DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:20 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:27 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:11 am
The last thing, I found, that a person wants when they are 'down' is to be told things like; "You should not feel that way and it is better if you do this and do that".

When 'you', human beings, start REALLY Listening to each "other", then you will move forward, instead of moving down that downward spiral 'you' are ALL heading now.
And here you are telling us what to do and what not to do.

But I am NOT telling any one here "what to do and what not to do".

Move "forward"? Don't move down the downward spiral we are ALL heading now? Ah yes, you think there is a single, linear path in our vast Universe!
:lol:
WHY do you continually get me WRONG 'lacewing'? (I ask this from the perspective that I already KNOW. I am just want 'you' to SHOW what 'your answer' WILL BE).

I NEVER told any one to move forward. I just said what WOULD HAPPEN, IF you start doing some thing. I do NOT care if you stay or even move backwards.

I also just said where you ARE ALL heading now. I NEVER said any thing like what you propose; "Don't move down the downward spiral". You can ALL keep going down the downward spiral if that is what you Truly want. This also is NOT telling any one what to do nor even where to go.

I am just saying what I observe and SEE.

Can you observe and SEE the difference?

I use my words in a very specific way.

And I think it would be impossible for you to find in my writings anywhere where I have even suggested that there is a "single, linear path in our vast Universe". In fact I have said the very opposite. But if you would like to direct us to WHERE I have said what you think or believe I have, then I would be the first one to congratulate you.

You have been accusing me of this "single path" accusation from just about the outset of our discussions. I also KNOW WHY you think and even believe that I have this view. As I have said continuously, I write in a way so that things appear to be the case, but on closer inspection and with hindsight what I have REALLY been saying becomes clear. I write this way, to SHOW with examples from "others", WHY it is better to ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN and ask clarifying questions, INSTEAD of ASSUMING and BELIEVING things first.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:27 am
Sure... that makes a LOT of sense! :wink: Let's all get on THE path because there's SOMEWHERE TO GO... different and better than where we are, and we should GO THERE. We're evidently not where we're supposed to be, nor doing what we're supposed to be doing... according to Age. The Universe is just a big mess and Age can tell us how it's supposed to be!
'lacewing' you can keep misconstruing my words and taking me out of context for as long as you like, Or, you could start asking me clarifying questions and start to begin to understand where I am coming from and what it is that I am actually saying and meaning. Because the way you are going now, you are getting deeper and deeper and further and further away from understanding me.

For example; 'I' can even tell 'you' how the Universe IS if you like, and not just how It is "supposed to be". Or 'you' can continue on how you are now, when this is written, and just keep ASSUMING and BELIEVING things, which are so far from what I am saying that this really is humorous to watch and behold.

Either 'you' can remain the same. Or 'you' can become Truly OPEN to finding out things ALL by yourself. The choice is yours and yours alone.

So far you have got me so far wrong that you accuse me of using words in what I say here that I have NEVER even used.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:00 am

The principles of logic is, the conclusion is dependent on the first major premise.
Therefore if you allow your grounded premise of life from a dark chasm, that will infect the rest of your life towards destruction.
Note the common saying, 'you are what you believe'.
If 'you', veritas aequitas, actually accepted this yourself, then that would be great.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:00 am
Therefore using philosophy, wisdom and rationality, it would be more wiser to use reason to force a change to your first premise with optimism rather than helplessness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
Thus one should not allow the idea and wish 'I wish I was never born' to intrude into one's inner consciousness.

The challenge here is to use one's 'higher' reason's faculty to manage and modulate [outwit] the lower emotional impulses.
I believe that is the reason why humans has evolved with a faculty of reason that is more refined than those of the primates and the rest of all animals.
And all 'you' are doing "veritas aequitas", in a sense, is just dismissing and rejecting what "another" says, and expecting them to change, into being what you want and expect them to be like.

If a person says some thing like this, then there is A REASON for it. I found it better to find out what the actual REASON IS, from them, so then they have gained some knowledge from them self, which is the best way for them to move forward.

The last thing, I found, that a person wants when they are 'down' is to be told things like; "You should not feel that way and it is better if you do this and do that".

When 'you', human beings, start REALLY Listening to each "other", then you will move forward, instead of moving down that downward spiral 'you' are ALL heading now.
Btw, I don't see this as an individual counselling session.
If so, then I would have approach it with reference to the specific conditions of the individual.

This is an open discussion forum addressing all who read the posts.
What I have proposed is the general theory, relying upon "using philosophy, wisdom and rationality, the end result is the first premise must be changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one.
Does this first premise MUST BE changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one BELIEF (and "rule" that you have made up) apply for ALL human beings or just for those except your own self?

Is 'your' first premise, which concludes that 'God is an impossibility to be real' a pessimistic premise or a positive one?

Also, "theories" can be completely WRONG or partly wrong, so WHY even propose them here, when the actual Truth of things can just be expressed and explained instead?

Also, WHY propose your OWN theory as a 'general theory'? Do you think using the 'general' word will give what is essentially just your OWN beliefs more weight and support?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
Note my reference to 'wisdom' which implies a pragmatic approach to optimize the situation in accordance to the prevailing circumstances.
I NOTE your reference of words like 'wisdom', 'scientific approach', 'philosophy', 'rationality', and "others" and the way you propose them, as though you actually KNOW what you are talking about, and that the way you reference will give your BELIEFS more weight and support. But I can also SEE straight past the fact that this is what you are "TRYING TO" do.

I have also NOTICED and NOTED that 'you', human beings, will 'TRY' any thing at all to 'TRY' and support your own distorted, twisted, and obviously WRONG beliefs.

'You' have been doing this for thousands upon thousands of years. To NO success. The actual and real Truth of things out strips ALL of your distorted beliefs said and proposed.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
Btw, there are loads of self-developments programs for one to adopt and practice by imputing positive beliefs and attitudes to invoke positive changes.
So, you start this post by stating; "I don't see this as an individual counselling session", but like in this post as in many of your other ones you clearly provide individual counselling advice, like you have just now.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
You are merely an empty vessel who talk too much but provided no pathways to any solutions.
Give me absolutely ANY so called "problem', which you think NEEDS a solution, and I can provide pathways to a resolution.

SEE, to me, I have NO problems, as there are NO actually unsolved problems in Life, as I KNOW a solution to ALL of Life's so called and perceived "problems". You, human beings, can and do make up "problems" whenever you like, but there NONE here.

The beauty of this is that not one of you believe that this is even possible. So, from your then responses I have and thus can provided actual evidence of HOW the Mind and the brain works.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
This is an open discussion forum addressing all who read the posts.
What I have proposed is the general theory, relying upon "using philosophy, wisdom and rationality, the end result is the first premise must be changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one.
Does this first premise MUST BE changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one BELIEF (and "rule" that you have made up) apply for ALL human beings or just for those except your own self?

Is 'your' first premise, which concludes that 'God is an impossibility to be real' a pessimistic premise or a positive one?
My first premise is all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being.

What is glaring in reality is there have been in the past and prevailing in the present is the very evident evil and violent acts by SOME humans.
One category of such evil and violent acts are those related to religions - theistic and non-theistic, especially this;

Image

The ultimate root cause of the evil and violent acts committed by theists are in the name of their God which theists believed is real.
This made believed 'real' God exhort and command theists to war against and killed non-believers.

Thus when I prove God is an impossibility to be real, there would be no real God for any theists to obey to war against and killed non-believers.
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.

Thus my "God is an impossibility to be real" is not my first premise but rather is a minor premise to support my ultimate premise;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6975
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am

Who told you - you are living?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
Are you asking ME?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am
Yes I am. Who told you - you are alive?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
I didn't say anyone told me -- so I don't understand why you're turning this question on me when it's YOUR question, based on what you've been saying -- although I'm getting the sense that you don't want to admit to that now.
Lacy, when I asked you ''who told you you are living'' I was asking you how you knew you are living? that's all I was asking you. But then your reply to that question didn't make sense to me...I've underlined above what didn't make sense to me ok. I just asked you what I thought was a simple question.

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
Also, HOW DO YOU KNOW (as you said): "no one who is living ever had the choice of whether to live or not"?
I got confused with this reply because I've already stated and answered that question HOW DO YOU KNOW.
Did you miss the answer I gave you?

All I do know, is that I try to make communication as simple as possible, and yet it seems like you just want to turn everything into a long winded argumentative battle of minds. I'm not interested in battle of the wits. My sole intention is to communicate a knowledge that is irrefutable.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6975
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.
Identification with the idea/sense there is an ('individual self image' ) appearing here at all is the sole cause of the apparent existential crisis. Real reality has nothing to do with ''theism'' which is just another label arising, it's just more identification with the idea there is a self here that can identify with itself via known concepts, or to put another way, make an image of itself here. This illusory connection with an apparent sense of a ''separate individual self'' is the suffering.

