is religious. It's not.
"God" and "Jesus" are religious characters. You are spamming propaganda about "God" & "Jesus". Are you denying you do this?
Angel wrote:I love love love myself. Just ask God ~ I'm the sinner that makes love not war.
And how exactly am I meant to ask "God"? Send him a letter? Use the telephone? God and Jesus are fictional characters and don't exist in the real world.


U best watch out ~ ur pointer finger
will get caught in the keyboard ~ breaking
a nail~ then what will u do? Hehe
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Arguing against religion

Postby Angel » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Azania wrote:[you could keep your head out of your rear end long enough for you to realise that the word socpuppet was actually invented for people like you. :lol: :lol:
The word is sock puppet. You simply can't get anything right, can you? :lol:

My name is Matthew Ellard, which is my real name. You have used a series of sock puppet names here simply to repeat your religious spams. Clarifyit4me, Placid, Shaka, Azania and so on.

You seem more confused than normal, at the moment.
:lol:


How many others are using this account or
are using u to speak here?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?


Return to “The Letting Go of God Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest