Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2024 1:37 pm
Why are you now deflecting?
Here we go, as predicted.
you contradicted "yourself" above here. you answered, 'No', but then replied as if you answered, 'Yes'.
What did i say "yes" to?
you seem to have missed or misunderstood the actual question I asked, for clarification, here.
What have 'these words', supposedly, been corrupted 'from', and 'to', exactly?
Human desire.
Human emotions.
Nihilism.
More specifically, centuries of Abrahamism.
If you say so, but are you able to explain how, exactly?
Evidence of need and dogmatism, exploiting human frailty, corrupting human reason.
Sheesh...another den....
I knew it would be.
I freely chose to enter it, already predicting the consequences.
So, are you here trying to suggest that you have not been corrupted or that the words and/or their definitions have not been corrupted?
I am suggesting that words are to be returned to their original utility, connecting mental abstractions with the world.
Also, what is the exact 'nature' of the 'human being', which you, supposedly, use a shared objective standard, from?
Human nature is displayed in appearance and behaviour, as it is for all living organisms.
And, whatever you say or claim could that just be your 'subjective perspective'?
All subjective perspectives are not equal.
The objective world determines which is superior, or more probable.
Actions, applying perspective, can also evaluate a perspective's quality, from the ensuing consequences, juxtaposed with the original intentions.
This is nothing new....science does it.
So, when you said and claimed, 'when "abrahamics" refer to 'God' they mean their collective minds', you mean 'they' mean their collective process, right?
I mean their collective determined by their indoctrination into a shared world-view....linguistically indoctrinated.
With no external referents for the superstations they peddle, they refer to themselves - it's a form of collective solipsism.
Their conventional defined terms are self-referential - words referring to texts, existing only in their collectivized minds, and nowhere else.
The external world is replaced with their collective and its shared texts.
So, 'word of god' really means word of the collective, represented by iconic figures, acting as mediators. Priestly class.
'First was the word...' means the collective use of a word precedes all else.
Reality must then be warped to fit into this model.
And, what is the difference between when so-called "abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when "non abrahamics" refer to 'God' and when each mean, exactly?
What difficult to understand?
Abrahamic definition of god - as shared by the world's major cults: Christianity, Islam, and mother Judaism...all derived from Gnosticism.
Are you here trying to suggest that you are not ignorant of any thing?
Ha!!!
Another predictable example.
The opposite, in fact.....reread my post.
Your need is overwhelming your sight.
Hopefully, you are not trying to speak of all of 'us' here.
Otherwise, if you were, then you would be Wrong.
Of course...because you say so....and majority rules.
Isn't reality democratically determined?
Could words here have been corrupted?
Could your 'realization' be False and/or Wrong?
Yes...you are stuck in the method you've accustomed to for dealing with anything challenging your superstitions.
I've gone over this.
Could your anxiety be unwarranted?
Ha!!
There it is.
Best defence ever.
Could 'Life', Itself, never end?
Give me one example.
It is also possible that rocks are alive.
Anything is possible, right?
But is it probable?
Arguments or evidence.
Could this be based on False or Wrong misinterpretations of things here?
Unable to respond you turn the tables....as predicted.
Again....it is already stated.
The standard is existence....natural order.
Are you here suggesting that you know 'objective reality' and that if anyone has differing views from yours that it is 'them' who has corrupted versions and views?
Is that what you've understood?
Am I saying that I'm omniscient?
Ha!!
Well, this will soon come to an end.
At some point you'll have to resist the impulse to dismiss me and declare victory, returning to the delusions you need to deal with existence.
I urge you to do so sooner, than later, so as to spare me the wasted time.
We both know you will never consider your delusions to be anything but certainties.
You already know your spirit is immortal and etenral....why go through this Socratic interrogation, pretending to be a thinker and interested in truth?
Who are you talking to here, exactly?
Is there anyone else here?
I'm addressing they/them.
Who has a definition of 'spirit' here, and what is that definition, exactly?
We both do....you are afraid to reveal it.
Your method is to discredit, as if this credits yours.
you are absolutely free to assume absolutely any thing. But, doing so is a very foolish thing to do. As you are showing and now highlighting, here.
How generous of you.
Of which you have, right?
Sheesh...womanly methods.
Oh well.
______________________________________________
Would you like 'your perspective' challenged directly?
Yes.
Womanly methods are tiresome.
If yes, then just express 'your perspective', directly.
I did in my definition of 'spirit'.
Always?
Ha!!
Most probably so.
Do your methods work? Do they offer you solace?
just say it...you believed the human spirit, only, is immortal and eternal.
You can't prove an absurdity by discrediting a rational hypothesis.
Well if one knows the 'absoluteness', then 'the other' does not, right?
Reread my post...unemotionally....without your prejudices.
Don't waste my time.
Do you believe, absolutely, that there is no such Thing?
There ya go...even when I made a point of mentioning this response you could not resist. It's all you've got.
Reread my definitions.
'Truth is there is no truth' right?
HA!!
So, do you have any actual proof, or logical argument, that there is, absolutely, no such thing as you profess and claim here?
The burden of proof is on the one claiming an absolute.
I don't need to prove the non-existence of god.
I am simply mentioning the absence.
I also believe unicorns do not exist...do you need evidence of this?
If yes, then where and what is 'it/them', exactly?
But, if no, then why do you believe such a thing as what you do here? And, why are you so absolute or insistent in your belief here?
I smell a nihilist.
I am proposing an absolute?
I insist?
Did I force you in any way to abandon your delusions?
Here, allow me to rectify...
Ta, Ta,