Comparative Religion: Godmen

1…1920222425…34

Comments

  • Jeanie
    Jeanie Posts: 9,446
    PaperPlates wrote:
    These threads are like listening to Yoda argue with himself. :p

    :) Except that Yoda is cute!! ;)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm just going to point out that there is an OR statement in that wikipedia definition, not an AND statement. There is a fundamental difference in that, to be a nihilist, you do not need to share all of those views. One definition of nihilism is to see things with no comprehensible truth. You've expressed this with claims of alogic and acausality.
    Again, you are perceiving a flawed premise. I know there is a comprehensible truth.
    That is how a truth claim should be presented. I've made the claim, and given examples of it. When you make claims about my behavior, you haven't provided any examples, but simply claimed there are examples.
    I'm Being true to my Self. Shoulds/shouldn'ts are about your conflict with what I say.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Ahnimus wrote:
    It's just proper editing Abook.



    You are discussing me now. You must feel a need to.



    Detach your emotional associations with these terms and take them for their real definitions. If someone makes a truth claim like "I saw a ghost", then I might say "That is a common psychotic experience". If someone told me I had a psychotic experience, I wouldn't take near the offense you do, because I use the clinical definition of the term.

    There was a book by psychologist Erich Fromm called "The Sane Society" where he proposes that not just individuals, but entire societies "may be lacking in sanity". Is this a personal attack on society? Certainly not, since that would be impossible. It's a strict use of the term.

    Well yes, we are discussing each other now. That's the topic....unfortunately.

    If it were only your use of psychotic or insanity that was the problem...it goes much deeper than that and you know it. Deny it all you want.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4426574&postcount=189
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4418427&postcount=108
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=243217

    Perhaps you need to read back through the thread. I knew you wouldn't agree with what I posted and also knew you'd point out why. There was no problem there. The problem came in when you aggresively decided to put down my beliefs with your negative remarks and try to force your view onto me as being the only acceptable way to be. I'm absolutlely fine with you disagreeing but I'm not fine with they way you chose to conduct yourself when doing so.

    I called the science "Bullcrap" and "Junk Science" and "Obviously false"

    Then you said

    "Fuck off. It's not hurting a damn thing that I believe in good vibes."

    My negative remarks were directed at the science. "Fuck off", well that is a pretty personal attack, wouldn't you say?

    You made plenty of personal attacks after that "You give science a bad name. " and "your callous atttiude and disrespect of their perspective"

    Notice, I never threw a fit about these statements.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    Again, you are perceiving a flawed premise. I know there is a comprehensible truth.


    I'm Being true to my Self. Shoulds/shouldn'ts are about your conflict with what I say.

    Alogic/Acausal is incomprehensible.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well yes, we are discussing each other now. That's the topic....unfortunately.

    If it were only your use of psychotic or insanity that was the problem...it goes much deeper than that and you know it. Deny it all you want.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4426574&postcount=189
    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4418427&postcount=108

    Again, in principle it's no different than what you say. If you detach emotionally from the words, then the message becomes quite different. I have admitted several times that I am not perfect. I am perfectly human, which for various reasons includes getting pissed off, irritated and irrational. Neither of those posts have anything to do with my use of the terms "psychotic" and "insane".
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I called the science "Bullcrap" and "Junk Science" and "Obviously false"

    Then you said

    "Fuck off. It's not hurting a damn thing that I believe in good vibes."

    My negative remarks were directed at the science. "Fuck off", well that is a pretty personal attack, wouldn't you say?

    You made plenty of personal attacks after that "You give science a bad name. " and "your callous atttiude and disrespect of their perspective"

    Notice, I never threw a fit about these statements.


    I told you to feel free to post your disagreements but to not force your views onto me because I didn't want to butt heads with you for pages. When you choose to completely ignore my wishes I told you to fuck off. Let's roll the clip:

    'Bullcrap. It's junk science. I'm going to defend the credibility of the scientific community by nipping this in the bud. Here at least. Unfortunately Emoto has already written 6 books and sold 2 million copies. Got his crap plastered all over that movie WTBDWK and convinced people with preconceived ideas about reality to buy his shit. He's a scam artist Abook. Or maybe he really believes it, but you can do this same thing with dirt or feces and get results you are looking for. But you can't do it in a controlled environment. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that you will just believe whatever suits your map of the world and ignore everything else, even if it's so fucking obvious as this. I didn't want to be aggressive about this, I'm sorry, but come on, wake up.
    __________________
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Alogic/Acausal is incomprehensible.
    It is only incomprehensible using logic and cause and effect. It's very much comprehensible.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I told you to feel free to post your disagreements but to not force your views onto me because I didn't want to butt heads with you for pages. When you choose to completely ignore my wishes I told you to fuck off. Let's roll the clip:

    'Bullcrap. It's junk science. I'm going to defend the credibility of the scientific community by nipping this in the bud. Here at least. Unfortunately Emoto has already written 6 books and sold 2 million copies. Got his crap plastered all over that movie WTBDWK and convinced people with preconceived ideas about reality to buy his shit. He's a scam artist Abook. Or maybe he really believes it, but you can do this same thing with dirt or feces and get results you are looking for. But you can't do it in a controlled environment. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that you will just believe whatever suits your map of the world and ignore everything else, even if it's so fucking obvious as this. I didn't want to be aggressive about this, I'm sorry, but come on, wake up.
    __________________

    So, you are an authority in a position to tell me what to do?

    Can I tell you to do or not do something? Is that how this works?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    It is only incomprehensible using logic and cause and effect. It's very much comprehensible.

    Explain it then. Again, you are making a truth claim without anything backing it up.

    com·pre·hen·sion (kmpr-hnshn)
    n.
    1.
    a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
    b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
    2. Capacity to include.
    3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprehension

    a·log·i·cal (-lj-kl)
    adj.
    Beyond or outside the bounds of logic.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alogical
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • PaperPlates
    PaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    Jeanie wrote:
    :) Except that Yoda is cute!! ;)

    touche. Very valid point. ;)

    If ever there was a thread that needed a little levity, twas this one.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • justam
    justam Posts: 21,415
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're slowly but surely becoming part of the dialogue.

    Hey! since you're here, any thoughts on:

    What if they had an ego, and nobody came?

    Obviously this is a take on..."what if they had a War, and nobody came?"

    There's some wisdom in this, can you see it?

    Take your time.
    :)

    Well, after considering the first post of this thread as well as your question above, I'd say:

    all of these ideas that were presented by religious leaders are their own, one person's idea sold to others

    they have gained prominence at one time or another, in various locations of the world because they have influenced other people to agree with them

    if no one agreed with them, they'd be just a single person with his own creative story of how the universe and spirituality works

    therefore, it seems that all of these really can be considered equal, in that, they are a single person's vision of truth

    the only thing that gives them weight is the number of people believing a particular story in any given place or time

    it's so horrible to call all these explanations of truth "stories" isn't it? ;)

    which is not to say that they haven't been useful stories for some people at one time or another

    :)
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Does that mean there is no objective truth justam?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • justam
    justam Posts: 21,415
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Does that mean there is no objective truth justam?

    When we're talking about spirituality and religion, YES.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Ahnimus wrote:
    So, you are an authority in a position to tell me what to do?

    Can I tell you to do or not do something? Is that how this works?

    No, I'm in no authority to tell you what to do. All I can do is ask. The reason i have to ask that of you in the first place is because I don't trust to respect me or my feelings when engaging in a discussion....so I'd rather just skip it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Explain it then. Again, you are making a truth claim without anything backing it up.

    com·pre·hen·sion (kmpr-hnshn)
    n.
    1.
    a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
    b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
    2. Capacity to include.
    3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprehension

    a·log·i·cal (-lj-kl)
    adj.
    Beyond or outside the bounds of logic.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alogical

    You aren't looking to comprehend truths that are beyond logic and linearity. You are only willing to accept that which is scienfically verifiable.

    There are many ways of understanding truths.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    justam wrote:
    When we're talking about spirituality and religion, YES.

    Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    No, I'm in no authority to tell you what to do. All I can do is ask. The reason i have to ask that of you in the first place is because I don't trust to respect me or my feelings when engaging in a discussion....so I'd rather just skip it.

    You don't trust me, which evokes a surge of testosterone in most people. I could claim that you started the emotional conflict by distrusting me. But, you know I'm not into blaming people. I respect you, feelings, not so much.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    You aren't looking to comprehend truths that are beyond logic and linearity. You are only willing to accept that which is scienfically verifiable.

    There are many ways of understanding truths.

    I'm still waiting for your comprehensible explanation of something that is alogical.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm still waiting for your comprehensible explanation of something that is alogical.
    You'll be waiting a long time.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!

Categories