Comparative Religion: Godmen

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I am not projecting conflict. When I see teenage boys serving life without parole in US prisons. When I hear people calling for the mutilation, torture or psychological abuse of another human being. Then I stand up for what I know. When I see people like you and Abook proliferating lies and misdirection, then I stand up for what I know. Conflict is constantly projected on my views. Every day of my life I hear reference to indeterminist thinking in every aspect of society. It's not as simple as you believe what you want and I believe what I want. It affects all of us; what you think.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." - Albert Einstein

This quote coming from you is hilariously ironic. You are the only one here who commits to 'violent opposition' with your emotional rants that no longer further your stance but lower your thoughts into the relm of attacking others personally. That does nothing to 'stand up for what you know' because you stopped talking about what you know and started to only focus on what we 'don't know' according to you. If you genuinely stood so firmly behind these beliefs of yours then you would feel they could stand on their own with out the need for you to throw around all these nagative remarks, insults and presumptions. The way you go about spreading your view pushes people further and further away from it...and that much should be quite obvious by now. I think it's long overdue for a new approach that this time actually shows at the very least some signs of working out for you. Your current style is shit and it is clearly not working.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

Everytime you attempt to undermine another view, which seems to be your usual MO when you do not have the resources to be constructive, rather than teach by building awareness, you undermine your own self and your "teaching".

I learn all the time. Exactly in harmony with what is and independent of you. I have been influenced by any truths you have asserted. I accept and seek truth all the time. What I am saying is when you grind to a halt and have nothing constructive to bring to the table, the grinding is happening within you.

None of that has ever happened Angelica.

This is a debate forum. I am challenging other's views and others are challenging mine. That is not "Undermining" unless you are speaking in accord with the purpose of debate. I post all kinds of information on here, logical arguments, objective experimentation, etc.. You quote people.

Ahnimus · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This quote coming from you is hilariously ironic. You are the only one here who commits to 'violent opposition' with your emotional rants that no longer further your stance but lower your thoughts into the relm of attacking others personally. That does nothing to 'stand up for what you know' because you stopped talking about what you know and started to only focus on what we 'don't know' according to you. If you genuinely stood so firmly behind these beliefs of yours then you would feel they could stand on their own with out the need for you to throw around all these nagative remarks, insults and presumptions. The way you go about spreading your view pushes people further and further away from it...and that much should be quite obvious by now. I think it's long overdue for a new approach that this time actually shows at the very least some signs of working out for you. Your current style is shit and it is clearly not working.

My style is no different than yours. Read what you just said to me "YOu are the only one who commits to 'violent opposition''... lower your thoughts into the re[a]lm of attacking others personally", then "Your current style is shit..."

Has not all I said been similar? Such as; "Your theory is fallacious" "You are resorting to personally comforting theories". Even to say "You are ignorant" is a truth claim about the knowledge a person has, it's not a personal attack, it's addressing a potential reality.

You and Angelica both become very upset with these conversations. I don't. So your assertion is actually false. I am not belittling you, you are belittling you and then reflecting it onto me.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Uh, no Angelica. As I've stated repeatedly there is no evil. Everything is just as it is.

I'm talking about what you represent all the time. You represent that you are "right" and you fight against what is "wrong". You may be unconscious of this, but from the outside, it's plain to see.

How can you say that any of my view 'seems' to be beyond my awareness, you have no way of obtaining such knowledge.

When you say one thing and do another, you show your true hand by what your Being dictates. That's base psychology.

Yes, 'reason' as in cause, no purpose. I am not trying to change fate, I am living towards my fate. Fate cannot be changed by definition of the term.

Now are you ever going to address the points made?

Maybe it will work better when you live your fate, rather than "towards" it. Disconnection with thought and deed creates fallout.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

None of that has ever happened Angelica.

This is a debate forum. I am challenging other's views and others are challenging mine. That is not "Undermining" unless you are speaking in accord with the purpose of debate. I post all kinds of information on here, logical arguments, objective experimentation, etc.. You quote people.

Challenging is above board and fair, and accepted by and done by all. Infringing on humans destructively has it's own fallout--fallout that no amount of justifcation and denial can take care of. Blaming that fallout on others is the exact "projection" I speak of. It's a psychological norm that when we are uncomfortable with something within, we try to "give it away" to others. You keep doing that by projecting your conflict on others.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about what you represent all the time. You represent that you are "right" and you fight against what is "wrong". You may be unconscious of this, but from the outside, it's plain to see.

Are you not fighting? Do we have "Hypocrisy" ding ding, yes that was the number one answer.

There is nothing wrong with battling static Angelica.

When you say one thing and do another, you show your true hand by what your Being dictates. That's base psychology.

That is not psychology. There is no "Being" independent of the entire system, that is something you got from newage books or made up yourself.

People say one thing and do another all the time. It has more to do with the compartmentalization and conditioning of the brain. The part of the brain associated with beliefs is not the same as conditioned behavior.

