Religious Wars are born out of the BELIEF in Separation.

[Immanuel Can]

Scientific knowledge other than that arrived at through falsification or disproof is always going to be provisional
So we can only speculate or hypothesise based on pre existing knowledge because that is a limitation of science

Hmmm...well, the Big Crunch needs a better proof than that, if we're going to consider it a serious possibility. It's fine to say, "Well, there's lots of stuff out there we don't know," but it's a bit of a reach to say, "therefore we can imagine forces we can't even locate right now will do a job we don't know can even be done, and which looks to be becoming infinitely hard within the next quintillion years."

For me, that's too much of a reach.

[Dontaskme]

I could not have known whether you were male or female

I try not to sex-stereotype. I deliberately try to avoid knowing who's female and who's male on this site, since it's not really relevant. I would suggest it's ad hominem to make that part of the equation. So I don't.

Are you sure about that? ...can't you remember the time you made a reference to the poster named AGE as being a SHE because I remember that very well.

I can't remember on which thread that conversation took place where you defintely referenced Age as being a SHE.

In the same conversation, I informed you that AGE used to post under another name of KEN. I said to you I don't think Age is a she, I think Age is a he.

So it seems you do have genders in mind after all, either /or you just made a blind assumption AGE was a she, contradicting what you said above where you stated that you deliberately try to avoid issues of gender about who is male or female.

You literally ad hominemed the character AGE under your own admission.

.

[Dontaskme]

You're implicitly denying your own creed at this very moment. That's what I'm saying. If you believed there were no speakers, no listeners, no talking and no meaning, then this conversation would not be happening. It would have no speaker, no recipient, no content and no origin.

Do you not understand that to implicitly deny your own creed can only refer to a dream character within the illusory dream of separation.No one owns a belief IC..beliefs are self arising in no self, there is no self because there is no other than self.
Self is Self owning. It's ONE with itself, it is itself, being itself.Only ignorance is original. Knowledge is on contact, with itself within the dream of separation.
Do you not understand the nondual concept that there is no thing doing anything yet nothing is left undone?
That to me is the absolute and only truth. It means no one knows truth, you are truth. Do you not understand the premise that only ignorance is original, and that everything else is pure imagination in this conception? and that this conception is knowledge which is born of sound heard as words. Do you not understand that sound is only silence sounding appearing as an illusory fictional story and that knowledge just informs the illusory nature of reality.

Reincarnation refers to the dream of separation, in reality no one is born, and therefore cannot die...except in this conception, the story of I ..which is always history appearing now on demand for knowledge.


.

[Immanuel Can]

I could not have known whether you were male or female

I try not to sex-stereotype. I deliberately try to avoid knowing who's female and who's male on this site, since it's not really relevant. I would suggest it's ad hominem to make that part of the equation. So I don't.

Are you sure about that? ...can't you remember the time you made a reference to the poster named AGE as being a SHE because I remember that very well.

Age is apparently a guy named "Kenneth." That fact came out from another poster, only after put that out there. And that's what I really wanted to know. I found Age's manner of arguing rather feminine, but was not certain. So I simply took the most plausible guess, and was wrong.

But it wasn't "ad homimem," because I did not treat the gender of the person in question as of any relevance to the rightness or wrongness of a claim in the discussion. An ad hominem only happens when someone makes a personal trait the basis for rejecting an argument.

[Nick_A]

The only WAR happening in REALITY is the MIND in which the 'sense of separation' is believed to be real.

Bumper Sticker

The wretched man is not God. We are separated from God simply because Man's being is not all that high along the scale of being. Wars are the natural results of Man's fallen nature reacting to natural and cosmic influences. These influences produce cycles which life on earth respomds to in one way or another including Man.

The cycles includng the cycle of war and peace are described in Ecclesiastes 3

[Dontaskme]

Age is apparently a guy named "Kenneth."

Well who'd have thought that a guy poster under the name of KEN is apparently called Kenneth. This revelation is shocking.

I found Age's manner of arguing rather feminine, but was not certain. I try not to sex-stereotype.

Although you did what you try not to do anyway.

So I simply took the most plausible guess, and was wrong.

Yes, and you could also be wrong about God being a He as well for all you know.

But it wasn't "ad homimem," because I did not treat the gender of the person in question as of any relevance to the rightness or wrongness of a claim in the discussion.

A good philosopher boils down to one thing, it being an art form delivered in prose. One of knowing how to argue your philosophy correctly with accurate precision, without making self indulgent claims as to whether the other philosophers are wrong or right for none of us know anything at all except what we make up. Including scientists, they make it all up too. All knowledge does is inform the illusory nature of reality as being a fictional fact. Even science itself deals only in concepts admitting that all of reality is a simulation.

An ad hominem only happens when someone makes a personal trait the basis for rejecting an argument.

Rejecting an argument based on the OP aka ''the belief in religious separation causes conflict'' has nothing to do with attacking a persons character as an ad hominem, it rather means there is no agreement in the idea posed that's all, and that's ok, for everything is inclusive when mental activity aka debate of an idea is in action, including agreeing or disagreeing, which can express as both rights and wrongs.

People often attack the messenger and forget it's the message that counts...the mental messenger doesn't even exist. It's an idea. All there is are stories about things told by no thing to no one and for no one.

Even the action of walking off the side of a very tall cliff and falling to one's death is an action performed by no one. The only reason why one would refrain from carrying out that sort of action is because the organism is already born programmed to obey the laws of gravity. You can literally get a new born human baby to cling to a rope suspended in mid air, simply because the organism already knows automatically what to do when it comes to natural universal laws. The senses are working automatically on auto pilot, there is no separate co pilot flying this plane of existence, this existence is flying itself.

So there.

.

[Dontaskme]

The only WAR happening in REALITY is the MIND in which the 'sense of separation' is believed to be real.

Bumper Sticker

The wretched man is not God. We are separated from God simply because Man's being is not all that high along the scale of being. Wars are the natural results of Man's fallen nature reacting to natural and cosmic influences. These influences produce cycles which life on earth respomds to in one way or another including Man.

The cycles includng the cycle of war and peace are described in Ecclesiastes 3

The whole living organic universal soup is constantly at war with itself in it's relentless plight to survive at any cost. But it is not a deliberate war full of intent. The whole universal organism has only one survival tactic which is to eat itself alive, since there is no other thing it can feed off of except itself. Life itself is a circular phenomena since there is nothing outside of it's arena. For the knower aka the mind, there is only the mind and the contents of mind, aka knowledge.

The ''religious mind wars'' I'm talking about is the whole idea of a MIND itself which is nothing more than a unique aspect of life itself expressing itself as the knower of itself.

This unique aspect called the mind is one of natures biggest fuck ups. Nature will itself rid itself of it's own self made cancerous destructive nature eventually, as nature is self-cleaning, although that does not mean the destructive nature will not rise up again and again, since what's to stop it, as nothing starts it..it's a circular phenomena, as life itself is one automatic self-sustaining feedback loop.

Either the fuck up that is humanity will auto correct itself, having at least some tenacious capacity to survive against all odds, or it will extinct like all the other useless junk did during this evolution. Man is nothing special, the universe couldn't give a fuck about whether this species survives of not, the universe has no intent on creating a perfect species, it cares only for harmony and balance.

.

[Immanuel Can]

A good philosopher boils down to one thing, it being an art form delivered in prose.

Ah. You think it's an "art"? Like, just stylin'?

I would suggest being rational is priority 1...providing evidence, giving reasons, using logic. If "art" is all we have, then we're merely propagandists. And I don't believe that's what philosophy is.

An ad hominem only happens when someone makes a personal trait the basis for rejecting an argument.

People often attack the messenger and forget it's the message that counts...

Right. Stop the thought there. You've got it. That's the point. Very good.

[Dontaskme]

A good philosopher boils down to one thing, it being an art form delivered in prose.