The same applies to identification with the God concept, so just be clear, ''concepts'' have no image of themselves. Concepts are empty beliefs that arise and fall in no thing. Belief in the belief of concepts as being 'real separate entities' in and of themselves separate from the believer is imagination gone awry..causing suffering to the believer, because there is no believer, other than just an imagined belief anyway..
Since images need to be maintained, they require a 'someone' to live up to the image, they require a ''character'' aka an ACTOR...

Once created, the actor lives in fear of losing it's own created image it has falsely imposed upon itself in a delusionary sense.

The human mind is a story teller full stop, and like all children, a story will send the child into a trance of fantasy and imagination and belief..none of it's true at the end of the day. But belief would say other wise. Words are powerful, but they are empty. Test it out.
What is happening here minus the story? You'll just SEE life as it really IS, as it's really presenting itself without any knowledge superimposed upon it...Animals are living the TRUTH of existence right now, just as it is, the ONLY way it is...OBSERVE the animals, they will inform you what is actually going on here. Animals will tell you everything you need to know about your 'assumed self' without ever uttering a single solitary WORD to you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"
Such striving will ultimately cause the opposite. Since the sense of ones identity is a false imposition, and is what causes the existential crisis in the first place.

Knowing there is no individual self here is the peace that's already here as this natural default presence has no preference to be peace or not. As soon as there is desire / knowledge for peace the opposite will also be present...but all this knowledge is born from the illusory sense of separation, and IS what causeS the crisis that is the human CONDITION.

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

IT has everything to do with the confusion that is the human mind-set, the misidentifaction with the wrong SELF.

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:14 am
This is an open discussion forum addressing all who read the posts.
What I have proposed is the general theory, relying upon "using philosophy, wisdom and rationality, the end result is the first premise must be changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one.
Does this first premise MUST BE changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one BELIEF (and "rule" that you have made up) apply for ALL human beings or just for those except your own self?

Is 'your' first premise, which concludes that 'God is an impossibility to be real' a pessimistic premise or a positive one?
My first premise is all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being.

What is glaring in reality is there have been in the past and prevailing in the present is the very evident evil and violent acts by SOME humans.
One category of such evil and violent acts are those related to religions - theistic and non-theistic, especially this;

Image

The ultimate root cause of the evil and violent acts committed by theists are in the name of their God which theists believed is real.
This made believed 'real' God exhort and command theists to war against and killed non-believers.

Thus when I prove God is an impossibility to be real, there would be no real God for any theists to obey to war against and killed non-believers.
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.

Thus my "God is an impossibility to be real" is not my first premise but rather is a minor premise to support my ultimate premise;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"
So, YOUR first premise is the exact same as your ultimate premise. Okay.

Also, from what I have observed, your first and ultimate premise is WRONG. To me, ALL adult human beings strive for money, material things, and to be right. To me, ALL human beings WANT ever-lasting peace, but, ALL adults end up striving for, and thus causing the exact opposite.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:51 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:43 am
Does this first premise MUST BE changed to a positive one rather than stuck with a pessimistic one BELIEF (and "rule" that you have made up) apply for ALL human beings or just for those except your own self?

Is 'your' first premise, which concludes that 'God is an impossibility to be real' a pessimistic premise or a positive one?
My first premise is all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being.

What is glaring in reality is there have been in the past and prevailing in the present is the very evident evil and violent acts by SOME humans.
One category of such evil and violent acts are those related to religions - theistic and non-theistic, especially this;

Image

The ultimate root cause of the evil and violent acts committed by theists are in the name of their God which theists believed is real.
This made believed 'real' God exhort and command theists to war against and killed non-believers.

Thus when I prove God is an impossibility to be real, there would be no real God for any theists to obey to war against and killed non-believers.
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.

Thus my "God is an impossibility to be real" is not my first premise but rather is a minor premise to support my ultimate premise;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"
So, YOUR first premise is the exact same as your ultimate premise. Okay.

Also, from what I have observed, your first and ultimate premise is WRONG. To me, ALL adult human beings strive for money, material things, and to be right. To me, ALL human beings WANT ever-lasting peace, but, ALL adults end up striving for, and thus causing the exact opposite.
You think my first and ultimate premise is WRONG because you are stuck with ignorance of the evolution of the human self.

DNA wise all humans has the potential for evil with primal drives inherited from our animal ancestors. It is the lack of sufficient impulse controls that there is so much evil and violent acts being committed by a significant SOME percentile of humans.
So it is true, at present in our present states, there are many adults who end up committing terrible evil and violent acts.

However, what you are ignorant of the trend of evolution of the higher primates and humans towards empathy for the other instead of raw primal drives aggression and violence. If is evident amidst the climate of evil and violent among humans since human first emerged, there is an increasing trend of empathy and compassion for others within humanity that is not observed 100 years ago.
While many humans are still on the war mongering path, there is an increasing trend of pacifist activities against wars and violence not seen 100 years ago.

This trend of increasing empathy and compassion is represented by evidence of empathy in the higher animals [primates, elephants, dolphin, and others] and very evident within humanity.

This is objectively represented by number of mirror neurons, i.e. none in the lower animals, some in the higher animal and larger quantity in humans. It is not only mirror neurons but there are other neural and chemical elements as well.

The trend from the above indicate humans are evolving away from raw primal animality, aggression, violence and evil, thus my point;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"

The question is how to realize the above want into reality.
I have thus proposed the effective model of a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics driven by absolute secular oughts.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2706
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.
Identification with the idea/sense there is an ('individual self image' ) appearing here at all is the sole cause of the apparent existential crisis. Real reality has nothing to do with ''theism'' which is just another label arising, it's just more identification with the idea there is a self here that can identify with itself via known concepts, or to put another way, make an image of itself here. This illusory connection with an apparent sense of a ''separate individual self'' is the suffering.

The same applies to identification with the God concept, so just be clear, ''concepts'' have no image of themselves. Concepts are empty beliefs that arise and fall in no thing. Belief in the belief of concepts as being 'real separate entities' in and of themselves separate from the believer is imagination gone awry..causing suffering to the believer, because there is no believer, other than just an imagined belief anyway..
Since images need to be maintained, they require a 'someone' to live up to the image, they require a ''character'' aka an ACTOR...

Once created, the actor lives in fear of losing it's own created image it has falsely imposed upon itself in a delusionary sense.

The human mind is a story teller full stop, and like all children, a story will send the child into a trance of fantasy and imagination and belief..none of it's true at the end of the day. But belief would say other wise. Words are powerful, but they are empty. Test it out.
What is happening here minus the story? You'll just SEE life as it really IS, as it's really presenting itself without any knowledge superimposed upon it...Animals are living the TRUTH of existence right now, just as it is, the ONLY way it is...OBSERVE the animals, they will inform you what is actually going on here. Animals will tell you everything you need to know about your 'assumed self' without ever uttering a single solitary WORD to you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"
Such striving will ultimately cause the opposite. Since the sense of ones identity is a false imposition, and is what causes the existential crisis in the first place.

Knowing there is no individual self here is the peace that's already here as this natural default presence has no preference to be peace or not. As soon as there is desire / knowledge for peace the opposite will also be present...but all this knowledge is born from the illusory sense of separation, and IS what causeS the crisis that is the human CONDITION.

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

IT has everything to do with the confusion that is the human mind-set, the misidentifaction with the wrong SELF.
Nah, you are wrong on this.
It is the existential crisis that enable human a sense of self, the ego.
The existential crisis further drives the ego towards an "I" 'self' or "soul" that survive after physical death in paradise with eternal life.

Your view of 'self' or non-self is too extreme that warrant medication.

What is most efficient is to have the right balance of the sense of a 'self' and 'non-self' appropriate to the circumstances to optimize one's well being.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6975
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am
Nah, you are wrong on this.
It is the existential crisis that enable human a sense of self, the ego.
Nope, you are wrong. The SELF is prior to knowledge of self. First you have to be to know anything.
Knowledge of self is illusory, the actual nature of self is not.

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am
The existential crisis further drives the ego towards an "I" 'self' or "soul" that survive after physical death in paradise with eternal life.
Again, the knowledge of self where there isn't one except in the illusory conception of one is what drives the belief there is a self to whom an 'I' exists. The rest is just pure imagination and story telling, NOTHING but an empty dream. Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am
Your view of 'self' or non-self is too extreme that warrant medication.
There is nothing wrong with you, simply because there is no you, since there is no other than you. There is nothing wrong with right now unless you think about it.


Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:58 am
What is most efficient is to have the right balance of the sense of a 'self' and 'non-self' appropriate to the circumstances to optimize one's well being.
There is nothing wrong with you unless you think about it..nothing is thinking itself into being, being just is and it's manifesting all at once one without a second..if you don't believe it, then so be it, there is nothing more I can say to convince you otherwise. You wouldn't even listen anyway because your so rammed up your own believe system anyway to see another way. Which is what we all do.

Each to their own contrived reality, it's your dream, no one elses.

.

Age
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Age » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:26 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:51 am
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:12 am

My first premise is all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being.

What is glaring in reality is there have been in the past and prevailing in the present is the very evident evil and violent acts by SOME humans.
One category of such evil and violent acts are those related to religions - theistic and non-theistic, especially this;

Image

The ultimate root cause of the evil and violent acts committed by theists are in the name of their God which theists believed is real.
This made believed 'real' God exhort and command theists to war against and killed non-believers.

Thus when I prove God is an impossibility to be real, there would be no real God for any theists to obey to war against and killed non-believers.
Because theism is driven by the inherent existential crisis humanity must find alternative fool proof approaches to replace theism to deal with the existential crisis.

Thus my "God is an impossibility to be real" is not my first premise but rather is a minor premise to support my ultimate premise;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"
So, YOUR first premise is the exact same as your ultimate premise. Okay.

Also, from what I have observed, your first and ultimate premise is WRONG. To me, ALL adult human beings strive for money, material things, and to be right. To me, ALL human beings WANT ever-lasting peace, but, ALL adults end up striving for, and thus causing the exact opposite.
You think my first and ultimate premise is WRONG because you are stuck with ignorance of the evolution of the human self.
COULD your premises here be WRONG for any other reason? Or, ONLY because I am ignorant?

As I pointed out earlier, EVERY time some one disagrees with you it is because 'they' are ignorant.

Also, do you any explanation of HOW and WHY your first premise is the exact same as YOUR "ultimate" premise, and HOW your first and ultimate premise is supported by your minor premise - 'God is an impossibility to be real'?

Your whole argument and theory sounds very confused, complex, and convoluted.

Are you able to simplify your "argument" at all?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:51 am
DNA wise all humans has the potential for evil with primal drives inherited from our animal ancestors. It is the lack of sufficient impulse controls that there is so much evil and violent acts being committed by a significant SOME percentile of humans.
So it is true, at present in our present states, there are many adults who end up committing terrible evil and violent acts.

However, what you are ignorant of the trend of evolution of the higher primates and humans towards empathy for the other instead of raw primal drives aggression and violence. If is evident amidst the climate of evil and violent among humans since human first emerged, there is an increasing trend of empathy and compassion for others within humanity that is not observed 100 years ago.
While many humans are still on the war mongering path, there is an increasing trend of pacifist activities against wars and violence not seen 100 years ago.

This trend of increasing empathy and compassion is represented by evidence of empathy in the higher animals [primates, elephants, dolphin, and others] and very evident within humanity.

This is objectively represented by number of mirror neurons, i.e. none in the lower animals, some in the higher animal and larger quantity in humans. It is not only mirror neurons but there are other neural and chemical elements as well.

The trend from the above indicate humans are evolving away from raw primal animality, aggression, violence and evil, thus my point;
"all humans strive for perpetual peace and net-positive well being"

The question is how to realize the above want into reality.
I have thus proposed the effective model of a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics driven by absolute secular oughts.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Lacewing » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:06 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:20 am
I write in a way so that things appear to be the case, but on closer inspection and with hindsight what I have REALLY been saying becomes clear. I write this way, to SHOW with examples from "others", WHY it is better to ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN and ask clarifying questions, INSTEAD of ASSUMING and BELIEVING things first.
What it actually shows, instead, is your limitations and skewed awareness. You can try to explain it in a way that makes you seem in control and wise and correct, but that's your charade, and people point this out to you all the time. That's probably what helped you "learn" to concoct the bizarre explanation (above). In one moment you say that you're here to learn how to communicate better -- and then in another moment you claim that you do it all on purpose. Covering your tracks and disguising your weaknesses is really what you're intent on "learning" here, right? How to fortify and defend your particular notions that people tend to see through.

You probably will not admit that your ego is involved, and that you really don't know anything -- because that would invalidate what you say and the position you continually speak from, as if what you "know" is somehow more significant than what "others know".