If some calls themselves and atheist and then says "Oh my god!" when something terrible happens. That is not hypocrisy, that is not their "Being" expressing their true belief in God. That's the result of habitual conditioning.

Maybe it will work better when you live your fate, rather than "towards" it. Disconnection with thought and deed creates fallout.

Again, fate is not evitable. It makes no difference if I say "work towards" "Align with" "live" etc.. the term fate implies inevitability. "Work towards" was probably bad, because you can find ways of making it sound like it's not inevitable, but the term fate it's self implies that it is and that should be obvious.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

Challenging is above board and fair, and accepted by and done by all. Infringing on humans destructively has it's own fallout--fallout that no amount of justifcation and denial can take care of. Blaming that fallout on others is the exact "projection" I speak of. It's a psychological norm that when we are uncomfortable with something within, we try to "give it away" to others. You keep doing that by projecting your conflict on others.

None of that is happening here Angelica. That is a your fallacious perception.

Infringing on humans destructively

Like smashing them on the head with a mallet? I would call that 'infringing destructively', if I say "You are wrong, here is why..." that is a truth claim, part of a rational debate. Don't be upset about it.

Blaming

Never did it, I rail against blame.

Jeanie · May 2007

angelica wrote:

Challenging is above board and fair, and accepted by and done by all. Infringing on humans destructively has it's own fallout--fallout that no amount of justifcation and denial can take care of. Blaming that fallout on others is the exact "projection" I speak of. It's a psychological norm that when we are uncomfortable with something within, we try to "give it away" to others. You keep doing that by projecting your conflict on others.

Thanks angel for recognizing and naming this. I've felt this projection for a long time when dealing in this situation and I'm very heartened to know that someone else has noticed it too.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you not fighting? Do we have "Hypocrisy" ding ding, yes that was the number one answer.

What are you saying? Challenging is fine or it's not? I am consistent that challenging is fine, until we start taking an imbalanced approach, which makes it into right/wrong dichotomy which automatically puts us in cycles of rescuer/victim/persecutor.

If you think we are fighting, so be it for you.

That is not psychology. There is no "Being" independent of the entire system, that is something you got from newage books or made up yourself.

Being IS the entire system. However, when you hive a part of yourself off from the reality of the system and state what that part sees as truth, independent of what the whole being does regularly to contradict it, it's clear the ego is unrealistically out of touch with the whole being. Base psychology.

People say one thing and do another all the time. It has more to do with the compartmentalization and conditioning of the brain. The part of the brain associated with beliefs is not the same as conditioned behavior.

Yes, the fragmentation of awareness, which you and I both know is a problem of the human condition. Self-actualization entails defragmenting, and resolving the fragments, but unfortunately is very rare at this time in the human experience.

Again, fate is not evitable. It makes no difference if I say "work towards" "Align with" "live" etc.. the term fate implies inevitability. "Work towards" was probably bad, because you can find ways of making it sound like it's not inevitable, but the term fate it's self implies that it is and that should be obvious.

Yes, we are always in touch with and living our fate. However, most people are de-aligned with the reality of the situation, caught in illusions. By hiving off a part of their awareness--the ego--and taking that part to be who they are, when it's only the tip of the iceberg of who they are. When you say working "towards" your fate, you indicate your ego is out of touch with the fact that it is aligned with fate.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

None of that is happening here Angelica. That is a your fallacious perception.

Infringing on humans destructively

Like smashing them on the head with a mallet? I would call that 'infringing destructively', if I say "You are wrong, here is why..." that is a truth claim, part of a rational debate. Don't be upset about it.

Blaming

Never did it, I rail against blame.

You are free to deny it. However, like I've said, no one owns your conflicts but yourself, as much as you want to give them away and consider those conflicts to occur outside of your mind.

angelica · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Thanks angel for recognizing and naming this. I've felt this projection for a long time when dealing in this situation and I'm very heartened to know that someone else has noticed it too.

You are welcome, Jeanie. farfromglorified once posted the wikipedia psychological "projection" article in response to Ahnimus blaming me for stuff, so it's a subject that has been named in the past.

PaperPlates · May 2007

These threads are like listening to Yoda argue with himself.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

My style is no different than yours. Read what you just said to me "YOu are the only one who commits to 'violent opposition''... lower your thoughts into the re[a]lm of attacking others personally", then "Your current style is shit..."

Has not all I said been similar? Such as; "Your theory is fallacious" "You are resorting to personally comforting theories". Even to say "You are ignorant" is a truth claim about the knowledge a person has, it's not a personal attack, it's addressing a potential reality.

You and Angelica both become very upset with these conversations. I don't. So your assertion is actually false. I am not belittling you, you are belittling you and then reflecting it onto me.

Oh gee, I left the [a] out of realm...thank you ever so kindly for correcting that.