Ah. You think it's an "art"? Like, just stylin'?

I would suggest being rational is priority 1...providing evidence, giving reasons, using logic. If "art" is all we have, then we're merely propagandists. And I don't believe that's what philosophy is.

I've no idea what you mean, but to me, Philosophy is just an expression of the imagination, appearing as prose, aka the nature of things. Art is natural, nature is artificial.

''All things are artificial, for nature is the art of God.''

Einstein said: I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. I am the consummate artist I draw upon my imagination.

God is not in the painting, the painting is in God.

Now, evidence, reason and logic have nothing to do with reality, that is all conceptual dream story. The universe that evolved the human brain did so without a brain or mind.



.

[Immanuel Can]

A good philosopher boils down to one thing, it being an art form delivered in prose.

Ah. You think it's an "art"? Like, just stylin'?

I would suggest being rational is priority 1...providing evidence, giving reasons, using logic. If "art" is all we have, then we're merely propagandists. And I don't believe that's what philosophy is.

I've no idea what you mean, but to me, Philosophy is just an expression of the imagination, appearing as prose, aka the nature of things. Art is natural, nature is artificial.

"To me"?

The more important question is, what is it to philosophers. What sort of activity are you supposed to be involving yourself with while you're on this site, for example.

That's not defined by your opinion: it's defined by what actual philosophers say it is, and by people here are already doing when you join. You're coming into something already in motion, already with defined rules-of-the-game. It's a mental discipline, not a mere airing of feelings.

You say it's just "an expression of the imagination," mere "prose," and "art." Well, I doubt very much that anybody else here thinks that's what it is; but if you can find one, I guarantee that she has missed the point of what we're doing. Here, we're doing logic. We're reasoning. We're trying to make our ideas better, by challenging them against each other's claims, using agreed-upon grounds of reasoning and evidence.

[Dontaskme]

"To me"?

The more important question is, what is it to philosophers.

Yes, to me, the philosopher here.

To me here, there is only ONE philosopher in which many diverse philosophies are expressed as they appear to be according to the perspective of the individual mind the 'thoughts' are appearing to.
And that is my truth here, but if you there don't agree, I simply do not care, since other peoples realities are not real for me here, I simply have no access to other minds or what beliefs, thoughts, or of what powers of reasoning and logic are going on inside of other minds.
For all those other minds will never be my mind here. Unless of course there is some resonance, some known truths reflecting back at me that are my own, I will certaintly make it known. But if there is no resonance for me here, other minds are of no relevance. If there is resonance, I will say so. I will make it known.

What sort of activity are you supposed to be involving yourself with while you're on this site,

Real philosophy.

for example.

That's not defined by your opinion: it's defined by what actual philosophers say it is, and by people here are already doing when you join.

I can only speak from the philosopher here. What is perceived as true and real here in me.

You're coming into something already in motion, already with defined rules-of-the-game. It's a mental discipline, not a mere airing of feelings.

Every mentation prosed is an activity of the mind to whom that activity is arising, and true and real for that one only.

You say it's just "an expression of the imagination," mere "prose," and "art." Well, I doubt very much that anybody else here thinks that's what it is;

What other people are thinking and feeling or believing has got nothing to do with the way I think, feel, and believe. For what is arising here is the only reality known. Here, I cannot know the reality, feelings, thoughts, or beliefs of others, for they are not real to me here. Only I AM real to me here. And the words I choose to use to point out my philosophy are what arise in me here. I cannot make words to appear any different that how they want to appear in the moment. The words I choose are correct and real for me here, they match what I am expressing and I have no other way of expressing my philosophy without the words I use. I care not for what other words are available, I can only use the words that feel right for me here.

Here, we're doing logic. We're reasoning. We're trying to make our ideas better, by challenging them against each other's claims, using agreed-upon grounds of reasoning and evidence.

That's exactly what I'm doing here, I'm using my mind to work out my philosophy how it feels to me here. I don't agree there is a need to make our ideas better than others and then pit them against others as to whether our ideas hold enough evidence - because as I see it from here, I see no need to show others my evidence of what is being perceived here for me, it's already evident to me, only I here can be self-evident of what is being reasoned via thinking to be real and true. No one has over all authority on any truth claim except themself. And no one can deny another their truth in favor of a different truth without the confusion of where did that other truth come from. If a truth can be absolutely irrefutable and someone has found it, then where-ever they got it from would be available to all of us. So I simply do not buy that there has to be in place an individual belief structure that says anything regarding ones own philosophy needs to be challenged or be agreed with. Resonated with yes, but not challenged or agreed with because we are all free thinking unique never to be repeated expressions of oneness, we are works of art itself with our own creative juices. We are not robots, like many schools of thought would like us to be.

Like I said above, the way other people vision their truths is not real for me here, other peoples thoughts and beliefs and feelings I have no access to. The only evidence I have of truth comes from me here, the one I am without doubt or error.
I can listen to other accounts as they are written in the form of prose but then only I here the one I am will make up my own mind as to whether I want to resonate according to what the other has expressed, if it feels true, right, for me here, then only I make that decision, not another.

And that's basically the same going on for everyone. I don't see the point of trying to get others to see life and reality as only we can personally SEE IT as we do, for no other one can experience what is only ever your own unique reality happening to you.
And that's basically in my opinion what true philosophy is all about. If you don't like the sound of that, then stop poking your nose into my reality here, attempting to find fault that will never be proven to not be the case by you or anyone, for one very good reason, you there IS NOT me here.

.

[Dontaskme]

We're trying to make our ideas better, by challenging them against each other's claims, using agreed-upon grounds of reasoning and evidence.

And what concrete conclusive irrefutable evidence has ever been acheived from your personal 6137 entries of ideas posed against others here on this forum??

What have you and others ever AGREED upon with your so called collective logic and reasoning???

Everyone on here seems to do nothing more than beat around the bush forever going round and round in circles like a dog chasing it's tail. You're like a bunch of babbling monkies all trying to see who can beat their chest the loudest, such actions belong nowhere here in the real world except inside this rather comical man-made human zoo.

And that's basically all philosophers have being doing since the dawn of time, and you will each and every one of you continue to do so until the day you die. In fact you will still be arguing on your death beds. And do you know why? because you're all just playing silly mental games of thinking knowledge actually makes you out to be something special, when in truth, all knowledge is nothing but a fiction. Your knowledge has just about as much substance and reality to it as does a fart in the wind.

.

[Immanuel Can]

And that is my truth here,

That's "Oprah-speak," the Orwellian version of pop philosophy.

In reality, there is no "my truth" and "your truth." There is only "the truth," plus falsehoods cherished by particular individuals. And nobody cares about "your truth" or "my truth," because they are only our personal delusions, if they apply only to us.

Truth is not the private possession of individuals. It is common property available in principle to all, or it is no truth at all.

You say it's just "an expression of the imagination," mere "prose," and "art." Well, I doubt very much that anybody else here thinks that's what it is;

What other people are thinking and feeling or believing has got nothing to do with the way I think, feel, and believe.[/quote]
Apparently, that may be true. For philosophers in general clearly do not agree with you. They continue to think that reason, logic and evidence matter, and what an individual may "think, feel and believe" is not comparatively important, regardless of the person.

Here, we're doing logic. We're reasoning. We're trying to make our ideas better, by challenging them against each other's claims, using agreed-upon grounds of reasoning and evidence.

That's exactly what I'm doing here,[/quote]
Then you won't be able to do it while exempting your own views from being subjected to reason, logic and evidence. If you continue to say that a viewpoint matters just because it's your own, you can't do philosophy.

how it feels to me here.

Not relevant to philosophy.

Like I said above, the way other people vision their truths is not real for me here,

Then you're not participating in philosophy. You're just emoting.

And that's basically the same going on for everyone.

I can see why you'd imagine that, if that's all you know when you look inside. But I assure you, it's just not true. A better grasp of how philosophy works would help you decide whether or not what you were trying to do here was relevant, and would thus explain a lot of the negative response you've gotten from others.

Personally, I don't dislike you at all. But I find you confused about what philosophy is. And I don't find that, at present, you are yet in the habit of subjecting your own impressions to the kind of rigour that philosophy itself demands of them.

If you don't like the sound of that, then stop poking your nose into my reality here,

This is definitely not philosophy. It's what I said above: you're not subjecting your views to any philosophical test. You're exempting them in the mistaken view the they have to be right for no more reason than that they are yours. But if that's true, then you can never grow, learn or communicate -- for every person is simply then locked inside his/her own confused subjectivity, totally exempt from critique or discussion with anyone else. Is that how you would suppose it really is?

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to show you in what way philosophy is different from mere feelings or imaginings, so you can join the program if you want.

[Immanuel Can]

We're trying to make our ideas better, by challenging them against each other's claims, using agreed-upon grounds of reasoning and evidence.

And what concrete conclusive irrefutable evidence has ever been acheived from your personal 6137 entries of ideas posed against others here on this forum??

I don't know what you mean by "conclusive, irrefutable" because all human knowing outside of closed system is probabilistic, not absolute. And "evidence" belongs to science: we can cite evidence here, but we don't "achieve it," per se.

But to your point, I would say I've learned a lot. For one thing, there are some great conversationalists here, and they've pointed me to some excellent pieces of evidence and some good ways of reasoning. For another, they've opened up topics I had never before thought about. For another, they've helped me refine my own understanding of my own position. And yes, sometimes we even agree. Hooray.

Meanwhile, I've gained a heck of a lot of understanding of how other people think and argue. All in all, I feel a great deal of benefit...which is most gratifying, because it's why I came to this site in the first place.

Everyone on here seems to do nothing more than beat around the bush forever going round and round in circles like a dog chasing it's tail. You're like a bunch of babbling monkies all trying to see who can beat their chest the loudest, such actions belong nowhere here in the real world except inside this rather comical man-made human zoo.

I have to admit that there are some "zoo-animal" types here...merely people who want to troll or spew venom. And yes, they need to grow up.

But there are better types as well. One has to be discerning about the interlocutors one chooses. The trolls and spewers quickly go away if you don't feed the animals. And there are some really great people here. You just have to pick them out and make use of them.

[Dontaskme]

And that is my truth here,

That's "Oprah-speak," the Orwellian version of pop philosophy.

No, it's not 'other version' speak, it's DAM speak, the mouthpiece of GOD
Stop projecting your insulting shit all over my clarity.

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.(Luke 17:21)

''Look into every great religious, spiritual, and wisdom tradition, and we find the same precept — that life’s ultimate truth, its ultimate treasure, lies within us.''

''I entered into the innermost part of myself. . . . I entered and I saw with my soul’s eye (such as it was) an unchangeable light shining above this eye of my soul and above my mind. . . . He who knows truth knows that light, and he who knows that light knows eternity. Love knows it. O eternal truth and true love and beloved eternity!'' ~ St. Augustine (354–430 • Algeria)

In reality, there is no "my truth" and "your truth." There is only "the truth," plus falsehoods cherished by particular individuals.

I only agree in the sense that there is no truth because there is no other than truth. All truth is relative.

And nobody cares about "your truth" or "my truth," because they are only our personal delusions, if they apply only to us.

I agree.

Truth is not the private possession of individuals. It is common property available in principle to all, or it is no truth at all.

I agree, I've already mentioned this myself many times, that truth is available to all of us, simply because there is only truth and I AM it.
Truth is within all of us, as jesus reminded us.

Then you won't be able to do it while exempting your own views from being subjected to reason, logic and evidence. If you continue to say that a viewpoint matters just because it's your own, you can't do philosophy.

But I can do philosophy, and so can you. That's what this forum is all about, it's about doing philosophy.

Not relevant to philosophy.

This site is all about philosophy so it's all relevant. People either resonate with what appears here or they don't, but that doesn't make the content irrelevant. The poster wouldn't be here discussing their philosophy if it wasn't relevant, otherwise they'd be doing something better with their time like sunbathing on a nice hot beach somewhere.

Then you're not participating in philosophy. You're just emoting.

No, I'm participating in philosophical disccusion. Stop telling me that I'm not doing what you think I should be doing, when I'm clearly doing what you think I'm not doing. You are not my dad so quit your patronising beak.

I can see why you'd imagine that, if that's all you know when you look inside. But I assure you, it's just not true.

You have no idea what I know.

A better grasp of how philosophy works would help you decide whether or not what you were trying to do here was relevant, and would thus explain a lot of the negative response you've gotten from others.

Listen, I do my philosophy, that's all I can do from what I know. You do yours, and I do mine. I don't care what negative responses I get, I'm not here to form the get-a-long-gang hive mentality, where we all scratch each others backs. I'm here to post my philosophy which is real and true, not some delusion taught to me by others.

Personally, I don't dislike you at all.

I'm not here to be liked, so I couldn't give a toss about your feelings for me.

But I find you confused about what philosophy is.

It's no skin off my nose what you think about me as a philosopher, it's your confusion not mine. I'm totally fine and not confused with the way I see reality as I personally philosophize it. So I really don't care whether or not that meets with yours or anyone elses approval.

And I don't find that, at present, you are yet in the habit of subjecting your own impressions to the kind of rigour that philosophy itself demands of them.

Well whatever that is supposed to mean, I mean here we go again, you are always coming out with all these weird and fancy sayings that I have absolutely no idea how to reply to them.
That's because I only know the philosophy that is my own groove, the stuff I'm really into that is real and true philosophy, a kind of meta philosophy.

This is definitely not philosophy.

Yes it is.

It's what I said above: you're not subjecting your views to any philosophical test.

I am living my philosophy everyday, I'm living testimony to my philosophy, so again, your just spewing stuff at me that make no sense to me here, stuff that is just your stupid projections whatever on earth they are supposed to be saying, I have no idea.

You're exempting them in the mistaken view the they have to be right for no more reason than that they are yours.

That's right, my philosophy comes straight from my own direct personal experience, you can't get more truthful than that.

But if that's true, then you can never grow, learn or communicate.

Well that's where you are wrong, please stop telling me what you think I can and cannot do, you are not my dad.
One of the main reasons I continue to post on this forum is because I learn so much by being here. I happen to enjoy reading this forum very much.

for every person is simply then locked inside his/her own confused subjectivity,

Not really, most people who post on philosophy forums are very open minded, I know I am. To be honest, there is nothing new under the sun, only ignorance is original, so all we are doing is sharing our personal experiences of how we see things. I'm certainly not confused about the way I see things. And I certainly have no problem with the way other people see things from their perspectives either. Each to their own.

totally exempt from critique or discussion with anyone else. Is that how you would suppose it really is?

No, I have no reason to critic anyone here or argue, since each and every one of us can only know what they know so far. All we are doing is showing others what we know so far. We can only know what we know, and some know more than others.

I'm not trying to be mean.

I have no emotional attachments to any one in this world, so this is a meaningless thing to say, also stupid, since we have never seen or known each other in the real world, you are not real to me, you are just another part of my imaginings. I only deal with what is real here in my life, and that's all that counts.

I'm trying to show you in what way philosophy is different from mere feelings or imaginings, so you can join the program if you want.

This is just patronising silliness ..ONE simply cannot know anything without thinking, feeling, and expressing that knowledge in the form of ideas/imagined. Where do you think knowledge comes from? it comes from the mind...and where is the mind?


I've already joined the program, are you blind. Or do I need to have some kind of special permit before I'm qualified to join this joint, one that has to be approved by his royal upstart himself the great wise and all knowing king of the philosophy now forum.. aka IC

.