The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:28 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
If GOD is anything at all God is emptiness.
WHY MUST God be 'emptiness'?

And who or what is stating this and insisting that this MUST BE the absolute Truth?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
"In recognising presence awareness, there is no 'thing' to see, just natural non-conceptual seeing, actually as it is without subject or object.


This is just commonly referred to as being OPEN. Absolutely nothing hard nor new about this.

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
See this and the realisation is immediate that what is labled as awareness or consciousness or mind can never be formulated as either a subject or an object.


Yet here 'you' are talking about, and formulating, these THREE THINGS as though they objects, and thee subject of discussion here.

To me ALL things can be formulated into either a subject and/or an object. The fact that we can not just do this but actually DO do this, is substantiated and verified by the very words being used HERE NOW.

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
Being empty of a subject or object, it is emptiness seeing (cognising emptiness).


This is a very convoluted and illogical way to 'try' and prove what you BELIEVE is the Truth of things.

If 'emptiness' can SEE (and cognatize), then what IS 'emptiness'?

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
Emptiness can never be emptied of emptiness, nor can it be filled by emptiness.


Can a 'rock' ever be emptied of rock?

Also, can a 'rock' be filled by rock?

If no, then why not?

But if yes, then so what?

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
With that concept cancelled out, only the wordless thoughtless indescribable emptiness remains.


Speaking of 'emptiness' as though it is even an object or a subject, and then coming to a conclusion that your OWN concept has been cancelled out, to me, just shows what lengths 'you' will go to 'to try' and "justify" an idea, of which 'you' literally can NOT describe in words.

To then just insist that words and language can not be used describe 'it' because it is 'indescribable' is just more "self-justifying".

As I have said previously the idea of which you talk about has already be PROVEN to be True, and to explain it ALL fully and understandably is very simple and easy indeed. End of story. But the way you are 'trying to' go about this, insisting on what IS JUST, and naturally True and Right anyway, IS very self-defeating.

In case 'you' have not yet noticed using WORDS to describe and say things like; "only the wordless indescribable emptiness remains", is completely and utterly contradicting, and thus self-DEFEATING.

Obviously EVERY thing is easily describable, and can be simply described. To ASSUME otherwise is a complete and utter over-sight AND mistake.

Just because 'you', human beings, have NOT yet evolved enough and still LOOK AT and SEE things from the human being perspective does NOT mean that what 'you' say, at any period is thee actual Truth of things.

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
Not a vacuum or a void, but a vivid self-shining, self-knowing, self-aware emptiness, like a clear sky full of light.


Yet it is 'YOU' who is NOT yet self-knowing, and NOT yet self-aware?

Unless of course 'you' prove 'me' WRONG now by explaining who and/or what the 'self' actually IS.

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
See for yourself.
No one or other can do it for you.
Immediate simplicity.
Continue to see that the seeing is continuous.
Any doubt, question, or argument, and the conceptual seeker has appeared again.
See that and non-conceptual emptiness remains undisturbed".
WHY does a 'you' keep 'trying to' describe what itself says is 'indescribable'?

WHY does the 'you' keep disturbing theewhat IS, and IS already KNOWN?

The so called "non-conceptual emptiness" of which the 'you' keeps going on about is VERY DESCRIBABLE, and has in fact ALREADY been DESCRIBED.
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am
Your arguing for the imagined existence of a fictional character's story. It's so see through a blind man can see it.

.
Why are 'you' even suggesting that a, so called, 'blind man' can not SEE?

you are inferring that you can SEE what "others" can not. Yet 'you' are the one saying "that there is nothing to see", and that there is only an 'emptiness'.

SEE, if you are ever become Honest with thy self, all you are doing is just repeating what you have learned, from "others", who obviously have NOT had thee KNOWledge revealed to them yet. 'you' have NOT really LOOKED AT this from your own True Self perspective. If 'you' had, then 'you' would already be SEEING and KNOWING the actual Truth of things ALREADY.

I have asked you to clarify what you infer is the absolute Truth. Now let us SEE if you answer those questions and what you have to say about them.

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:59 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:41 am
There is no 'I' to think 'I am me'.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 am
Yes there IS.
There IS and IS not I

The I that thinks 'I am me' is a 'known thought' in thoughtless I
The 'i' that thinks 'I am me' is NOT thy True Self. This "self" needs to be discovered and learned about. Thee True Self KNOWS who and what 'I am'.

The stupidity of thinking "I am me" speaks for itself, because obviously the next OPEN clarifying question, which could be asked, could be; Who and/or what is 'me'?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:59 am
'I am me' is a thought arising in thoughtless I
AFTER the 'you' LEARNS the difference between a 'you', which is just a person, and thee 'I', which is thy True Self, then this will help in understanding what 'thoughts' actually ARE, and how and why they arise.

By the way, how many of 'you', human beings' actually think; 'I am me'?

Saying, "I am me", reveals about as much insight as saying,"God created everything", does. Again, who or what is 'me' AND 'God'?

If 'you' do NOT know, then there is absolutely NO use in saying those things.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:59 am
I is ONE aka no one...
But the word ONE does NOT also mean 'no one'. The word 'one' literally means one, AND, the words 'no one' literally means 'no one'. The TWO do NOT mean the same.

Now, either you understand this or you will SHOW otherwise, and thus PROVE me WRONG. So which one is it going to be. Or, could there be some thing else? If there is some thing else, then SHOW that.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:59 am
identification with thought is duality, an illusory arising within nothingness appearing as something.
Yet absolutely EVERY word 'you' have put down here is an 'identifying thought' itself. EVERY word, under the identifying label "dontaskme", is a thought identifying themselves to 'you', "dontaskme".

The word 'illusory' is sometimes used to describe what is based on what is an 'illusion', or on what is 'NOT real'.

Now, either explain to the readers HOW some thing which is NOT even real COULD even arise, let alone arise within 'nothingness', and appear as 'some thing', or, just keep re-repeating these same "illusory thoughts, which you identify with, and say is duality, but which you also insist exist in an ABSOLUTELY 'nothingness' and ALL of this is just imagined and so is just an illusion to NO thing.

The absolute contradicting nature in your WHOLE 'thinking' I would hope as obvious to "others" by now as it is to 'Me'.

I will say this again. What 'you' are 'trying to' explain, and insist is thee Truth, can be explained in extremely very simple and very easy terms.

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:18 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:51 am


Saying that "EVERY thing came from NO thing" is just as stupid and as ridiculous as saying, "EVERY thing came from God". How could you possibly substantiate and/or validate what you are saying and proposing?
Because I AM the unknown known. NOWHERE.
LOL do 'you' think that clears it up now?

What exactly is an 'unknown known'? And, where is 'NOWHERE'?

IF 'you' are going to use words to describe things, then you need to be able to define those words, that is; IF you want to be understood.
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:18 am
Everything and Nothing doesn't come from any other place than always this here now. NOWHERE. THIS IS IT.
Tell me HOW 'here' can be NOWHERE?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:18 am
You,me, and everything are THIS
LOL

'you' really can NOT even get close to even somewhat explaining what it is that you desperately would LOVE to be able to explain, can you?

What about if there was a way to explain 'that', which you can not, would you like to learn it?
Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:18 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:51 am
The problem with your [religious] critique, your logic, your reasons, your truth-seeking, your argumentation, and your debate is what are you literally basing, what you are saying here, from exactly?

(Your Honest answer would be much appreciated here now).
From KNOWLEDGE that no one knows.

.
But if you were TRULY Honest, you would have said, "It ALL comes from NOTHING".

So what 'you' are literally basing YOUR, so called, "KNOWLEDGE" on IS NOTHING, at all really.

This is; IF what you are saying is True.

You can not insist that EVERY thing comes and goes from 'nothing' but knowledge does not.

Either the "knowledge", which you are insisting that 'you' KNOW is True, Right, and Correct, comes from some True and Right source or it comes from NOTHING.

So, which one is it?

(Your Honest answer would be much appreciated here now).

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:25 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:20 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:51 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:57 am


The mind knows itself as a conceptual thing. The mind comes and goes in no thing / nothingness.
How certain are you of this?
As certain as I am uncertain.