You say people misunderstand you when they continually point out things here that everyone else does too. So, all of us here are these unaware beings who can't decipher your clever teaching techniques. :lol: :lol: Perhaps you are the one who is not listening, and recognizing the patterns and ploys and delusion in yourself.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Lacewing » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:04 am

DAM... I'm sincerely focused on clarity and truth. This isn't complicated, I promise. Please just give it a chance.
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am
Who told you - you are living?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
Are you asking ME?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am
Yes I am. Who told you - you are alive?
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
I didn't say anyone told me -- so I don't understand why you're turning this question on me when it's YOUR question, based on what you've been saying
Lacy, when I asked you ''who told you you are living'' I was asking you how you knew you are living? that's all I was asking you.
Why did you leave off the questions/comments that were right before your question (at the top)? That would provide clarity as to why I responded the way I did. Here's the beginning of that string:
Dontaskme to bahman wrote: no one who is living ever had the choice of whether to live or not
Lacewing wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:03 pm
How do you know this? How do you know that there wasn't some awareness and creative surge completely different than what you're aware of now?
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:35 am
Who told you - you are living?
Do you see? Instead of answering my questions, you suddenly ask me some random question (which actually had more to do with what you'd said, than anything I'd said). This is why I began asking why you were asking me that?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:35 pm
Also, HOW DO YOU KNOW (as you said): "no one who is living ever had the choice of whether to live or not"?
I got confused with this reply because I've already stated and answered that question HOW DO YOU KNOW.
Did you miss the answer I gave you?
As I pointed out, you (again) left off the context for the question, which was: IF YOU UNDERSTAND (as you've said in your own words): a) no thing is being born; b) you conceive yourself; and c) the illusion is very often desired, then how do you set THAT understanding aside in order to say: that others made the choice for you to be born, and life is all bullshit?
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am
All I do know, is that I try to make communication as simple as possible, and yet it seems like you just want to turn everything into a long winded argumentative battle of minds.
I'm really not complicating anything -- I'm pointing to the statements you've made, and I'm asking if you have awareness of the extreme positions that you take at times, and how they conflict? And, if you can see that, I’m wondering if you consider stepping back for a broader view to observe and question why you do that -- or are you content to thrash from pole to pole (as the mood strikes you) without observing it from a broader view? I think there's more BALANCE and CLARITY from a broader view.
Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:23 am
My sole intention is to communicate a knowledge that is irrefutable.
Could that be why you ignore questions that might refute what you say? :D

It just seems that ignoring the context and shifting the focus could be an unconscious way to avoid observing/considering the reality of your statements and state of mind, yes? This isn't hard... it's just thoughtfully seeking truth.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:30 am

Age wrote:

SEE to me I have NO problems as there are NO actually unsolved problems in Life as I KNOW a solution to ALL of Lifes so called and perceived problems . You human beings can and do make up problems whenever you like but there are NONE here

The beauty of this is that not one of you believe that this is even possible . So from your then responses I have and thus can provided actual evidence of HOW the Mind and the brain works
The reason why some problems cannot be solved is because the knowledge required to do so is still unknown . Other problems may be solved
without any new knowledge but they will still exist because there is no will on the part of some human beings to actually want to solve them

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:48 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality

The illusory nature of reality if it that is what it is is so convincing that it is not seen as an illusion
I dont think reality is illusory only something incomplete for we perceive very little of what exists

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: DAM asked: "Is being born worth it - or is it better to have never been born?"

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:14 am

Dr. Maurice Nicoll wrote
“if you dislike the word God, then say Meaning instead. The word God shuts some people’s minds. The word Meaning cannot. It opens the mind.”
Dr. Nicoll's books "the New Man" and "the Mark" Have helped me to understand the depth of Christianity as opposed to man made Christendom. It is true that because of the results of secularized religion the word God" has acquired negative connotations.

Meaning is a relative term. What gives us meaning is our God. As a person's psych matures , meaning can begin to refer to more than materialism and pop psychology and can refer to something that does not originate on earth. I see that the idea of cosmic consciousness has bombed out as is the norm in the modern word obsessed with secular concepts indicating the source of meaning so I'll leave it alone.

But DaM seems to have rejected the human need for meaning as nothing but fantasy I remember reading once of the boy who didn't believe in anything but needed girl to believe in him.

A person begins to evolve from the normal indoctrinated need for meaning into the realm of the logic of higher meaning we can feel but as of yet do not understand, To some it is the realm of God beyond the limitations of time and space.
The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.
Here I have to thank DaM. I have to admit I am lazy. I don't make the efforts to further the great ideas as I should. I don't help to keep them alive in the world. What if I am right and Dam only hurts herself by denying the human need for meaning and calling it fantasy? The majority in the modern world are also confused over the question of meaning. Why not become part of the influence of awe and wonder in the wold which opposes the self justification of denial. So if science and art are the key, I really should become more involved with the quality of art Einstein is referring to since I m related to it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests