War

[Age]

Dubious,

"To god, all things are right and good, only to man, some things are and some things are not." Heraclitus

But, to God, the ABUSE that adult human beings do to "each other" and "others" is NOT 'good' AT ALL, and IS 'Wrong', AND 'bad'.

Hi Age,
I take it god told you this, right?

If that is what you 'take', then that is what you 'take'.

Now, what is the difference between 'god' and 'God', to you?

And, what do you mean by, "told you this"?

If answered Honestly, then I will be able to answer your CLARIFYING question here.

[Age]

The word 'time' just refers to the taking of measurements in relation to 'duration'.

Oh really is that right, oh my fucking god, I would never have known that in a million years Age.

Imagine that, time referring to the taking of measurements in relation to duration...well knock me down with a feather, why didn't I think of that..

You are only repeating like a parrot knowledge back to yourself that you already know.

Well 'you' did write; "Time is what stops everything from happening all at once."

I was just SHOWING how 'time', itself, does NOT actually STOP "EVERY thing from happening all at once" AT ALL. I did this by PROVING how 'time' does NOT do, what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED 'time' does.

[Age]

And what made them alive in the first place? You only present half the picture, a very distorted one at that. Nature is vast, you view is only half vast.

Projection in the form of imaged thought known... made them alive, made life feel real.

So, to you, human babies, and ALL the other animals, come into Existence just by 'one' "projecting in the form of imaged thought".

''Who?'' projects is known as and through identification with the image projected.

So, 'WHO' projects a 'tree' is A TREE, correct? Or is this NOT correct?

This is one of an infinite amount of projections > Nature is a barbaric sadistic bloody gory killing machine, slowly and painfully torturing all sentient living creatures until their death.

Okay. So, WHO is the 'one' projecting this? Is it the 'one' WHO is a 'barbaric sadistic bloody gory killing machine'?

If yes, then considering the Fact that this projection is coming from 'you', the one known as "dontaskme" here, then WHY are 'you' A 'barbaric sadistic bloody gory killing machine'?

So yes, only half the picture...so what!

So, if ANY one provides the OTHER 'half', then so what?

[Age]

This One is thee Creator of ALL 'things'. This One is 'Life', Itself, and the Creator of ALL 'life', WITHIN.

This immediate not-knowing knowing. The illusion of twoness, aka other. One with itself ONLY...ALL ONE alone forever infinitely for eternity.

ONE cannot die because ONE cannot be conceived ...except in this conception known by the only knowing there is, one with itself.

Living and dying is imagined...within the imaginary dream of separation in this conception.

If you say so.

Is this the WHOLE Picture, or again, just half of the picture, or in other words just "one side" of 'things'?

[Dontaskme]

If you say so.

Is this the WHOLE Picture, or again, just half of the picture, or in other words just "one side" of 'things'?

Dontaskme.

[Age]

If you say so.

Is this the WHOLE Picture, or again, just half of the picture, or in other words just "one side" of 'things'?

Dontaskme.

HERE is MORE ACTUAL PROOF of WHY 'human beings', back in those OLDEN DAYS, just could NOT evolve. Dishonesty would NOT allow 'them' to MOVE FORWARD.

[popeye1945]

But, to God, the ABUSE that adult human beings do to "each other" and "others" is NOT 'good' AT ALL, and IS 'Wrong', AND 'bad'.

Hi Age,
I take it god told you this, right?

If that is what you 'take', then that is what you 'take'. Now, what is the difference between 'god' and 'God', to you?
And, what do you mean by, "told you this"? If answered Honestly, then I will be able to answer your CLARIFYING question here.

What's the difference between god and God, a capital letter? Well seeing that there is no morality in nature, and the life lives upon life it would seem god is an absent landlord. As Shakespeare said, "There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so." So, I am going by what brilliant scholars have said, and the knowledge I obtain from observing nature. So. what I am asking is, what is you source of knowledge, that apparently leaves you in little doubt. You obviously do not believe humanity is the source of morality, is the source, the supernatural?

[Dontaskme]

If you say so.

Is this the WHOLE Picture, or again, just half of the picture, or in other words just "one side" of 'things'?

Dontaskme.

HERE is MORE ACTUAL PROOF of WHY 'human beings', back in those OLDEN DAYS, just could NOT evolve. Dishonesty would NOT allow 'them' to MOVE FORWARD.

NOTHING EVER MOVED.

[Age]

Hi Age,
I take it god told you this, right?

If that is what you 'take', then that is what you 'take'. Now, what is the difference between 'god' and 'God', to you?
And, what do you mean by, "told you this"? If answered Honestly, then I will be able to answer your CLARIFYING question here.

What's the difference between god and God, a capital letter? Well seeing that there is no morality in nature, and the life lives upon life it would seem god is an absent landlord. As Shakespeare said, "There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so."

So, there is absolutely nothing bad or wrong in nature about hurting and harming "others", including children, and it is thinking only, which makes abusing children and new born babies wrong or bad to you, correct?

Sounds like, to 'you', and "shakespeare", as long as one is NOT 'thinking' AT ALL then there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL 'good' or 'bad' no matter what 'you' or "shakespeare" are doing to "another".

Are there NO 'emotions' AT ALL within 'you' or "shakespeare", which guides 'you' two in some way to what is wrong and bad to do in life? For example, if there was NO 'thinking' going on AT ALL in 'that body' and 'you' were hitting a two month old human baby over the head with a hammer until blood was flowing out of that body, then would there REALLY be NO 'emotion' or 'internal feeling' AT ALL within that body that 'says' doing 'this' is WRONG?

Your Honesty here, like ALWAYS, would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

So, I am going by what brilliant scholars have said, and the knowledge I obtain from observing nature. So. what I am asking is, what is you source of knowledge, that apparently leaves you in little doubt.

I do NOT necessarily go by what OTHER human beings have said, (and do NOT judge 'some' as being better or worse than "others"), but, just like you, and EVERY one else, my source of knowledge is obtained from observing, and experiencing, Nature.

You obviously do not believe humanity is the source of morality, is the source, the supernatural?

You OBVIOUSLY have NOT read where I have PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN, I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing. If you did, then you would REALIZE that I do NOT 'believe' ANY thing AND I do NOT 'disbelieve' ANY thing.

Also, the SOURCE of 'morality' is WITHIN human beings. In the form of 'thinking' AND 'emotions'. Well to me anyway.

Human beings do NOT behave NOR misbehave on 'thinking' ALONE. Their behavior is based on 'emotions' AS WELL. Therefore, 'morality' is based on 'thoughts' AND 'internal feelings'. And, HOW how to DISCOVER the DIFFERENCE between 'objective morality' AND 'subjective morality' I have ALREADY discussed in another thread. If ANY one is INTERESTED.

So, YOUR ASSUMPTION here is VERY, VERY Wrong. Which makes your final question absolutely ABSURD. Well to me anyway.

[Age]

Dontaskme.

HERE is MORE ACTUAL PROOF of WHY 'human beings', back in those OLDEN DAYS, just could NOT evolve. Dishonesty would NOT allow 'them' to MOVE FORWARD.

NOTHING EVER MOVED.

Okay.

[popeye1945]

Age,

You've made a real hodge podge mess of things here, people you do not understand are not necessarily monsters. All I said, inferred, was that in nature there is no morality. The physical world it is without meaning until a conscious subject bestows meaning upon it. This makes biological consciousness the creator of all meaning, including morality.

[Age]

Age,

You've made a real hodge podge mess of things here, people you do not understand are not necessarily monsters.

If you want to make the CLAIM that there are 'people' that I, supposedly, do NOT understand, then how about you PROVIDE a list of WHO those 'people' ARE, EXACTLY?

And, WHEN have I even SUGGESTED that ANY 'person' is a "monster", let alone SAID this ANYWHERE?

Also, how about ACTUALLY PROVIDING the ALLEGED and SUPPOSED so-called "hodge podge mess", INSTEAD of just 'TRYING TO' CLAIM there is one?

All I said, inferred, was that in nature there is no morality.

Okay. And OTHERS have SAID, INFERRED, and CLAIMED the SAME 'thing'.

HOWEVER, if 'morality' is, or refers to; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, and those 'principles' exist within human beings, and human beings are in nature and a part of nature, and NOT apart from nature, then 'morality' is IN nature, correct?

What does 'morality' and 'nature' actually mean, or refer to, to you?

The physical world it is without meaning until a conscious subject bestows meaning upon it.

I agree.

This makes biological consciousness the creator of all meaning, including morality.

Which ALL HAPPENS WITHIN Nature, correct?

Or, to you, is some 'thing' HAPPENING OUTSIDE of Nature, Itself? Or, to you, is there some 'thing' HAPPENING, which is NOT a part of Nature, or in other words, NOT natural?

[popeye1945]

Age,

When you infer that perhaps I and Shakespeare do not have feelings you are describing a monster. Yes, all things are in nature, it goes back to the fact long established that subject and object stand or fall together. When one talks about nature one is talking about a system a condition in which one lives. This condition/system is the same for all life, life lives upon life, nature red in tooth and claw, this is a system in which humanity is not an exception to the rule. Morality only arises with recognition of the self in one being the self in others, thus recognition and compassion for common suffering, this can only occur in a conscious subject.

[Age]

Age,

When you infer that perhaps I and Shakespeare do not have feelings you are describing a monster.

I just asked CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, from a Truly OPEN perspective by the way.

But if one wants to ASSUME that those QUESTIONS are 'inferring' some 'thing', then that is THEIR CHOICE ALONE, and that ASSUMPTION is NOT necessarily the case AT ALL, EITHER.

By the way, I was NOT 'inferring' that, and I would NEVER 'infer' that.

Yes, all things are in nature, it goes back to the fact long established that subject and object stand or fall together. When one talks about nature one is talking about a system a condition in which one lives. This condition/system is the same for all life, life lives upon life, nature red in tooth and claw, this is a system in which humanity is not an exception to the rule. Morality only arises with recognition of the self in one being the self in others, thus recognition and compassion for common suffering, this can only occur in a conscious subject.

So, are you now saying, inferring, that in nature there is ACTUALLY morality?

Or, would you still like to say, infer, that in nature there is NO morality?

[popeye1945]

Age.
Morality arises as a social construct, whether it be a human society or otherwise. Morality is not part of the system of nature unless you consider social constructs part of the natural system. Like-kind of creatures tend to group together for survival, reproduction, group efforts in the direction of survival and general wellbeing. Most people when considering the natural system/condition of life lives upon life, consider this void of morality. You are right technically, for technically all things are in nature. It is like subject and object people separate them in thought in order to examine that which cannot be separated.