.
Are you saying that 'you' have absolutely NO idea if this is even true OR false?

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:36 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 am
gaffo wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:06 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:46 am

Also it is not necessarily the case that all life and knowledge learnt will be gone as by that stage we could have spread to other solar systems.
space is empty - the nearest stars are too far to get too.


no technology will make a spaceship mulitgenerational for a 60,000 yrs to get to the nearest star -which may or may not have another earth around it.

we are stuck on Earth forever.

thems the facts.
Nope. Read up on Dyson and the Orion pusher-plate ships in the 50's.
ok - bare in mind, that ones needs to decelarate at the 1/2 way point too! - otherwise decelaraton will crush as much as acc.

as stated - assuming Einstian is corrrect (we cannot go faster than light0 - we are stuck here forever!

maybe E is wrong? could me, but none so far (all smart then you and me) have not shown to date that he is wrong in this matter.

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:39 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:41 am
Arising_uk wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:36 pm
And yet you still insist on posting things like, "The sun that supports life on this planet will eventually expand into a red giant during the throes of it's ultimate death, vaporizing the earth and all life and knowledge learnt will be gone"? This is what I mean by the contradictions in your words, thoughts and your metaphysic.


There is no 'I' to think 'I am me'.
Yes there IS.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:41 am
The 'me-ing' appears out of nothing and apparently falls back into nothing.
No it does NOT.

agreed, as a Solipist i know i exist,

as per you? i take in on Faith, but do not affirm it empirically.

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:41 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:59 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:41 am
There is no 'I' to think 'I am me'.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:30 am
Yes there IS.
There IS and IS not I

The I that thinks 'I am me' is a 'known thought' in thoughtless I

'I am me' is a thought arising in thoughtless I

I is ONE aka no one...identification with thought is duality, an illusory arising within nothingness appearing as something.
word salad nonsense.

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:44 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:43 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
There is nothing to know, nothing to learn.
Is this some thing which you are 'trying to' teach?

Do you believe there is nothing more for 'you' to learn?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
There is only the here and now.
Is this another one of those 'nothing to learn' lessons?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
There are no answers to life.
Is "There is only the here and now" one of those no answer to life non-lesson?

If yes, then WHY are you providing this NON-answer?

If, however, no, then what is "There is only the here and now" actually?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
All that you know is what you've read or heard.
But how do the ones who can not read and can not hear, know things?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
This is the peace that passes all understanding, everything is resolved without saying a word.
But there was NOTHING at all to be solved, nor resolved, anyway.

SEE, I already KNOW all the answers.
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
This is the truth that the world doesn't want you to know.
How does a 'you' know what the truth IS?

And, how could a 'world' want any thing?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
Life is a catch 22 ..
No It is NOT.

'Life' IS HERE-NOW.

There is NOTHING new needing to be solved, nor resolved. This has already been done.
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
an unknown life evolves into an unknown death just as death evolves into a life unknown.
But I KNOW 'Life'. There is NO 'unknown life'. Life does NOT evolve into an 'unknown death', nor even into a 'death'. This would just be impossible, unless of course, shown otherwise.

What do you think or believe actually dies and evolves into life again?

And how do you propose this could even happen?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:47 am
The known knows nothing and nothing knows, is known.

.
This sounds like you will 'try' just about any thing to 'try' to back up and support your already existing BELIEFS.

What exactly is this 'known', which knows nothing?

And who or what KNOWS that 'nothing knows'?

refer to Robart Sheckley's Warm short story.

"Dont" wears a loud tie while shouting he exists!

lol.

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:48 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am


The 'i' that thinks 'I am me' is NOT thy True Self.
sure it is.

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
This "self" needs to be discovered and learned about. Thee True Self KNOWS who and what 'I am'.

The stupidity of thinking "I am me" speaks for itself, because obviously the next OPEN clarifying question, which could be asked, could be; Who and/or what is 'me'?
not knowable in this realm.

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:48 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am


The 'i' that thinks 'I am me' is NOT thy True Self.
sure it is.
Okay so who and/or what is thy True Self?

In other words; Who (and/or what) am 'I'?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:48 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
This "self" needs to be discovered and learned about. Thee True Self KNOWS who and what 'I am'.

The stupidity of thinking "I am me" speaks for itself, because obviously the next OPEN clarifying question, which could be asked, could be; Who and/or what is 'me'?
not knowable in this realm.
You say that it is not knowable to know who and/or what I am in this 'realm', but what 'realm' are you talking about exactly?

Also, how many 'realms' are there exactly?

By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.

gaffo
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by gaffo » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am

Age wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:48 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am


The 'i' that thinks 'I am me' is NOT thy True Self.
sure it is.


Okay so who and/or what is thy True Self?


I only know myself, that i exist - right now.

i know this, and nothing more.

i do not know i will exist a minute hence.

as for "you" - all know is that via me, you claim to "be" right now.

per you actually existing -now or in a minute hence - no.

you may now and in a minute hence (an actual being outside of me) - but i cannot KNOW you actually ARE.

per my "mind" all i know is that i am replying to "you" (me?).

since all i know of you, and all else - history, science, the arts, etc...........from my childhood is via my "mind" (i exist") - that is all i am able to AFFIRM emprically, that "I AM" - right now.

for sanities sake i assume upon Faith -lol (I'm an Athiest BTW ) tha t you, my parents, best friends, etc exist outside of "Me" - but per my experience of "them" - assuming there exist outside of me as beings) - all my experience of them, is via my "mind" - and so they may not actually exist, and instead i've been just talking to myself for these last 50 yrs in a self centered play of self egoism - for a reason i know not why.

My point is that emprically(sp), all i know is via ME - so i cannot prove anyone outside of me actually exists!

for sanity i assume you do, but maybe you don't.

just sayin.


Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am

The stupidity of thinking "I am me" speaks for itself, because obviously the next OPEN clarifying question, which could be asked, could be; Who and/or what is 'me'?
not knowable in this realm.
You say that it is not knowable to know who and/or what I am in this 'realm', but what 'realm' are you talking about exactly?[/quote]

my nature is only able to know i exist right now. emprically i am the universe (literally BTW), whether you and others exist outside my me is not provable emprically.

nothing more.


Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
Also, how many 'realms' are there exactly?

per my life on Earth as an Atheist, only this one realm am i aware of and affirm.

i do not assume any others, but have no bias against any other's if i find myself still "alive" after my death - in another realm/s.

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.
so you playing the "dont" game of "i exist i exist i exist!!!!!!!!!!!" and wear the same loud tie Sheckley wrote about?

lol.

it you say so.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12310
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:53 am

gaffo wrote: ok - bare in mind, that ones needs to decelarate at the 1/2 way point too! - otherwise decelaraton will crush as much as acc.

as stated - assuming Einstian is corrrect (we cannot go faster than light0 - we are stuck here forever! ...
According to the reworked specs we could make Alpha Centauri in about 44 years with a pusher-plate ship, not exactly forever and if we make some assumptions about increased human longevity or genes and cloning then time becomes less of an issue with the much father stars.
maybe E is wrong? could me, but none so far (all smart then you and me) have not shown to date that he is wrong in this matter.
You don't have to go faster than the speed of light, just a good percentage of it but more importantly would be ways of living longer or suspended animation or genes and cloning, etc.

Personally tho', I'm more in favour of just using the resources of our Solar System and easing the strain on the planet.

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:16 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
Age wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:48 pm


sure it is.


Okay so who and/or what is thy True Self?


I only know myself, that i exist - right now.

i know this, and nothing more.

i do not know i will exist a minute hence.

as for "you" - all know is that via me, you claim to "be" right now.

per you actually existing -now or in a minute hence - no.

you may now and in a minute hence (an actual being outside of me) - but i cannot KNOW you actually ARE.
Existing and/or time was NOT in the question at all. The question I asked for clarification was; Who (and/or what) IS thy True Self.

'you' write, "i exist - right now". I will ask again, Who (and/or what) is that 'i', which is existing right now. All 'you' appear to be saying is "i exist, i exist, i exist"
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
per my "mind" all i know is that i am replying to "you" (me?).
If you want to use the words like; ' "my" "mind" ', like EVERY other word, then it helps in actually KNOWING what the words actually pertain to exactly. So instead of just saying "i exist (right now) can you explain who (and/or what) this 'i' is, which has a 'mind', as well as explain what this 'mind' thing actually is?
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
since all i know of you, and all else - history, science, the arts, etc...........from my childhood is via my "mind" (i exist") - that is all i am able to AFFIRM emprically, that "I AM" - right now.
Okay. IF that is all you can provide, then so be it.

You are just confirming that 'you' do NOT know how to explain what these things actually are.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
for sanities sake i assume upon Faith -lol (I'm an Athiest BTW ) tha t you, my parents, best friends, etc exist outside of "Me" - but per my experience of "them" - assuming there exist outside of me as beings) - all my experience of them, is via my "mind" - and so they may not actually exist, and instead i've been just talking to myself for these last 50 yrs in a self centered play of self egoism - for a reason i know not why.
ALL of this has NOTHING to do with what I have been talking about.

IF you want to talk about what can be Truly KNOWN, then there is REALLY only ONE thing. Absolutely EVERY thing else could just be a figment of imagination.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
My point is that emprically(sp), all i know is via ME - so i cannot prove anyone outside of me actually exists!
you also have not yet even proven who (and/or what) a 'me' is either.

for sanity i assume you do, but maybe you don't.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
just sayin.
'For absolute and True sanity' I would suggest it is better if you do NOT assume any thing.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am

The stupidity of thinking "I am me" speaks for itself, because obviously the next OPEN clarifying question, which could be asked, could be; Who and/or what is 'me'?
not knowable in this realm.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
You say that it is not knowable to know who and/or what I am in this 'realm', but what 'realm' are you talking about exactly?
my nature is only able to know i exist right now.
You seem to have not understood my question at all. My question was NOT in relation to you knowing whether you exist or not. My question was in relation to 'what 'realm' are you talking about exactly? If 'your' "nature" is only able to KNOW "i exist - right now", then who and/or what is the 'my' exactly? And, who and what is "your" 'nature'?

Could your simple answer to my simple question just be 'existence'? Is the 'realm' you are talking about exactly, just 'existence' itself, or are you talking about some thing else?
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
emprically i am the universe (literally BTW), whether you and others exist outside my me is not provable emprically.

nothing more.
So, if the 'realm' you talk about is the Universe, and considering that there is only ONE Universe, then 'knowing' could only exist in this realm/Universe. Unless of course some other place could actually be proven to exist.

By the way, I use the capital 'I' in relation to when I am referring to the fact that empirically ' 'I' am thee Universe'. I use the small 'i' for the perceived individual and separate human being self.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
Also, how many 'realms' are there exactly?
per my life on Earth as an Atheist, only this one realm am i aware of and affirm.
Hang on, you just said that 'i am the universe (literally BTW)' but now you are saying that 'my life on earth as an atheist'. Will you please clarify from who (and/or what) perspective are you talking from?

There can NOT be two 'I's'. From the perspective of the one known here as "gaffo" who (and/or what) IS that? Is it 'the universe' or is it 'a human being on earth as an atheist'? It can NOT be both.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
i do not assume any others, but have no bias against any other's if i find myself still "alive" after my death - in another realm/s.
This is just in regards to some thing else, which 'you' personally think about, and not some thing that I have been talking about.

You said that some thing is unknowable in this 'realm'. Saying "this realm" infers that you KNOW that there are or could be other realms. I was just asking you how many 'realms' are there, to you.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:40 am
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:54 am
By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.
so you playing the "dont" game of "i exist i exist i exist!!!!!!!!!!!" and wear the same loud tie Sheckley wrote about?

lol.

it you say so.
Am I playing the "don't game"? Do you even understand what I am actually saying here? From what I can SEE you seem to be completely missing the mark of what I am actually revealing here. You appear to be assuming some thing, which is completely NOT true.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8184
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am

Age wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am

By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.
Human beings do not have thoughts. 'human being' IS A ''thought'' << >> PLEASE don't confuse the invisible with the visible.
A human being is a concept KNOWN...and the KNOWN never had a thought, no more than the big toe on the end of your foot can know it is a toe.
For that which knows TOE is not the TOE..in the same context, the concept ''America'' is KNOWN...but you are not America.
There is no such place as America except as an idea in no head, America has about as much reality to it as does Cinderella's biological father does.

