What Is The Meaning Of Life?

[Dontaskme]

Presence aka nothing and everything is not an atheist it is not a believer. It is not any thing at all. Presence is not a thing. It is the
emptiness in which every known thing arises and dissolves and arises again. Known things dont know anything they are already known

Presence is indeed not a thing but a state of mind or state of existence. The labels human beings use are artificial so not part of that state
Language is however necessary in order for human beings to communicate with each other through exchanging knowledge and information

Yes, I was having that same discussion with Hobbs earlier also.

[Immanuel Can]

that MIGHT pertain, but only if "atheist" was an exhaustive description of that person.

No. It only needs to be an accurate description of his metaphysical suppositions. Morality is logically derived from one's metaphysics (or, if you prefer, from one's ardent denial of all metaphysics, as in the case of Atheism).

You could say the same thing about "pedestrians"

Nope. "Pedestrian" is not a descriptor of one's metaphysical suppositions. It's merely a descriptor of one's momentary activity.

[surreptitious57]

Understanding of the no self concept comes when life evolves that understanding in you and not before

Human beings can find the concept of no self hard to contemplate because all experience is subjective
That experience is different for every human being so that reinforces the notion that self is all there is
A human being can never stop being an individual and experiencing everything in their own unique way

[Hobbes' Choice]

that MIGHT pertain, but only if "atheist" was an exhaustive description of that person.

No. It only needs to be an accurate description of his metaphysical suppositions. Morality is logically derived from one's metaphysics (or, if you prefer, from one's ardent denial of all metaphysics, as in the case of Atheism).

You could say the same thing about "pedestrians"

Nope. "Pedestrian" is not a descriptor of one's metaphysical suppositions. It's merely a descriptor of one's momentary activity.

I think you brain went off for a walk a few years ago and did not come back.
Atheism is not a denial of metaphysic. It is a denial of god.
Get a fucking life.
Atheism is not a descriptor of a metaphysical position. Theist is a descriptor of a delusion, nothing whatever to do with metaphysics.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you say that atheism is irrational and what do you think atheism attempts to achieve that it has failed at?

Well, look at it this way.

• P1: A "rational" belief, by definition, is one for which "reasons" can be adduced.

There is no such thing as a rational belief.

Then you're not rational to believe that.

...you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.

What does anybody actually know with the absolute "certainty" which you allege makes belief unnecessary? Give me an example, please. (One from real life, not from a closed system like mathematics or symbolic logic.)

And, having a belief is irrational.

If you "believe" that, then by your own account, you must be "irrational."

So far, we have three completely undebatable premises, I think. Any reasonable person would believe all three. Let's continue:

Have you noticed the way you try to argue? You have already come to a conclusion and if any person does not agree with you, then, to you, they are an unreasonable person.

The truth is, from My perspective,
P1 is untrue, for reasons given.

You don't agree with the definition of an Atheist? Then you have no idea what the word means.

P2's example needs further investigation

The example was merely to help any unknowledgeable observers to understand Leibniz's point at a rudimentary level. If you don't like the example, you can simply ignore it. It's not worth debating.

I assume, as a rational person, you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason. And if you do, you've got nothing to complain about.

P3 is just the exact opposite of theism. The belief in either atheism and theism are both irrational and illogical. Unless of course proven otherwise.

Your error is to thing that "belief" entails "irrational." Actually, every scientific experiment and "law" we have is a matter of belief. But that's not even contested among epistemologists.

• P4: Atheism (if it is a "rational" system) owes us sufficient reasons for saying that no God or gods exist.

...And here's the problem: Atheism cannot fulfill P4. There are no sufficient reasons for saying it's rationally assertable that God does not exist.

That is just a part of the problem: Theism, as far as I am aware, can not fulfill P4 either.

It can, but it would not matter a jot if it couldn't.

For Atheism, if it is a rational belief, must stand on its own two legs as such, and not merely say, "Well, some other systems are also wrong, therefore Atheism must be right." For it could just as easily be the case that Atheism is wrong too, even if some of them are.

If there are sufficient reasons for saying it is rationally answerable that God exists, then let us all see those sufficient reasons.

You need to understand the Principle of Sufficient Reasons. It doesn't mean "reasons you like," or "reasons you regard as true." It means, a cause adequate to its purported effect." And undoubtedly, IF (notice the hypothetical) a God were to exist, He would be entirely sufficient to the effect I have attributed to Him. That's manifest. So the Principle of Sufficient Reason is satisfied by that explanation.

To continue to take issue, you would maybe say, "Well, I don't believe God exists." But two problems follow: 1) you claim your beliefs are irrational anyway, and 2) your belief is not required to satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason. All that's required is that potentially (that is, unless you can conclusively prove God does not exist) God is an adequate explanation for the effect I've attributed to Him.

But there's a problem with this: you can ask them, "Are you offering that as a personal belief statement, or as a rational claim that others ought to believe too?" And if they say it's just a personal belief statement, they're saying that they have no sufficient reasons for believing it. But if they offer it as a rational claim that others ought to believe too, then they're back on the hook for sufficient reasons...which they do not wish to be.

I am waiting for your sufficient reasons also, or is your personal belief, just that?

We're talking about Atheism, not my beliefs.

And we've already seen that it cannot get a 'win' by simply denying my beliefs. It has to prove its own claim with sufficient rational evidence, or be found irrational, no matter what is the case with my beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What's your Atheism-based stand on rape, slavery and genocide? Or is there just no possibility of one?

Rape, slavery , and genocide are wrong because they are cruel and unfair to the victims. It's wrong to be cruel and unfair because if everyone was cruel and unfair there would be no society , society being based upon mutual trust between individuals and between collectives.

But a real Atheist doesn't believe that. He says,

Of course! Atheists would never condemn "rape, slavery and genocide". We just can't understand what all the fuss is about!

See? They're not "wrong" in his world. Nothing is. Neither is living by the axiom, "Dump the collective, and live for self," or "Exploit the conformity of the herd, and take advantage of anyone who tries to be moral."

[davidm]

But a real Atheist doesn't believe that. He says,

Of course! Atheists would never condemn "rape, slavery and genocide". We just can't understand what all the fuss is about!

See? They're not "wrong" in his world. Nothing is. Neither is living by the axiom, "Dump the collective, and live for self," or "Exploit the conformity of the herd, and take advantage of anyone who tries to be moral."

I'm a real atheist and I don't say anything of the sort.

What is wrong with you?

[Dubious]

Immanuel Can wrote:

What's your Atheism-based stand on rape, slavery and genocide? Or is there just no possibility of one?

Rape, slavery , and genocide are wrong because they are cruel and unfair to the victims. It's wrong to be cruel and unfair because if everyone was cruel and unfair there would be no society , society being based upon mutual trust between individuals and between collectives.

But a real Atheist doesn't believe that. He says,

Of course! Atheists would never condemn "rape, slavery and genocide". We just can't understand what all the fuss is about!

See? They're not "wrong" in his world. Nothing is. Neither is living by the axiom, "Dump the collective, and live for self," or "Exploit the conformity of the herd, and take advantage of anyone who tries to be moral."

Why not quote me directly and challenge me with it? Would it be unjust to call you an obscene little coward? You are truly one sick warped little man. If this is ad hominem as you like to complain so often, then so be it, but note it’s one you keep inflicting on yourself.

Theism admittedly makes some people better but for the rare few like yourself, it has the effect of a mind immolating itself.

[surreptitious57]

We are talking about Atheism not my beliefs

And we have already seen that it cannot get a win by simply denying my beliefs. It has to prove its own
claim with sufficient rational evidence or be found irrational no matter what is the case with my beliefs

I make no claim about the existence / non existence of God for I just think he does not exist and that is all
And because I am not making a claim I do not have to provide any evidence for any so none has to be given
Nor can my position be regarded as irrational since irrationality is predicated upon belief which I do not do

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

the axiom, "Dump the collective, and live for self," or "Exploit the conformity of the herd, and take advantage of anyone who tries to be moral."

True, there are many people who are selfish,to the extent that they cannot be trusted. This fact goes to support the point which I made that for societies to exist there has to be a general attitude of mutual trust. Once trust has broken down between individuals or factions in a society you have civil war , or alternatively a police state. Once trust has broken down between nations you have international war.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm a real atheist and I don't say anything of the sort.

Maybe so. Maybe you just happen to choose to be the nicest, most unselfish person in the world.

But as an Atheist, you don't have to be. You could choose to be any of those traditionally "evil" things I listed, and no other Atheist could rationally call you "bad" for doing them. In fact, a rapist, a slave-owner or a genocidal tyrant would be just as "good" and just as "bad" as you, by Atheist account. That's what it means when there's no objective moral standard.

What is wrong with you?

According to Atheism?

Nothing. For nothing can be objectively "wrong" with anything.

[Immanuel Can]

... for societies to exist there has to be a general attitude of mutual trust.

Maybe.

But "general" is the operative word there. Society can still exist (albeit less than completely happily, of course) with quite a few complete rotters in it. And those rotters can get an edge, or even rise to the top by exploiting the "general attitude of mutual trust."

Why shouldn't they be rotters, given that Atheism implies there's no objective standard against them?

[Immanuel Can]

I make no claim about the existence / non existence of God for I just think he does not exist and that is all
And because I am not making a claim I do not have to provide any evidence for any so none has to be given
Nor can my position be regarded as irrational since irrationality is predicated upon belief which I do not do

Since you make no claim about these things, you're right...you have nothing to defend.

But also, since you make no claim (other than your personal disinclination to believe) neither have you provided any reason why anybody else should think as you do, or even care.

If you're content with making no recommendation as to whether or not any other person should rationally choose to be an Atheist, then yes, you can easily leave it there.

Fair enough.

[surreptitious57]

If you are content with making no recommendation as to whether or not any other person
should rationally choose to be an Atheist then yes you can easily leave it there

I make no recommendation for how other human beings should think about anything since it is entirely beyond my capability to do so
I may tell them how I think about something but only for reasons of clarification not indoctrination which I am not interested in at all

[ken]

You are still trying to say what I do, and still getting it wrong by the way, but to make it worse now you are trying to tell Me what to do. Where or when have I EVER told people how to think?

I say remain open, which is the very opposite of thinking. .

You say to people that unless they are open then they have no way of understanding the nondual self.

Did I really use those words?

If so, can you direct us to them?

What I think we will find is I use words more like; The easiest way to learn and understand some thing is to be open, and/or, to understand who and what the one Self IS is more easily and quickly done by being truly Honest, Open, and Willing to change one's self, for the better. To KNOW the real and true Self, one needs to look at that one self.

I am pretty sure when we go back over our writings we will find you are twisting what I say around just here.

You have said countless times to people especially to me...who already knows this stuff, but you are too up your own dumb arse to see that.

I suggest, especially considering this is a philosophy forum, let us stick with looking at what is true, and possible.

There are loads of nondual speakers on this forum with whom I resonate with, and I never once get into any arguments with them except you.

As long as you resonate with SOME people that is fine. Do you resonate with them on every and all things?

I certainly am NOT one of those nondual speakers. I speak for the Self only.

If you, or others, can not see the message here, it might be to subliminal, then just say so and I will explain it in more detail.

Considering this is a philosophy forum I am always looking for 'arguments', logical reasoning, with others till we both find, discover, learn, and understand more truth and come together in agreement. This is what I truly enjoy. WHY do you ONLY get into "arguments" with Me?

And, are you really sure that you never once get into any 'arguments', disputes and disagreements, with any of the many nondual speakers on this forum?

Can you name those "loads" of nondual speakers that you never get into disputses nor disagreements with, so that I can verify what you are saying here is actually true?

To say remain open is to imply one is shut,

Have you ever met a person who is not somewhat closed and/or shut?

A 'person', by definition, is made up of preconceptions, and thus thinking, assuming, and/or believing that they know what is true and right in life.

...and it is thought that does this,

And it is thought that does WHAT exactly?

so you are wrong to say it's the opposite of thought, when thought is clearly involved...idiot.

Name calling and labelling again. WHY?

What do you THINK this will achieve?

A 'person' IS a person, and, 'I' am who and what I am, no matter what names and labels are used.


But to Me, thinking is clearly the opposite of being and remaining open.

By saying to remain open..is to plant the seed of thought into someone ..

When I say, remain open, this is NOT to plant the seed of thought into some one, I am not planting a seed to think, nor to have a thought. I am planting the seed to remain OPEN, which involves NOT thinking or NOT having a thought. To remain open just means to become and remain open, which involves NOT thinking. The internal chatter that comes from thinking deafens out truth and reality. So, by saying, remain open, it is this remaining open that allows you to hear the silence, of KNOWING, of which dontaskme goes on and on about. i, therefore, do not have to give nor provide any answers to you, as you well know, YOU are then able to find answers all by your Self. The answers are with-in YOU. If you do not know HOW to find those answers, then that is totally reasonable as you have never had any experience of this before. But HOW you find ALL the true and right answers, which are within you, is by being truly Honest, Open, and Wanting to change your self, for the better, Self.

If by saying remain open is planting the seed in others, TO THINK, then that just means I need to learn much more about how to express better how to remain open.

By you showing what you do, which you have done by showing the assumptions, and how you jumped to conclusions, which by the way are exactly NOT what I am actually saying, this is helping Me tremendously anyway in learning where and how I am incorrectly expressing and explaining.

to make them think or believe they must be closed in some way, a way that is not remaining open.

By saying remain open, I am obviously certainly NOT making people think or believe that they must be closed in some way. The contradiction of that is just to laughable to be serious. HOWEVER, what you have exposed to Me, is that some people, like dontaskme, starts THINKING, and making assumptions and believing some things, which just shows Me where I am going wrong and how much further I have to learn in regards to expressing better.

By saying any thing I am making you, and others, THINK. And, this is the very opposite of what I am saying is the best thing to do. If you, and others, want to discover and/or learn the truth of things, the this is better done by stopping thoughts and being open. What about if I say, STOP thinking, then will you become OPEN, and then you can see if answers will just naturally flow? Does that, in any way, work better?

Or, does saying "Stop thinking" make you take more notice of the thoughts arising in that head?

If so, then this is will be good to know.

And like I told you before, open cannot NOT be open.

There is NO need to tell Me open can ONLY be open.

No thing can not NOT be what it IS, right?

WHY do you say one thing at one moment and some times in the very next moment you will say some thing completely opposing what you have just said? Like just now. The very next line you state that there is no such thing as remaining open. If open can not NOT be open, then remaining open is such a thing, and a thing that is obviously very possible. If a person is open, and therefore is only being open, then they can remain open. How long one stays or remains open for is another matter, which we will have to wait and see.

There is no such thing as remaining open,

Why not?

Are you telling us that dontaskme can NEVER be open?

Are you saying that dontaskme is always closed, and thus NEVER open to any new ideas or other views?

you are telling people how and what to think...

HOW did I, supposedly, tell people to think?

In what way have I, supposedly, told people to think?

WHAT have I, supposedly, told people to think?

When dontaskme answers these questions, then we can look at how much, and if there is actually any or not, truth in what they are saying here.

Saying, remain open, is the very opposite of telling people how and what to think, as it is saying, stop thinking and do not have any thoughts.

You make it sound like there is something to do first before understanding dawns for them.
This is false misguided information.

I am NOT saying to do any thing other than keep doing what they were doing when and how they were born into this "world". If people remained open as they were at about birth, then there would NOT be any human made problem's in Life. Therefore, I would NOT need to be here in this forum talking, so that I can learn how to talk and express better.

There is nothing anyone has to do to reach understanding ...understanding is already present within them...

EXACTLY, and if people STOPPED thinking, which is what distorts understanding, then what they would actually BE DOING is BEING truly OPEN. And, it is from BEING OPEN where no thing (nor thinking) is happening, and from where ALL truthful answers are already seen, heard, and felt, from within, and just about instantly then understood, by the brain.

You remind me of a dictator.

Really?

How so?

Your EGO loves to massage itself and you prove that over and over again, you have become the most egotistical person on this forum with your constant need to have your ego massaged.

But NO person, on this forum, has ever "massaged" this Ego. The opposite is more true, as I am usually called things like wrong, moron, idiot, et cetera before I am even asked some thing like, can you explain and/or elaborate more on what you are saying.

I am far more told that I am WRONG far more than I am ever agreed with.

And yep, I'll have to eat my own words here, and swallow them down real hard all the way in one big gulp...yep I'm attacking the messenger who ever that is, oh yeah, I remember now, it's myself.

Why does dontaskme so often forget, and then only on reflection of what dontaskme has said, remembers who is doing the talking and Who is actually doing the listening?