We are not similar in style because I don't feel the need to discuss you and my thoughts of your persona when I present my view. You don't have anything to do with why I believe what I believe so you don't fit into the equation. I believe my views are strong enough to stand on it's own without the need to negatively discuss Ahnimus along side them. It's called confidence. Most of the time I'm left wondering who it is that you are trying to convince...

The only reason I get bothered by by your methods is 1.) Because I expect more from a friend...I guess that clearly not the case anymore anyways 2.) I am a sensitive person and I tire of you discussing me instead of discussing your views against mine. If you're so confident in these beliefs, they should be more than enough for you without resorting to calling people insane, ignorant, psychotic...and on and on. There's no way to have any interaction, for me, with someone who chooses to conduct themselves in the manner you choose to. It's pointless.

Ahnimus · May 2007

Angelica. If you are so self-actualized in your 'Being'.

Then why do you veer off into nihilism and such when your views are challenged?

'Challenged' being the operative word. We both know that science is provisional and the best 'method' for obtaining truth. When something is not science, or structured thought like philosophy, I don't consider it. It's a waste of time. A bad method of obtaining truth. It's misleading, far too often it's false.

"You are wrong" in a scientific sense means there is little chance you are correct, so little that belief in the theory is ludicrous.

Swiss cheese is cheese
This thing is swiss
There for it is cheese

That is an example of the kind of thinking which I call "wrong". It might be true that the 'thing' is cheese, but not simply because it is swiss.

What happens here, in example, the miracle water. Emoto has hand-picked pictures to show the crystalization of water molecules, then called it swiss cheese. I pointed this out, and Abook became offended and a nihilist.

That is all that is going on here.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

You are free to deny it. However, like I've said, no one owns your conflicts but yourself, as much as you want to give them away and consider those conflicts to occur outside of your mind.

That whole statement is pointless. You must realize that of course.

This offers no evidence there is a conflict. It is simply a truth claim with nothing backing it up. If there was a such thing as a 'personal attack' this would most certainly be it. You are making a truth claim with no null hypothesis, no way for it to be proven or disproven. I've stated "I think it's wrong, here is why..." and you just say I'm in denial. Now, I said it's pointless, but clearly there must be a point. What is it?

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica. If you are so self-actualized in your 'Being'.

If you continue to base your concepts on flawed premises you will see conflicts that don't exist except in your thinking. I've said over and over that I don't consider myself self-actualized or enlightened.

Then why do you veer off into nihilism and such when your views are challenged?

Here is another false presupposition you hold. according to wikipedia: "Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value".

It was before you joined this board that I realized the necessity to see life as is, where objectivity and subjectivity are one. To have a nihilist view, I would have to see things without objective meaning, which is inaccurate in terms of my view. I very much stand behind objectivity. And I argue objectively all the time.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

That whole statement is pointless. You must realize that of course.

This offers no evidence there is a conflict. It is simply a truth claim with nothing backing it up. If there was a such thing as a 'personal attack' this would most certainly be it. You are making a truth claim with no null hypothesis, no way for it to be proven or disproven. I've stated "I think it's wrong, here is why..." and you just say I'm in denial. Now, I said it's pointless, but clearly there must be a point. What is it?

You already offer your own evidence of your own contradictions and inner conflict. I'm not trying to convince you or prove it. I'm merely stating what Is.

Ahnimus · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Oh gee, I left the [a] out of realm...thank you ever so kindly for correcting that.

It's just proper editing Abook.

We are not similar in style because I don't feel the need to discuss you and my thoughts of your persona when I present my view. You don't have anything to do with why I believe what I believe so you don't fit into the equation. I believe my views are strong enough to stand on it's own without the need to negatively discuss Ahnimus along side them. It's called confidence. Most of the time I'm left wondering who it is that you are trying to convince...

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

The only reason I get bothered by by your methods is 1.) Because I expect more from a friend...I guess that clearly not the case anymore anyways 2.) I am a sensitive person and I tire of you discussing me instead of discussing your views against mine. If you're so confident in these beliefs, they should be more than enough for you without resorting to calling people insane, ignorant, psychotic...and on and on. There's no way to have any interaction, for me, with someone who chooses to conduct themselves in the manner you choose to. It's pointless.

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.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

If you continue to base your concepts on flawed premises you will see conflicts that don't exist except in your thinking. I've said over and over that I don't consider myself self-actualized or enlightened.

Here is another false presupposition you hold. according to wikipedia: "Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value".

It was before you joined this board that I realized the necessity to see life as is, where objectivity and subjectivity are one. To have a nihilist view, I would have to see things without objective meaning, which is inaccurate in terms of my view. I very much stand behind objectivity. And I argue objectively all the time.

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.

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.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

What happens here, in example, the miracle water. Emoto has hand-picked pictures to show the crystalization of water molecules, then called it swiss cheese. I pointed this out, and Abook became offended and a nihilist.

That is all that is going on here.

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.

Comparative Religion: Godmen

Comments

Categories