Again, I repeat, ( a concept IS A ''thought'' )...to (HAVE) a thought implies 2 ) To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object.
There is no such division between subject and object, both subject and object arise instantaneously AS YOU in the exact SAME moment, the thought is the thinker and the thinker is the thought IS ONE unitary action.

''Thoughts'' arise herenow in no thing nowhere to no one for no reason or purpose but to artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence.

This silent presence is present during all states of being, including deep dreamless sleep, death, and waking life.
The mind's IDENTIFICATION WITH 'THOUGHT' is this ever changing, moving appearance - overlaying upon what is ACTUALLY this unchanging unmoving silent presence.

If you do not understand what I am saying, then you do not as of yet, to date, grasp the concept of ONENESS, the way I describe it.
But that matters not to me anyway, because expression is just exactly what it is in every moment as it appears, it can NEVER be any different than how it is appearing right here and now as it is.

No doubt you will disagree with everything I have said to you because I've noticed this is what you like to do, since you prefer your own version of how things are, and that's ok, because if we are all honest, that's what we all do, we all prefer our own authentic version of how things are according to our own personal understandings. We're all just singing our own songs, no different to what the birds are doing everyday.

So you may wish to agree, or disagree, but that will not shift my mind away from what I've already explained, all I will do is keep repeating over and over again in as many different ways the same one message.

As you will probably do same.





.

Age
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The problem with religious critique, logic, reasons, truth-seeking, argumentation, and debate.

Post by Age » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
Age wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:03 am

By the way I KNOW EXACTLY who AND what 'I' am. Also, this Self does NOT think 'I am me'. Only 'you', human beings, have these types of thoughts.
Human beings do not have thoughts. 'human being' IS A ''thought'' << >> PLEASE don't confuse the invisible with the visible.
To me, a 'person' IS 'thought' (and emotion), which is invisible (to human eyes). And, a 'human being' IS made up of two things, the invisible and the visible. To me, a 'human being' is made up of the two things; the visible body part (this part is what I call the 'human' part in 'human being'), and, the invisible thinking/emotional part (this part is what I call the 'being' part in 'human being').

So, I do NOT confuse the invisible with the visible.

Also, If 'human being' IS A "thought", then one of them is redundant, correct?

If no, then what do you mean?

If yes, then which one would it be better to get rid of.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
A human being is a concept KNOWN
KNOWN by who and/or what?
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
...and the KNOWN never had a thought,
The KNOWN 'Knows' what has a 'thought'.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
no more than the big toe on the end of your foot can know it is a toe.
This is because a toe does NOT have the ability to know, nor even to think.

But can any thing 'think' that it is a 'human being'?

If yes, then this is because some thing has the ability to think.

If no, then are you SURE?
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
For that which knows TOE is not the TOE..in the same context, the concept ''America'' is KNOWN...but you are not America.
You are just telling us what is ALREADY KNOWN. You are telling us what can NOT know. But are 'you' at all able to tell us what CAN KNOW?

If a TOE is what can NOT know TOE is a TOE, then what IS It that CAN KNOW 'toe' is 'a toe'?

Also if the concept 'america' is KNOWN, then by who or by what is this concept KNOWN?

The True, Right, Accurate, and Proper ANSWER to these questions are ALREADY KNOWN, also, by the way.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
There is no such place as America except as an idea in no head, America has about as much reality to it as does Cinderella's biological father does.
If the concept 'america' is an idea "in no head", then WHERE is this concept EXACTLY?

To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object.Again, I repeat, ( a concept IS A ''thought'' )[/quote]

You did NOT even have to say this a first time, let alone have to repeat this, as this was ALREADY KNOWN.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
...to (HAVE) a thought implies 2 ) To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object.
What do 'you' mean?

If a 'thought' is NOT absolutely EVERY thing, then there is some thing "else". If there is some thing "else", then there could be some thing, which HAS a thought.

Does 'thought' exist ALONE?

Is there absolutely NOTHING "else" other than 'thought'?

There is no such division between subject and object, both subject and object arise instantaneously AS YOU in the exact SAME moment, [/quote]

But the object of 'human' arose BEFORE the subject of 'philosophy' arose. They both die NOT arise instantaneously AS YOU in the exact SAME moment. Just like the object of 'earth' arose BEFORE the object of 'human' arose, which both arose BEFORE any subject arose.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
the thought is the thinker and the thinker is the thought IS ONE unitary action.
If, as 'you' say, "a concept is a "thought" ", and a "thought is the thinker", then that infers that a "concept thinks". Is this what 'you' are saying.

If no, then what are 'you' actually saying?

If yes, then can you expand and/or elaborate on how this could actually happen?

How could a 'thought' also be a 'thinker'?
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
''Thoughts'' arise herenow in no thing nowhere to no one for no reason or purpose but to artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence.
If that thought arose, then what makes that 'thought' want to be recognized, shared, known, and accepted?

Could 'thoughts' arise HERE NOW in some thing, which is some where?

Could 'thoughts' arise in human bodies?

Could there be a reason WHY or a purpose for WHY EVERY thing or SOME things happen?

To 'you', do you really BELIEVE that the only reason or purpose 'thoughts' arise is to just "artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence"?

Also, if 'thoughts' arise "to artificially impose a story upon the blank screen of silent presence", then could that be a reason or a purpose?

If yes, then that would contradict what you just wrote about there being NO reason or purpose.

If no, then how do 'you' KNOW WHY 'thoughts' arise?
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
This silent presence is present during all states of being, including deep dreamless sleep, death, and waking life.
So what?
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
The mind's IDENTIFICATION WITH 'THOUGHT' is this ever changing, moving appearance - overlaying upon what is ACTUALLY this unchanging unmoving silent presence.
Would this 'silent presence' be more silent if 'thoughts' did NOT arise?

If you do not understand what I am saying, then you do not as of yet, to date, grasp the concept of ONENESS, the way I describe it.

I ALREADY KNOW the True Oneness. This is why I question 'you' about what you are 'trying to' say. This is WHY I also say there is a much simpler and easier way to explain ALL of this.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
But that matters not to me anyway, because expression is just exactly what it is in every moment as it appears, it can NEVER be any different than how it is appearing right here and now as it is.
This does NOT mean that there is NOT a much more clearer, simpler, and easier way than the way 'you' are going now.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
No doubt you will disagree with everything I have said to you
That is a HUGE ASSUMPTION 'you' are making. WHY did that 'thought/assumption' arise?

Mostly all I have been saying to you is that there is a much more simpler and easier way to explain 'that', which you are 'trying to' explain. Then, I just leave 'you' to do whatever you want to do with this knowledge.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
because I've noticed this is what you like to do, since you prefer your own version of how things are, and that's ok, because if we are all honest, that's what we all do, we all prefer our own authentic version of how things are according to our own personal understandings. We're all just singing our own songs, no different to what the birds are doing everyday.
But OBVIOUSLY each own's separate, personal understanding is NOT True, Right nor Correct. Only that understanding, which is agreed with by ALL is the True, Right, AND Correct understanding. This has been just about all of what I have been saying.
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
So you may wish to agree, or disagree, but that will not shift my mind away from what I've already explained, all I will do is keep repeating over and over again in as many different ways the same one message.
And SHOWING the readers how the people, in the days of when this is written, behave and misbehave is what I will continue to do.

Also, if as 'you' say "your 'mind' ", then that means 'you' HAVE a 'mind' and does this mean that there is two things. How does this fit in with 'your' ONENESS. 'you' are the one that said, "To ''have'' requires 2 of you. Aka, a subject and an object".
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 am
As you will probably do same.


.
Not at all. I am here, in this forum, for different reasons. I want to learn how to express better. In the process I will use 'you', human beings, to SHOW how the brain works by just continually repeating only what it knows, and BELIEVING it knows what is true, right, and correct. I will also REVEAL just how CLOSED the brain is, and that just about all curiosity, which once existed, has just about completely withered away in and during adulthood.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests