Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

Squashbuckler

08-20-03, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Canute
Squash - You're entitled to your opinion. However sooner or later you are going to have to explain to everybody why you think Buddhism is nonsense rather than just endlessly assert it.

Here it is then :
The flaws that buddhism teaches :

#1.Reducing attachment towards life.
#2. Elimination of desire.
#3. Eliminating self-cherishing.
#4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble.
#5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
#6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
Not everyone deserves to be loved.
#8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal.
#9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
#10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.

All of these will lead to low self-esteem.
If you want to learn further about self esteem and its importance, look into reading the book " honoring the self" (which is contrary to buddhism)

"So you're saying , just think about your survival? Lie, cheat , steal, and kill for survival?Do whatever you need to survive? Thats kind of pointless."
-I did not say to lie cheat or steal mainly because that will not be conducive to your happiness.If you think that surviving is pointless, then you had better die and make space for those we values thier lives, this planet, and thier happiness. Lying will only turn you into a fraud like peter keating. You dont earn anything if you cheat, hence , you wont achieve any sense of glory in such an action. What is the purpose of killing?
Objectivism does not teach to live like a moocher or a club-wielding brute, it teaches the complete opposite, to be a productive person. Buddhism teaches to sit around and stagnate.
Its self-immolation. IF you supoort buddhism, then you might as well support communism, if you so reject the material, why dont you remove the material from your life? it is precisely that material that allows your survival!

"Objectvism teaches to instead of looking into the non-material things for happiness look to the material things."
-Does it really say that? It says to reject mysticm and the unreal.
It says to appreciate and enjoy productive work, as opposed to meditation in a corner (which realy helps no-one at all anyways)
If i produce goods, and you produce goods, then we trade, that would be much mroe beneficial to both of our happiness.
It realates to our survival and happiness.

"Don't care about someone's personality, care about there appearance, that is what really matters since its material. Objectivism teaches that only material things in this world matter. It teaches that being greedy is good for survival."
-IT teaches to love those who deserve to be loved based on their values. It teaches that friendship is a mutually pleasurable trade.
It teaches that man should be a trader. It teaches that productiveness is essential to human survival.

"Don't help others, that would sacrificing yourself to them. Don't show compassion for others.

"It is true that knowledge is a matter of opinion, no one can be certain of anything."
-You sound like kant. Logic is knowledge. The fact of non contradictory identification. A is A. A rock is a rock. We see that rock, we define it as such. If you say that nothing can be known, That is the worst kind of fraud you can perpetrate upon yourself.
If i shoot you, you will die. Cause and effect is VERY REAL.

Even though all reality is subjective, objectivism rejects subjectvism because it would collapse the whole idea of objectivism.
-Reality is not subjective. Reality is very much objective.Cause and effect are real.Things can be identified.

"Objectivism also rejects altruism, which states that the highest good is service to others."
-And rightfully so. Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris.

Squashbuckler

08-20-03, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by VitalOne
[B] [/BIf everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist".
]

Is that what you think? Watch the movie the " the miracle worker" with patty duke.

SG-N

08-20-03, 10:26 AM

I checked "undeserved" and it seems to mean something different of what I was thinking about... Anyway I'm still against the main idea : INDIVIDUALISM. The one that I see when I write this word is Jerrek (and if I well remember, he likes Rand).
She lived with communism and the only thing she seemed to want was : everything BUT communism. That seems to include the solidarity.

Squashbuckler

08-20-03, 10:29 AM

Do you preach communism?

SG-N

08-20-03, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
Do you preach communism?
Ooooh... What an answer! :rolleyes:

For your information, I'm not preaching communism. I just watch a moron (no offence!) that protect an extremist (Rand, if you don't understand...) by using exageration. "Exageration?" - Yeap, when someone says that altruism is self-immolation, I call that "exageration" (because I don't know any stronger word in english)

Anyway, if I would have to choose between communism and your "society", my choice would be easy.

If I were not so good, I would wish that one day, you would be as poor as possible! I wonder what you would do in the streets while no one would help you... Good luck without food, without warm clothes, with nowhere to go when it rains or snows... In your society, what would you become then? "I would work hard and earn money..." is not a possible answer, because in your society, I don't know why a boss woud give you a job while a stronger/better guy is able to do it : no pity!

Canute

08-20-03, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
Here it is then :
The flaws that buddhism teaches :

#1.Reducing attachment towards life.
#2. Elimination of desire.
#3. Eliminating self-cherishing.
#4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble.
#5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
#6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
Not everyone deserves to be loved.
#8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal.
#9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
#10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.
You have a muddled concept of Buddhism. Also it hardly constitutes an argument just to assert that these things are 'flaws'. What you mean is that you think these teachings are are flawed. In this you are probably absolutely correct, you do. Why not pick one and give your reasons for thinking it flawed.

You must have a very strange teacher.

[IF you supoort buddhism, then you might as well support communism, if you so reject the material, why dont you remove the material from your life? it is precisely that material that allows your survival!
A very, very strange teacher.

[Even though all reality is subjective, objectivism rejects subjectvism because it would collapse the whole idea of objectivism.[/B]
And you consider this tautological nonsense a good reason to reject subjectivism?

[Reality is not subjective. Reality is very much objective.Cause and effect are real.Things can be identified.[/B]
Identified by whom I wonder.

[Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris. [/B]
I don't think you mean this. (What's all this stuff about 'self-immolation' anyway?).

Squashbuckler

08-20-03, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Canute

Identified by whom I wonder.

It is senseless to have a discussion with you if you refuse to believe that things can be known. "if you prick us do we not bleed?"

If you stand back and take a look at the flaws that i have mentioned, you will understand that elimination of the ego will ultimately lead to a lack of self-esteem, among other problems. If you care to learn WHY IT WILL, Im not going to waste my time typing it to you when you can simply go out and buy " honoring the self" by nathanial brandon.

doesnt it seem self evident why reducing attachment towards your life wont help you? The same with the elimination of desire? or being humble?
Is it not true that buddhism wants to bring you to the stage of an animal. where you no longer try to think, only try to keep an empty mind.
That stage is like an animal, but an animal without an ID!

How can you remove the ID? you cannot! IT is programmed in us all. The repression of desire will inevitably lead to a conflict between the ego and the superego. A buddhism super ego seems to be merely blocking off the desires of the ID.

So where does your happiness come from? the elimination of your desires? ??
Happiness is having nothing at all? that makes much sense.

Anyhow, Id rather have the whole world as buddhist as opposed to any other religion.

Squashbuckler

08-20-03, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by SG-N
Anyway I'm still against the main idea : INDIVIDUALISM.

Individualism:
Individualism regards man-every man- as an independant, sovereign entity who possess an inalienable right to his own life,a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Indicidualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation, or peaceful coexistance among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights- and that group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.

Do not make mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says " ill do as i please at everybody elses expense"
An individualist is a man who recogizes the inalienable rights of man- his own and those of others.
An individualist is one who says " i will not run anyones life- nor let anyone run mine"
I will not rule, nor be ruled. I will not be a master, or a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone, or anyone to myself.
I will be a trader.

spookz

08-20-03, 11:56 PM

you are fabulously insane

:D

Mrs.Lucysnow

08-21-03, 12:30 AM

VitalOne you wrote: Objectivism also rejects altruism, which states that the highest good is service to others.

Who has decided that the highest good is service to others? I do not swallow Rand whole but neither do I believe service to others is the highest good. The highest good must always be what meets the needs of the individual. What the individual understands as their personal purpose and achivement of those goals for themselves is always the highest good. For some that may mean living like Mother Theresa and that is fine. But Theresa made an individual choice and I am sure she felt no sense of self-denial in doing so but a sense of personal vocation which she found personally enriching. We cannot all make that choice. When individuals are strengthened then the whole will take care of itself. A collective is only a group of individuals, if they are individually weak then so is the whole of their society. If all individuals were self-sustaining and self-reliant then there would be no need to give 'service' to others. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for any collective to ensure individual growth and freedom. We are all inter-dependent yes, I agree with that. But it seems that huge disparities in wealth, access and education creates instability for those whom have and are able. In this sense I think it wise for ones own security and survival to offer advantage to those lacking, but only those individuals willing and able can take the opportunities and utilize them for their own good.

Squashbuckler: I think to love everyone is to love no one. It is impossible to love everyone. What is possible is to treat everyone fairly.

VitalOne: The materials were there before people existed to identify and utilize them.
Interpretations of reality may be subjective but reality itself is not.

ripleofdeath

08-21-03, 12:40 AM

Quote

VitalOne
Objectivism in my opinion, sucks. It basically says that all reality has to do with is material things. But our mind creates the material things, which collapses the whole philosophy. Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds
---
it was soo good it deserved another reference

as it is most common objectivism is commonly used to validate
lack of control to change the inner self
and thus an attempt to celerbrate the ability to be ego centric and selfish

the reason police would not want peace and harmony is because they would all be out of jobs
hence self worth attached to the value of crime being current and
extreemly undesirable
would it be a fair comment to suggest that one who profits and finds glory in crime is also guilty to some point if you are to speak purely philisophicaly about it

but then i get the distinct impresion this thread is not based in philosophy but biggotry because it is not allowing discusion but only advertising the desire for collective repulsion
or groupy behaviour

leader of the pack
ohh hang on what does that relate to?
revenge
selfish motivation
the inbreeding social value of having control over others

Squashbuckler
have you ever tried to imagine that your first impresion is not always correct
maybe you have not found any literature that is written by eastern buhdists
AND
surely your knolledge of the things people do would illistrate how what is percieved on the surface is not always the correct set of events

you are stating you know all about buhdism
to a point where you think it is invalid and non consistant with productivre society
the same could be said about any religion if you point at the top end of the philisophical doctrines

surely you are not soo closed minded
try not to be offended by my comments i am mearly
replying in a philisophical manner as a perspective to reply in

groove on :)

Mrs.Lucysnow

08-21-03, 12:57 AM

Squashbuckler: If cause and effect are very real then why isnt Karma? Karma is just another way of pointing to consequences of action. One sows what they reap so to speak. I think there is truth to that if one takes reincarnation out of the context. On the other hand there are people like Idi Amin who's mother was a sorcerer and believed in it himself, he grew up poor and uneducated. He was a brutal murdering dictator who never paid for his crimes. He lived to a ripe old age in luxury and prosperity. By all accounts he was happy:D He cheated and killed and it brought him glory even if he was too stupid to realize he was the only one enjoying and admiring its result. You say cheating and killing is not conducive to ones happiness but it certainly worked for him!

Rands objectivism is contingent on the individual attaining a certain moral idealism. There are those who have no ideals and will still lead lives they consider successful.

Mrs.Lucysnow

08-21-03, 01:29 AM

Squashbucker where did you get the idea that meditation is equivalent to not having an idea in ones head and then sitting around stagnating? First of all if one did not have a thought in their head they would be physically dead. Its just a fact. Meditation is a technique utilized to discern our thoughts, to detach enough from the noise in our head so we can take a good look at its content. It also fosters focus and mental discipline, so that when we undertake a task we are fully there and not elsewhere in our minds thinking other thoughts. Haven't you ever experienced this? Walking down the street and you are so lost thinking about what you will do when you arrive at your destination, the errands to run, what happened yesterday and god only knows what else, and then you realize you are at the bus station unawares of the process of getting there? Just moving through activity without being present? Well meditation is not about sitting around doing nothing. Meditation teaches you self-awareness so you focus on walking, the scenery and what is present instead of being lost in mental activity. You know being in the NOW. If knowing oneself is important to personal happiness then meditation is a potentially useful tool.

Ego in the East does not have the same definition as it does in the West. I have some literature concerning this and will have to look for it, but there is a huge difference in connotation of the word and how it is used.

I understand you love and respect Rand's teachings. But to accept her thoughts completely is the same as renouncing your own. Don't swallow ANYTHING whole. To be an individual also means having the ability to see the flaws in Rands theory. Why don't you try playing devils advocate with her teachings and see what you find?

Canute

08-21-03, 05:52 AM

Lucy - very good points.

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
It is senseless to have a discussion with you if you refuse to believe that things can be known. "if you prick us do we not bleed?"
Of course things can be known. Our disagreement is over which things thay are.

[If you stand back and take a look at the flaws that i have mentioned, you will understand that elimination of the ego will ultimately lead to a lack of self-esteem, among other problems. If you care to learn WHY IT WILL, Im not going to waste my time typing it to you when you can simply go out and buy " honoring the self" by nathanial brandon.[/B]
I don't know what you mean by 'ego' so I will use 'sense of self'. Buddhists do not try to eliminate their 'sense of self'. They come to realise that their 'sense of self' is a personal construct. This is not a 'goal', it is just a conclusion that most Buddhist practitioners reach from experience. It is not to assert that 'sense of self' doesn't or shouldn't exist, it asserts simply that it is not fundamental. In the same way QM doesn't assert that chemistry doesn't exist, but just that QM is more fundamental.

[doesnt it seem self evident why reducing attachment towards your life wont help you? The same with the elimination of desire? or being humble? [/B]
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Perhaps you would understand this better if you used 'dependence' instead of 'attachment'.

[Is it not true that buddhism wants to bring you to the stage of an animal. where you no longer try to think, only try to keep an empty mind. [/B]
No, I'm afraid it isn't. Budhists think a great deal, or at least they do until they realise they don't need to. You misunderstand Buddhism badly. It is not a religion. Buddhism does not 'want' you to do anything. Buddhism is a philosophical practice, an investigation into reality. The fact that most people who do the practice find that they reach the same conclusions is not because they all accept some central dogma, it is just what happens.

[How can you remove the ID? you cannot! IT is programmed in us all. The repression of desire will inevitably lead to a conflict between the ego and the superego. A buddhism super ego seems to be merely blocking off the desires of the ID.[/B]
Don't quite understand that. There is no 'repression' of desire or removal of a Freudian ID (whatever that may be).

So where does your happiness come from? the elimination of your desires? ??
Happiness is having nothing at all? that makes much sense. [/B]
This is muddled. It is perfectly sensible to achieve a stable happiness despite not having ones desires fulfilled. If your happiness depends on fulfilling ones desires then happiness is forever beyond you, for how can one eliminate desire, and how can one attain all that one desires?

[Anyhow, Id rather have the whole world as buddhist as opposed to any other religion. [/B]
I respect your honesty for saying this, since you are an opponent of Buddhism. (Absolutely no sarcasm intended). However why would this be true? What is it about Buddhists that leads you to say this?

one_raven

08-21-03, 06:04 AM

Rather than looking at what different people said and completely commit myself to the words and ideas of a single person/philosophy while rejecting all others, I prefer to listen to what different people have to say, learn what I can from them, temper that with my personal experiences and think for myself.

I think that my personal philosophy lies somwehere between Objectivism and Buddhism and my greatest goal (and most difficult challenge) has been to reconcile the tendencies I have toward each of them and strike a balance.

I don't think the ideals defined in each have to be mutually exclusive.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates
Look inside yourself to find your own personal philosophy rather than looking for a philosophy to apply to your life.

ripleofdeath

08-21-03, 09:02 PM

one_raven
RE your last post inclusive of the Socrates quote

and so the nature of the artist is born
and so the free will expresses in freedom

unfortunately most people think you have to have the shit kicked out of you, dragged though a puddle of shit spun dry
and walk in to a large sum of money before most think you
have the ability to render art/philosophy yet all people look to is the recanting of missery that soo many hang on like a S&M
soap drama fanatic getting their latest fix

society is soo crazzy :eek:

groove on :)

VitalOne

08-22-03, 10:24 AM

VitalOne: The materials were there before people existed to identify and utilize them. Interpretations of reality may be subjective but reality itself is not.

Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously). You basically said interpretations may be subjective but interpretations that created an idea itself is not.

In the little picture, this could make sense. The only reason that materials seem to be there is because there are people who have the same senses. Its all an elaborate illusion. In dreams (much like reality) your brain stem sends signals and your brain tries to interpret them. Are things in dreams also true? Do they also exist?

Reality IS subjective. Everyone has their own reality. Their experiences aren't the same. A color blind man sees black and white. A deaf man hears feeling. Imagine, the human eye can see less than 10 million colors. Imagine what reality would be like if we could see over a trillion colors. Is reality to a bat the same as reality to a human? Ofcourse not. It is subjective because they both have different senses. The only reason that reality seems objective is simply because there are billions of people that have the same senses. Thus, when one tries to explain to the other it seems to make logical sense because the person (having the same senses) can relate to it. Some objectivists, have asked if I do this, doesn't this happen? To us yes, but to others no. That is why reality is subjective. If mankind could only see, then what we percieve as reality would not be the same as if we had all 5 senses. Don't you understand? Mankind has created most ideas based on their senses. If we had 6 senses, these ideas would be different, just as if we had 2 or 4 or 8 senses and so on. This is why reality is subjective. Ideas were initially opinions, then proven by showing other people. Those people using the same senses as the other would be able to reason it. Facts are just what mankind agreed upon. That was the big picture, but the little picture is enough for most people.

Who has decided that the highest good is service to others? I do not swallow Rand whole but neither do I believe service to others is the highest good.

Where did I say that I supported altruism? I stated that objectivism strongly rejects altruism. In Buddhism, altruism is accepted because it is not as selfish. Helping one is considered a good deed.

Squashbuckler: You obviously don't understand Buddhism. It is a philosophy based finding inner peace. It tries to lead mankind away from suffering and pain.

Here it is then : The flaws that buddhism teaches : #1.Reducing attachment towards life. #2. Elimination of desire. #3. Eliminating self-cherishing. #4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble. #5. Altruism, help others before yourself. #6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved? Not everyone deserves to be loved. #8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal. #9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego. #10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.

When you are attached to things, and then that thing is taken away, what happens is that you're crushed. You being attached to it, and it being taken away makes you unhappy. Reducing your atachment towards life is a good thing. It slowly removes the fear of death. If you are strongly attached to life, then you will strongly fear death (the inevitable). If you like to fear death, go ahead become attached to life. What causes pain? What causes unhappiness? Desire. When you want something, sometimes you'll get it (you're happy) , and sometimes you won't (you're unhappy). In any case, by wanting something, you'll set your self up for happiness or unhappiness (most cases) and others for happiness or unhappiness. If you eliminate desire, then you won't want things, you'll be free. Material things won't control you. You'll have some inner peace. I could go through this whole list....

Canute

08-22-03, 11:28 AM

Very well put, if you don't mind me saying so.

We monitor nothing but electro-chemical activity, all the rest is concepts.

moementum7

08-22-03, 01:21 PM

I am very attached to me.
ME ME ME.
I like the sound of that.
You guys are attached to this non-attachement thing eh?
This is the last thing you have to let go of.
Then you will be enlightened and can no longer hurt a fly.
Let us know when you are more one than anyone.
I can see both sides of the argument.
Lucky me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
Peace Out

VitalOne

08-22-03, 02:28 PM

Thanks Canute and ripleofdeath. moe, whats your last post suppose trying to say?

moementum7

08-22-03, 02:33 PM

Just having fun Vital.:)
It means WOOOOHOOOO!

And that you are attached to the idea of attachement.
You have to let that go to become enlightened.
WOOOOHOOO!

Canute

08-22-03, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by moementum7
I am very attached to me.
ME ME ME.
I like the sound of that.
You guys are attached to this non-attachement thing eh?
This is the last thing you have to let go of.
Then you will be enlightened and can no longer hurt a fly.
Let us know when you are more one than anyone.
I can see both sides of the argument.
Lucky me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
Peace Out
I'm not sure that there are two sides to the argument. There are two aspects of existence, the objective and the subjective, that need a single explanation. The two sides of the argument need to be synthesised, neither can be correct on their own.

moementum7

08-22-03, 02:38 PM

Not putting on a show,
he shines.
not justifying himself,
he is distinguished;
not boasting,
he is acknowledged.

He does not quarrel,
so no one quarrels with him.
WOOOOHOOO!

VitalOne

08-22-03, 02:40 PM

Just having fun Vital.
It means
WOOOOHOOOO!
And that you are attached to the idea of attachement. You have to let that go to become enlightened. WOOOOHOOO!

Ok. I don't want to become enlightened yet. Not ready.Its not time....

BTW: You do know that you sound insane? Right?

moementum7

08-22-03, 02:49 PM

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by VitalOne

Squashbuckler: You obviously don't understand Buddhism. It is a philosophy based finding inner peace. It tries to lead mankind away from suffering and pain.

When you are attached to things, and then that thing is taken away, what happens is that you're crushed. Reducing your atachment towards life is a good thing. It slowly removes the fear of death. If you are strongly attached to life, then you will strongly fear death (the inevitable). If you like to fear death, go ahead become attached to life. What causes pain? What causes unhappiness? Desire. When you want something, sometimes you'll get it (you're happy) , and sometimes you won't (you're unhappy). In any case, by wanting something, you'll set your self up for happiness or unhappiness (most cases) and others for happiness or unhappiness. If you eliminate desire, then you won't want things, you'll be free. Material things won't control you. You'll have some inner peace. I could go through this whole list....

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life.
You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be.
Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep.
In " not wanting things" that makes you free?
THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system.
It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you?
Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.
"Material things dont control you"
Do they "control you"
I dont feel that they control me at all.
I studied buddhism for almost 2 years. Ive read many books on the subject. If everyone wants to say that " i have a muddled concept of buddhism", then i would suggest that maybe it is they who are confused.

Inner peace does not come from removing the mind and its desires. What thats called is " nothing". You are nothing. You are a dog without an ID.

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by moementum7
Not putting on a show,
he shines.
not justifying himself,
he is distinguished;
not boasting,
he is acknowledged.

He does not quarrel,
so no one quarrels with him.
WOOOOHOOO!

that sounds like lao tzu garbage.
hahha, Reading that makes me laugh.
Making something from nothing!

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
Quote
you are stating you know all about buhdism
to a point where you think it is invalid and non consistant with productivre society
the same could be said about any religion if you point at the top end of the philisophical doctrines

Yes. Religion is nothing more than philosophy. All religions in my opinion are trash.

moementum7

08-22-03, 05:04 PM

You tell'em Squashy baby!:D

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Lucysnow
You know being in the NOW. If knowing oneself is important to personal happiness then meditation is a potentially useful tool.

I understand you love and respect Rand's teachings. But to accept her thoughts completely is the same as renouncing your own. Don't swallow ANYTHING whole. To be an individual also means having the ability to see the flaws in Rands theory. Why don't you try playing devils advocate with her teachings and see what you find?

So you say meditation is useful because it removes the clutter of thought so that you can be in the "now" . But what is the point of being in the "NOW" if you dont have any desires anyways?
What makes you want to "DO" anything. The whole point it to eliminate desires and achieve "nirvana"
The fraud that perpetrates is hilarious!

Buddhists say : " eliminate all your goals and desires to achieve nirvana and true freedom "

?!?!!!
That freedom is a goal, and a desire!
Thier desire is nirvana, but they claim that they want to eliminate desires?
The elimination of desires will result in a meaningless life without any sense of value, whether personal or material.

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by one_raven
Look inside yourself to find your own personal philosophy rather than looking for a philosophy to apply to your life.

Really? Well there is nothing inside yourself other than Instinctive desires, and other partial philosophies that have shaped your superego culturally.

Squashbuckler

08-22-03, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by VitalOne
Reality IS subjective.

Ive decided to no longer talk to you.

If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known?
Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

I also find it funny that you support buddhism and the elimination of self-cherishing.

Buddhism is about the elimination of self cherishing. If everyone knows, understands, and accepts what that implies, and yet still continues to practice buddhism- They deserve it.

Mrs.Lucysnow

08-22-03, 05:44 PM

To VitalOne who wrote: when one tries to explain to the other it seems to make logical sense because the person (having the same senses) can relate to it. Some objectivists, have asked if I do this, doesn't this happen? To us yes, but to others no. That is why reality is subjective. If mankind could only see, then what we percieve as reality would not be the same as if we had all 5 senses. Don't you understand? Mankind has created most ideas based on their senses. If we had 6 senses, these ideas would be different, just as if we had 2 or 4 or 8 senses and so on. This is why reality is subjective. Ideas were initially opinions, then proven by showing other people. Those people using the same senses as the other would be able to reason it. Facts are just what mankind agreed upon.

I understand what you mean, but isn't there definite reality beyond the interpretations mankind has agreed upon? Doesn't Buddhism address a reality outside of our senses? And if so isn't it concrete or is everything just an illusion (I mean within eastern thought)?

Squashbuckler you wrote:So you say meditation is useful because it removes the clutter of thought so that you can be in the "now" . But what is the point of being in the "NOW" if you dont have any desires anyways?
What makes you want to "DO" anything. The whole point it to eliminate desires and achieve "nirvana"

Meditation is useful outside of any religious context. You can have desires and still meditate and find it a helpful tool for ones self-improvement. Just because someone chooses to focus on what they are doing (being present, in the Now) as opposed to allowing the mind to anxiously get lost and ramble about whether they will get to the bank on time, what happened yesterday or will happen tomorrow, when one is simply walking to the bus station does not mean they are concerned with Nirvana. Meditation improves awarness. I can become more aware of my desires, and perhaps a deeper awarness of my desires helps me achieve them, or perhaps put them in perspective. Just because someone meditates does not mean they don't want to excel in their career, buy a Jaguar or drop by the boutique for some mindless shopping:D

You also wrote: Well there is nothing inside yourself other than Instinctive desires, and other partial philosophies that have shaped your superego culturally.

I agree with this quote, don't you think that meditation can help one become aware of all the above? Attention to thougt and feeling enables us to become more conscious instead of simply reacting to every thought and feeling that overwhelms the mind and body.

moementum7

08-23-03, 02:42 AM

Meditation is simply a practice of focusing ones mind.
On what is an entirely different story.
The end.
"Simply Margarette, I don't give a damn!"
Do a little dance,.....make a little love......,get down tonight!
WOOOOHOOO!:bugeye:

Canute

08-23-03, 06:20 AM

Squashbuckler - I won't keep arguing because I appreciate that you're just expressing your opinion. However all this stuff you are writing is trivial. It doesn't matter what meditation is 'for', or whether or not you understand the meaning of Buddhist claims about reality. What matters is whether the Buddhist explanation of reality is true or not. On that you have not yet put forward an argument.

Nobody is forced to practice Buddhist, if you don't like it then go and practice scientism or Christianity or nihilism or objectism or something. But don't bore everybody here by dismissing it as nonsense without some evidence. Go do it on 'free thoughts' or 'religion' or somewhere where people generally just proclaim their opinions to each other.

If you studied Buddhism for two years, as you say, it is hard to imagine how you can still be so ignorant about what it asserts.

linus

08-23-03, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Squashbuckler

Second thought, Ill stick to policing and actually making a difference, as opposed to sitting in that corner, wishing , and praying for world peace.

it's quite a bold statement to say that the buddha made no difference on society and life. since over one fifth of the world is a follower of his and eblieves in his ideas, then regaurdless of whether you agree, it would be unrational to say that he did not. of course that can be said of anyone who talked of understanding. christ, lao tzu.

i am not commenting on their correctness, but they have made a difference and to suggest that they haven't is just a silly notion that even ayn rand owuld have laughed at.

notwithstanding, the buddha was very much his own man sdoing what he needed to do despite all the world chiding him and trying to undo him. you may not like buddhists, but the buddha was more of an objectivist than howard roark could ever be. the distinction is that that is not the only thing he was.

exsto_human

08-23-03, 12:04 PM

As an objectivist you have the explicit duty to let everyone else live their lives trying to attain happines in their own way. ;)

So why not instead of sitting by a computer and fruitlessly argue with people who aren't going to listen anyway, do something productive with your life like a good objectivist would. There are much better things to do than converting Buddhists, an obvious minority, who when truely dedicated to their practice are usualy firm as rock and impossible to budge.
While I can see somethings from your point of view (as an individual objectivist) it would be good for you if desire denying philosophies of which Buddhism is very much at the extreme end of the spectrum, where eliminated Because: People who think in these ways are not very good 'trading partners', when the idea of trading partners is at the very core of the objectivist view on social interaction and interdependence. As they essentialy want nothing from you and give nothing to you. You however want them to be productive members of society who will make for you TV sets and Cars (objects of ultimate happiness) and who will also work for you, take away your garbage etc... But they do not consent.
However, realisticaly you probably will not succeed in convincing anyone to change anything.

I appologise for the slightly satiric implications you may draw from what I have said. I do not consent to the views of Ayn Rand myself and am biased as towards their nature. But I am trying to show you using perhaps a similar loigic an objectivist might use that we as non-objectivists have the right to believe whatever the hell we want no matter how deluded. If it makes us happy is it not worth pursuing?
You can only speak for your self when you say that Buddhsim does not make you happy.
So why not pursue your own happiness instead of trying to make us give up ours?

linus

08-23-03, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
Here it is then :
The flaws that buddhism teaches :

#1.Reducing attachment towards life. actually, not basing you decision on outcome, which is what nonattachment is about, doing what you need or want to do wihtout regaurd for outcome, is very much what ayn rand taught. maybe you've been reading somone else's books.

#2. Elimination of desire. this has to do with non attachment, it's not desire for anything in general, it's desire for outcome. but that would only be clear if you had done some reasearch.

#3. Eliminating self-cherishing. it teaches to not hold yourself above others, as no progress can be made by anyone who holds themselves above another. in all of time, it has never happened. it is basically a comment on that fact. it is not about not liking yourself, just about not thinking your better than others.

#4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble. has it occured to you that you say everything twice?
see point above for answer to this.

#5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
the concept here, is cause and effect, by helping someone else, it causes an effect that will get back to you in some way and most likely when you least expect it. this phenomenon can be observed in everyday life. it's not a matter of oppinion really, just a matter of paying attention.

#6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
Not everyone deserves to be loved.
i can certainly understand that viewpoint and, not agreeing or disagreeing, i am curious what the standards are. that is, what must one do to deserve to be loved. and who makes the final decision?

#8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal. what exactly does this mean? it is words in a row, that much is evident, but it seems to accomplish a miraculous feet of using seven words to say nothing at all. maybe you mean that you think buddhism is against contentment? i'm not sure, no one who had studied buddhism would believe that. i don't know what you mean here. please clarify it.

#9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
it's not about elininating yourself, it's a biproduct, it's about realizing that you are a part of this world, and that your contributiion to the world is sacred.

#10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you. why do those that mistreat you need to be gotten at all? i'm not saying they do or dont but have you really asked yourself this question?

All of these will lead to low self-esteem.
could you show me the documentation on that? which studies show these points or are you just making a generalization?

Buddhism teaches to sit around and stagnate.
Its self-immolation. where in buddhist doctrine is this listed? i see in buddhist doctrine about seeking understanding within yourself. but not about stagnation, as it was contrary to everything the buddha stood for: the buddhas strongest "enemies" if you could call it that, being lazy people who have no desire to better themselves or the world.

IF you supoort buddhism, then you might as well support communism, how did you reach this conclusion? i have seen nothing that links buddhism to communism either dogmatically or socialogically. as a matter of fact, in terms of people hurt by communism, they are just about number one.

"Objectvism teaches to instead of looking into the non-material things for happiness look to the material things."
-Does it really say that? It says to reject mysticm and the unreal.
It says to appreciate and enjoy productive work, as opposed to meditation in a corner (which realy helps no-one at all anyways) this is a presuppostition. you cannot judge what has or has not helped someone else. i am not saying it does or deosn't only that you have not given any evidence to suggest even by your cause and effect standrads that it helps no one. in a purely medical sense, it reduces stress levels, releases endorphins which lightens the blood flow and helps circluation as well as depletion of blood clots and has a postiive effect on all cardio-respitory ailments, which is the number one killer of human beings. but that aside, i would like to believe that you have a bisis for your assessment and not just a general presupostion with no backing, so please explain the train of thought that led you to this.

if i shoot you, you will die. Cause and effect is VERY REAL.
now you say cause and effect is real, yet reject karma whihc is the very idea of cause and effect.

squash, i'm not saying i disagree or agree with ayn rand, but i'd like to hear your views, or at least have you talk about how you reach your conclusions. it is the process of learning is seeing the process another goes through and then taking it and making it your own, altering it to your needs and lifestyle. so what i'm asking is, please make a point and support it, rather than support it with more presuppositions.

"Objectivism also rejects altruism, which states that the highest good is service to others."
-And rightfully so. Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris. it's not self immolation, it's self respect in corrolation with respect for the world. it's understanding that you are not the only person in the world and not the most important, rather, just another and how you choose to spend you life has effect and you have to deal with those consequences.

VitalOne

08-23-03, 01:18 PM

I've decided to no longer talk to you. If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known? Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong. And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.

I understand what you mean, but isn't there definite reality beyond the interpretations mankind has agreed upon? Doesn't Buddhism address a reality outside of our senses? And if so isn't it concrete or is everything just an illusion (I mean within eastern thought)?

There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion.

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life. You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be. Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep. In " not wanting things" that makes you free? THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system. It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you? Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.

If you remove the fear of death, you will be happier. Do you like fearing death? Does it make you feel good? If you remove that, you'll feel more secure. Have you removed the fear of death from yourself? If you haven't experienced it don't assume things. You do not need to be attached to something material in order to be happy. If one were not attached to anything material they would value the non-material things. Again, you must experience it, and not assume things (what you're doing). You sound like a complete moron (no offense) who has only read things and has experienced nothing. I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it. Once you experience it, it will answer all of your questions. You will still value yourself. You see, you have a euro-centric mind. You can't imagine life without desire. You think it'll be horrible.

Squashbuckler

08-23-03, 05:42 PM

"I cant explain the experience, you have to feel it"

Ok everyone, do what makes you happy.
I guess we will have to leave it at this and agree to disagree.

P.S. Sorry moementum7.
You will understand what i mean by that.

VitalOne

08-23-03, 07:16 PM

Squashbuckler: I agree with you (for once), this argument has gone pointless (not that it wasn't already).

guthrie

08-23-03, 10:03 PM

What an interesting disucssion, shame i missed it all.

"Ok everyone, do what makes you happy.
I guess we will have to leave it at this and agree to disagree."

Yay! At last some sense.

moementum7

08-24-03, 02:43 AM

Hey Squashy!;)

Voltaire

10-13-03, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
Forget about dreams, they are irrelevant to your survival.
I disagree.

umm... how do you all know these people like lucysnow and such, I haven't talked with any of them. :) I guess I am out of the circle.

Awake

01-22-04, 01:29 AM

I agree, we should do what would make us truely happy. Once you try other things, you, too, will understand what it will take to make you truely happy.

Everyone has there own time-table for the path to which they will inevitable tread.

Voltaire

01-22-04, 04:05 PM

That doesn't mean you have to ignore your dreams because supposedly they are stupid.

Awake

01-22-04, 11:00 PM

Who said dreams are stupid? Don't ignore them, follow them until you don't want to or need to anymore. If it is a life long pursuit, so be it.

Voltaire

01-24-04, 12:09 PM

Forget about dreams, they are irrelevant to your survival. Awake, I guess you skipped his post. :rolleyes:

exsto_human

01-24-04, 06:02 PM

Canute

01-24-04, 06:07 PM

Objectivism strikes me as an ironic philosophy. Mainly on account of the name, funny to call a philosophy that is centered on the subject 'objectivism.'

If it were up to me I would rename it 'egocentric skeptical rationalism'.
I think that gives rationality a bad name. I'd prefer 'formally egocentric skeptical logicalism'. :D

Chalaco

01-24-04, 11:26 PM

Just in your mind too. And, I'm not sure, but pretty sure that your mind won't be over (won't test this).

First things first, you're a charlatan. I know it's wrong to use ad hominem arguments but after that poor excuse for a rebuttal, I'm left wondering that out of the 40,000 people that die everday, why aren't you one of them?

So you're saying that standing in front of a truck and getting hit by it, leaving your brain all over the grill, would just be "in your mind"? Shame, I think you're eligible for public charity, you might just be legally retarded. There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.

When you are attached to things, and then that thing is taken away, what happens is that you're crushed. You being attached to it, and it being taken away makes you unhappy. Reducing your atachment towards life is a good thing. It slowly removes the fear of death. If you are strongly attached to life, then you will strongly fear death (the inevitable). If you like to fear death, go ahead become attached to life. What causes pain? What causes unhappiness? Desire. When you want something, sometimes you'll get it (you're happy) , and sometimes you won't (you're unhappy). In any case, by wanting something, you'll set your self up for happiness or unhappiness (most cases) and others for happiness or unhappiness. If you eliminate desire, then you won't want things, you'll be free. Material things won't control you. You'll have some inner peace. I could go through this whole list....

Well, junior, why don't you recognize the cognitive dissonance between these two quotes. Listen sparky, you won't test your theory that your mind "won't be over" if it's hit by a truck, yet you don't fear death? Hmmmm...yup, you're an idiot.

Chalaco

01-24-04, 11:35 PM

it's quite a bold statement to say that the buddha made no difference on society and life. since over one fifth of the world is a follower of his and eblieves in his ideas, then regaurdless of whether you agree, it would be unrational to say that he did not. of course that can be said of anyone who talked of understanding. christ, lao tzu.

i am not commenting on their correctness, but they have made a difference and to suggest that they haven't is just a silly notion that even ayn rand owuld have laughed at.

notwithstanding, the buddha was very much his own man sdoing what he needed to do despite all the world chiding him and trying to undo him. you may not like buddhists, but the buddha was more of an objectivist than howard roark could ever be. the distinction is that that is not the only thing he was.

That's funny, because I've read the post Squahbuckler posted (more than once) to see if I missed something. Low and behold, I didn't. You took his post as if he intimated that the buddha has made no difference on society (even he would know better than to make such an asinine statement). When, in fact, he was simply talking about himself, that HE should sit in the corner, loving everything and everyone, sacrificing himself, etc. (in his usual facetious satirical rhetoric). It is quite overt, especially since he stated, "If i [sic] remove my mind, ill reach a state of nirvana." He was inferring that he views buddhism as not being productive, and practicing it as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to his current interests. I hate to deduce the obvious conclusion for the slow, oh wait no, I don't, I thoroughly enjoy doing so.

People, if you could please THINK before you post, and maybe, just maybe, READ the post more than once before replying with your indignation.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 12:07 AM

[QUOTE=VitalOne]Reality IS subjective. Everyone has their own reality. Their experiences aren't the same. A color blind man sees black and white. A deaf man hears feeling. Imagine, the human eye can see less than 10 million colors. Imagine what reality would be like if we could see over a trillion colors. Is reality to a bat the same as reality to a human? Ofcourse not. It is subjective because they both have different senses. The only reason that reality seems objective is simply because there are billions of people that have the same senses. Thus, when one tries to explain to the other it seems to make logical sense because the person (having the same senses) can relate to it. Some objectivists, have asked if I do this, doesn't this happen? To us yes, but to others no. That is why reality is subjective. If mankind could only see, then what we percieve as reality would not be the same as if we had all 5 senses. Don't you understand? Mankind has created most ideas based on their senses. If we had 6 senses, these ideas would be different, just as if we had 2 or 4 or 8 senses and so on. This is why reality is subjective. Ideas were initially opinions, then proven by showing other people. Those people using the same senses as the other would be able to reason it. Facts are just what mankind agreed upon. That was the big picture, but the little picture is enough for most people.

end quote

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, well mister skeptical, let me be the first to inform you that reality is not subjective. Furthermore, you don't believe this yourself although you aver otherwise (try as you might). Here is why...

It is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Now, I am very far from a buddhist but yet, I do not fear death. According to you charlatans, non-buddhists are more inclined to fear death. To support my argument, I will suffice you with my reasons on why I don't fear death...

If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they're not dead, and not for the dead, since they don't exist. The argument can be set out as follows:

1. Death is annihilation.
2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

Ergo, if death causes you no pain when you're dead, it's foolish to allow the fear of it to cause you pain now

The 'symmetry argument' states that "anyone who fears death should consider the time before he was born. The past infinity of pre-natal non-existence is like the future infinity of post-mortem non-existence; it is as though nature has put up a mirror to let us see what our future non-existence will be like. But we do not consider not having existed for an eternity before our births to be a terrible thing; therefore, neither should we think not existing for an eternity after our deaths to be evil."

(source: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm)

And another thing, not to argue semantics, but altruism started off as

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

and

unselfishness as a principle of action

(those denotations are from dictionary.com and my own oxford dictinary, respectively)

Now, all of you aver that altruism is believing that 'the highest good is service to others.'

Well, allow me to retort. You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial. People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable. This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.

Now, to all those infidels out there impugning objectivism, let me remind you of some of the fundamentals of Objectivism.

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights

(source: http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html)

This is what you are against? If the whole world was buddhist, nothing would ever get done (in my opinion, although I can only speculate). But then again, all you pious buddhists out there would retort with, "Well, what needs to get done?". All too predictable.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 12:29 AM

I disagree.

umm... how do you all know these people like lucysnow and such, I haven't talked with any of them. :) I guess I am out of the circle.

At this point, I'm convinced you have a learning disability. He done told you to agree to disagree, you concurred and said the 'argument' had reached a pitch of inanity you didn't care for (not in so many words).

Yet here you are with your incendiary remarks, trying to spark up another 'argument' to feed your own pugnacious persona, you're a glutton for contention. And you wonder why you are "Out of the circle"...

Chalaco

01-25-04, 12:51 AM

Squashbuckler:
I've decided to no longer talk to you. If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known? Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

IdleOne (I mean, VitalOne):
I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong. I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong

You know what the scariest part about that was? The fact that you probably believe you're right. :eek:

I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it.

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. :rolleyes: And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 01:55 AM

Canute:
Quote:
[Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris. [/B]

I don't think you mean this. (What's all this stuff about 'self-immolation' anyway?).

SG-N:
For your information, I'm not preaching communism. I just watch a moron (no offence!) that protect an extremist (Rand, if you don't understand...) by using exageration. "Exageration?" - Yeap, when someone says that altruism is self-immolation, I call that "exageration

source for subsequent definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com)

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness

self-im·mo·la·tion (slfm-lshn)
n.

Deliberate sacrifice of oneself

The connection isn't exactly esoteric. And SG-N, perhaps it is you that was being hyperbolic by labelling the man as a 'moron' simply because you did not agree with him. Now, I wish that one day it is YOU that becomes pauper... though they say that pauper is the one who attempts to decry others when others don't agree with his/her vantage point, without offering anything to back up his/her stance other than libel. I shan't wish you pauperism for you are already engulfed in it.

Canute

01-25-04, 06:18 AM

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained,
Experiences are incommensurable and uncommunicable. This is an accepted fact of science and philosophy with which nobody can disagree. That isn't to say that nothing at all can be said about them, but it puts limits on how much can be said.

This is part of the reason why science is suspicious of first-person reports of experiences.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 06:33 AM

Experiences are incommensurable and uncommunicable. This is an accepted fact of science and philosophy with which nobody can disagree. That isn't to say that nothing at all can be said about them, but it puts limits on how much can be said.

This is part of the reason why science is suspicious of first-person reports of experiences.

Hmmm... an interesting point. However, I do not recall ever saying they weren't incommensurable and uncommunicable, but rather I attest that it is not inexplicable. :bugeye: I agree wholeheartedly with your whole post right there. I never said otherwise. It's just that IdleOne -- I mean VitalOne -- didn't even attempt to put it into words, if even in a pithy manner, it would've sufficed and allowed for further congregation.

Canute

01-25-04, 03:10 PM

Hmmm... an interesting point. However, I do not recall ever saying they weren't incommensurable and uncommunicable, but rather I attest that it is not inexplicable. :bugeye: I agree wholeheartedly with your whole post right there. I never said otherwise. It's just that IdleOne -- I mean VitalOne -- didn't even attempt to put it into words, if even in a pithy manner, it would've sufficed and allowed for further congregation.
Fair enough. But Vital One has a point. The sort of experiences he was talking about can't be described or explained.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 05:25 PM

Fair enough. But Vital One has a point. The sort of experiences he was talking about can't be described or explained.

and I happen to disagree. As you said earlier, an experience, whether vicarious or first hand, can be put into words, just with limits, and I happen to agree wholeheartedly. So let's agree to disagree on whether IdleOne, I mean VitalOne's reference to this putative experience can be put into words or not. It is no longer pertinent, to me that is.

Siddhartha

01-25-04, 07:41 PM

1. Death is annihilation.
2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7) To the chap who started this thread, you are most short sighted.

1. - True.
2. - False, it is a change of state for the living, and affects them greatly.
3. - False from 2.
4. - False from 2.
5. - True.
6. - False, I'll show you someone dead to prove it if you doubt,
7. - False because other pre-requisites have been proven false.
8. - Load of crap.

Chalaco

01-25-04, 09:28 PM

To the chap who started this thread, you are most short sighted.

Hmmm.....nope, I didn't start this thread, Squashbuckler did. I did, however, post the text you have in quotation. I was stating Epicurus' stance on the matter, which happens to be my stance as well, if you would've clicked on the link (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm), you;'d know that. Of course, I realize that asking something as simple as clicking on a link may be a bit much, my apologies.

And so you label me as suffering from myopia simply because you don't agree with me, a cunning strategy by an equally cunning linguist. :bugeye:

1. Death is annihilation

1. - True

good, you're not an entirely lost cause

2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).

2. - False, it is a change of state for the living, and affects them greatly

Now tell me, is it me, is it me or did the second premiss say nothing of whether death AFFECTS them? Maybe it's just me :bugeye:

3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)

3. - False from 2.

When annihilated, thenceforth, you're not in tune in with cognitive thinking, so this change of state will go unnoticed because you can't notice it, you're dead. The only thing affecting you is the anticipation and fear of an inevitable fact of life.

4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)

4. - False from 2.

You're not dead, thus it does not affect you. The distress of its inevitability affects you, but death itself does not, simpleton. And you agree with me because of your reply in the subsequent quote....

5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least

5. - True.

The fact that you agree with this yet censure the rest of his points has me convinced you just might be special :bugeye: Recognize the cognitive dissonance, junior. Now you could argue that you feel as if though the dead DO exist....

6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)

6. - False, I'll show you someone dead to prove it if you doubt

Hmmm... although you're right, the dead are objective, they do exist PHYSICALLY, but that's about it. Epicurus may have meant what Descartes said, "cogito ergo sum" -- I think, therefore I am -- the dead do not think. But this premiss is a bit suspect so I'll leave it up for debate....

7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)

7. - False because other pre-requisites have been proven false.

I feel I shouldn't really have to explicate as to why death is not bad for the dead

8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

8. - Load of crap

Funny, I found myself uttering the exact same colloquial phrase upon reading your respone, well only if you replace 'load' with 'quintessence', and 'of crap' with 'of idiocy'.

Canute

01-26-04, 03:23 AM

Is that really what Epicurus thought? If so he's just gone down a long way in my opinion. It appears to be a muddle of ambiguous terms.

Chalaco

01-26-04, 03:42 AM

Is that really what Epicurus thought? If so he's just gone down a long way in my opinion. It appears to be a muddle of ambiguous terms.

link for epicurus (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm)

Chalaco

01-26-04, 04:19 AM

Fair enough. But Vital One has a point. The sort of experiences he was talking about can't be described or explained.

you say that yet you said earlier that

Experiences are incommensurable and uncommunicable. This is an accepted fact of science and philosophy with which nobody can disagree. That isn't to say that nothing at all can be said about them, but it puts limits on how much can be said.

now, which is it, mister contradiction. And don't give me that, "well, it can be put into words just not depicted or described or explained" cop-out because what else can you put it into words for? To spill out incoherent sentences that say nothing of nothing? No, if soemthing can be put into words, depictions/explainations of at some least form, even if very very minute, would still be just that, depictions and explainations. Why else are things put into words...

However, I'm open for debate, if you can prove me wrong, I'm all eyes...

Canute

01-26-04, 09:31 AM

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction.

exsto_human

01-27-04, 02:26 PM

I think that gives rationality a bad name. I'd prefer 'formally egocentric skeptical logicalism'. :D

Hey, there's nothing wrong with rationality. ;)

Rationalism = The doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience.

river-wind

01-27-04, 03:20 PM

wow, this thread is frightening. Have so many people simply settled on a method of how the world functions, and then closed their eyes to the inconsistancies in their world veiw?

Let assume the following for a second:
" 1. Death is annihilation"
ok, then, death is an annihilation. An annihilation of what exactly? what is annihilated by death?

lets go to it.

Canute

01-27-04, 04:44 PM

Hey, there's nothing wrong with rationality. ;)
That's what I was saying.

Rationalism = The doctrine that knowledge is acquired by reason without resort to experience.
My dictionary does not make it so cut and dried. It suggests that reason is the basis of rationality, but it does not exclude reference to experience.

If your definition is accurate then 'rationalism' is irrational nonsense ex hypothesis, since 'I exist' becomes an irrational statement.

spidergoat

01-27-04, 06:32 PM

Let assume the following for a second:" 1. Death is annihilation"
ok, then, death is an annihilation. An annihilation of what exactly? what is annihilated by death?

Death is not annihilation, death is an aspect of life, as vital for it's functioning as breathing. How many millions of your cells die every day? How long do you think you would survive if that didn't happen? How long would life survive on the planet if there were no death? So, an individual ego ends, it was an illusion in the first place. The organic and inorganic molecules of a body get recycled, nothing gets annihilated. What ends is a particular pattern and arrangement of molecules. Death creates a space for new life patterns. There coould be no life without death, like a pot, it is as much the empty space in the middle as the material it's made from that makes it work.

spidergoat

01-27-04, 06:36 PM

You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved.
U.G. Krishnamurti

Siddhartha

01-27-04, 07:34 PM

Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).Now, the latter point there is defeated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore Objectivism rejects known fact.

Canute

01-28-04, 03:35 AM

Now, the latter point there is defeated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore Objectivism rejects known fact.
I'm not sure about that, but maybe. What's worse it states that we cannot reason about our experiences. This contradicts most philosophers, who conclude that all reasoning is rooted in experience.

I don't think it's an accident that academia doesn't take Rand's ideas seriously. It seems to be a collection of opinions with no logical basis.

river-wind

01-28-04, 12:13 PM

thanks, SpiderGoat, my point exactly.

So if Death is not an annihilation at its most basic, then what is death, in actuality? What is the death of a cell vs the death of a person? What differentiates them? Do we even really know? Or is this one of those questions to mark as "Get back to this later", and should we move on for the time being?

What is the death of a person? what does it feel like? Physically, emotionally? What does it look like? from the perspective of someone watching it? From the perspective of the person being killed? just before the person actually is dying, what does it look like to have a sword coming at you, or the ground rushing up, or a car swerving towards you? What does your body feel like as that is happening?

EVen if none of these things have happened to you, you can extrapolate with a certain degree of accuracy based on expiriences that you have had. Excietment, fear, dizziness, adrenaline...all of the above? more? less? different?

Just like any other fear, to overcome it, you must confront it. By confronting death, you may at first find youself in a depression, but after having understood it, you can gain confidence, and fear it no longer. Just as a person afraid of heights might climb to the top of a tall building and look down, going up is pretty sucky, but the way down is bliss. and you may no longer be afraid. You are then free, as was stated earlier.

So, no we are no longer abjectly afraid of death (after months/years of work), what does this get us? whjat can we do from here? what has changed in our lives? Are we more depressed, and have low self-esteem, as was suggested at the begining of the thread?

spidergoat

01-28-04, 06:26 PM

"There is no such thing as death at all. What do you think will die? What? This body disintegrates into its constituent elements, so nothing is lost. If you burn it, the ashes enrich the soil and aid germination. If you bury it, the worms live on it. If you throw it into the river, it becomes food for the fishes. One form of life lives on another form of life, and so gives continuity to life. So life is immortal.
But that is not going to help anybody who is caught up in the fear of death. After all, 'death' is fear, the fear of something coming to an end. The 'you' as you know yourself, the 'you' as you experience yourself -- that 'you' does not want to come to an end. But it also knows that this body is going to drop dead as others do -- you experience the deaths of others -- so that is a frightening situation because you are not sure whether that (`you') will continue if this (body) goes. So then it projects (an afterlife). This becomes the most important thing -- to know whether there is an afterlife or not. Fear creates that, so when the fear is gone, the question of death is also gone.
You have no way of knowing anything about your death, now or at the end of your so-called life. Unless knowledge, the continuity of knowledge, comes to an end, death cannot take place. You want to know something about death: you want to make that a part of your knowledge. But death is not something mysterious; the ending of that knowledge is death. What do you think will continue after death? What is there while you are living? Where is the entity there? There is nothing there -- no soul -- there is only this question about after death. The question has to die now to find the answer -- your answer; not my answer -- because the question is born out of the assumption, the belief, that there is something to continue after death. "

-U.G. Krishnamurti

river-wind

01-29-04, 09:09 AM

:)

if you take a bunch of Carbon, Oxygen, hydrogen, magnesium, Potassium, etc, e5tc, and pile it up, does it make a human? A plant? more than likely it will make a pile of atoms.

So what is the difference between a lifeless body- the thing that is made up of the same material as you and I, and a living person?

energy? Well, I could zap that pile of atoms with electricity, and it doesn't comes alive magically. So what is it?

edit:minor brain fart.

river-wind

01-29-04, 09:11 AM

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=705003705501&r=662004459611#662004459611

spidergoat

01-29-04, 11:57 AM

What's the difference between a working automobile and a pile of parts? One is arranged to work in a certain fashion, and one isn't. Our bodies are machines.

For example, there have been hand transplants. A dead hand has been made living again. If there was some mystical quality about life, this would not be possible.

river-wind

01-29-04, 12:27 PM

so it's the pattern that makes the difference? Their patterns of energy and their patterns of matter? (I don't mean to sound patronising, I'm walking through this for the sake of the thread starter, more than anything)

spidergoat

01-29-04, 02:56 PM

More precisely, the specific structure.

An engine would not work without the precise arrangement of spark, gas, and air, along with correct timing. In the same way, a body does not work without the precise timing of the heart, regular infusions of oxygen, fuel, sugars, carbs, and everything else it requires. But, it is a house of cards, when one thing falls, like lack of oxygen, the whole thing breaks down like an engine blowing a rod, and eventually it is beyond repair.

The fact that once dead, you are likely to stay dead, is due to our failure as mechanics.

river-wind

01-29-04, 03:05 PM

So could it be said that the specific structure of one person not only defines them as alive, but also differentiates them from other people? And also from a bird, or a car, or a rock? These things are different, but are all still made up out of the same material and energy. It's the pattern, the structure, that defines their form, no?

Remembering that to come back to later, where does you structure end and another's begin? there does your body stop and the air begin? at the surface of your skin? What is that? Easy to see macroscopically, but apon closer inspection you find infinate surface area in little alcoves and troughs. Even closer inspection revies the mostly emply nature of the molecules which form the body and the air- this empty space doesn't stop when you transition from air to flesh- the space between molecules only becomes smaller.
Look even CLOSER, and find that the atoms which make up those molecules are mostly empty space, and even within tsubatomic particles, space is the major componant. emptiness, nothingness.

Modern physics is still working on exactly what they nothing, that space is made out of, relativity, string theory, Variable Speed of light all pose slightly different ideas based on what evidence we have, but one thing is clear. The space is continuous, from one end of the universe to the other.

Lastly, what effects does your life have on the world around you? Directly? indirectly? When/where does your influence end? Does it ever end? forewards in time? What about backwards in time? What serious of events lead to you, and to your sitting where you currently sit? What changes to any of those events might have happened, and what effects may they have had?
Now take the table sitting in front of you. What is it's history? what is it made out of, and where did that material come from? how was it made? who made it? Who sold it, who bought it? Where will it go when you are done with it? What effects will it have, and has it already had on the world? Where will it's effects, both foreward and backward in time, end?

spidergoat

01-29-04, 04:44 PM

So many questions! :eek:

What differentiates us from everything else? Nothing really, just our definitions.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

where does you structure end and another's begin?
hmm... that sounds familiar...
Where are you? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30113)

Lastly, what effects does your life have on the world around you? Directly? indirectly? When/where does your influence end? Does it ever end? forewards in time? What about backwards in time? What serious of events lead to you, and to your sitting where you currently sit? What changes to any of those events might have happened, and what effects may they have had?
Since your life is not really yours, but a continuation of events in general, to think of your particular influence would be similar to tracing the influence of a lighting bolt. To follow the chain of cause and effect would require an explanation as complex as the universe itself! Whatever events that "you" were mixed up in become the causes of successive events, reverberating throughout time, and eventually fading away as the vibrations of matter spread too far apart to interact as the universe expands (maybe).

river-wind

01-29-04, 04:49 PM

So the table has as much of an effect on the universe as you do? Both are infinate?

river-wind

01-30-04, 09:06 AM

SquashBuckler, if you understand the past 10 posts between SpiderGoat and I, then you are one step towards understanding ites number 3 and 4 on your list.

Just because Buddhism teaches that we need to let go of our own egos, that doesn't mean that we are supposed to consider ourselves the lowest of the low (though this is sometimes a method used to teach the final idea). The point is to understand that you are not a special and important as you might otherwise tend to think that you are. Once you can embrace this idea, you can take alot of stress off yourself. The world will not fall apart just because you oversleep one morning. There are other beings in this world beside yourself. You are no better and no worse than they are. we all just are.

Now a quick run through of your "Buddhism wrongs"
#1.Reducing attachment towards life.
I have always found that by understanding your own death, you can value your life more. I don't know of any Buddists who don't delight in life. It's the purposlessly grandious that we tend to find stupid. The getting drunk and screwing anything that moves, the building the tallest building just to see it can be done, damn the consequenses, etc. The amzing bueaty of how a rain droplet joins itself to the suface of a puddle, however...
#2. Elimination of desire.
IMO, the elimination of needless desire is very helpful. as someone already stated in this thread, trying to fufill desire is a never-ending battle. Desire and need are different things, however. The need for food to sustain he body is a fully acceptable desire - its the desire to eat a ten course meal because you want to that causes unhelpful suffering.
#3. Eliminating self-cherishing.
see the above
#4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble.
I disagree that this is even a teaching of Buddism. While many schools of Buddhism train their diciples with such methods, it is a tool towards something else, not a realization or a teaching in of itself.
#5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
The question has already been asked: and the problem here??? Besides, the middle path suggests that you must be fully aware of yourself and your own needs before you try and help others. So this isn't even acurate. Buddhism teaches a path to enlightment, at which point, compassion and subsequently, altruism should occur in you naturally. The teaching does not demand altruism from its followers. It assumes altruism as an effect of compassion
#6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
Not everyone deserves to be loved.
Why not? Everyone suffers during their lives. Even those who murder and rape have had suffering. Their suffering does not forgive their actions, and it does not relinquish them from punishment, but it still is a factor of thier life history. Do you love a child less simply because they do something stupid; unaware of the results their actions will cause?
#8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal.
huh? I must have missed this in the Discourses. I was unaware that reaching a state of nirvana was suicidal.
#9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
again, see the above. It reduces stress, and opens up more door and possible paths for you. The world need not revolve around you and your actions. If you were to die today, it will still go on. Now, scince you most likely won't die today, what can you do with your re-discovered freedom of life?
#10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.
Again, I don't remember reading this in the discourses. You have bravely twisted the idea that you don't need to go out and exact revenge on that guy who cut you off earlier today, he will suffer and joy just like everyone else. Relience on Karma as your own personal angel of vengance is nowhere in the Buddhist teachings.
While it suggests that karma will come back and cause suffering for thouse who have caused suffering, and vise versa, this is more as a lesson to apply to yourself. If *I* cause suffering, then *I* will get it back down the road. Therefore, if I want happiness, I must create happiness in others firstly.
It's not about revenge, its another training tool for self-control and compassion.

spidergoat

01-30-04, 01:16 PM

So the table has as much of an effect on the universe as you do? Both are infinate?

The table and you are the same thing, as all form is impermanent. Judging the relative effects requires one to define the table and you as separate things, and to define what a significant effect is. Even cause and effect are one in the same. It is too easy to jump to the conclusion that because there are no separate things, your personal worth is quite small, but the opposite is true, your particular arrangement of molecules is unique, like a flower, and will never happen again. To live in this world, it is practical to adopt the illusion of separateness.

Buddhism is a tool, one of many methods, that, once it has served it's purpose, must be dropped. Buddhism is for those who have not yet realized the essence of Buddhism.

Chalaco

01-30-04, 03:14 PM

apropos, Squashbuckler doesn't post nor visit these forums no more. So, when you ask him questions in your posts, they are going to fall on deaf ears.

river-wind

01-30-04, 04:24 PM

others may be here to read. It doesn't matter who. There may be at least one who realises something from reading that logic path.

too bad about Squash, oh well.

Chalaco

01-30-04, 04:30 PM

see, I never said others won't be able to read. Don't get ahead of yourself just yet, I was merely telling you that when you direct questions at him (as you have done so) that they will fall on deaf ears. If someone else wants to answer for him, so be it. But the man to whom the question[s] were directed at won't reply, as he is, and will remain, absent.

It is a shame, though.

VitalOne

01-30-04, 10:04 PM

[QUOTE]

end quote

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, well mister skeptical, let me be the first to inform you that reality is not subjective. Furthermore, you don't believe this yourself although you aver otherwise (try as you might). Here is why...

It is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Now, I am very far from a buddhist but yet, I do not fear death. According to you charlatans, non-buddhists are more inclined to fear death. To support my argument, I will suffice you with my reasons on why I don't fear death...

If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they're not dead, and not for the dead, since they don't exist. The argument can be set out as follows:

1. Death is annihilation.
2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

Ergo, if death causes you no pain when you're dead, it's foolish to allow the fear of it to cause you pain now

The 'symmetry argument' states that "anyone who fears death should consider the time before he was born. The past infinity of pre-natal non-existence is like the future infinity of post-mortem non-existence; it is as though nature has put up a mirror to let us see what our future non-existence will be like. But we do not consider not having existed for an eternity before our births to be a terrible thing; therefore, neither should we think not existing for an eternity after our deaths to be evil."

(source: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm)

And another thing, not to argue semantics, but altruism started off as

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

and

unselfishness as a principle of action

(those denotations are from dictionary.com and my own oxford dictinary, respectively)

Now, all of you aver that altruism is believing that 'the highest good is service to others.'

Well, allow me to retort. You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial. People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable. This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.

Now, to all those infidels out there impugning objectivism, let me remind you of some of the fundamentals of Objectivism.

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights

(source: http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html)

This is what you are against? If the whole world was buddhist, nothing would ever get done (in my opinion, although I can only speculate). But then again, all you pious buddhists out there would retort with, "Well, what needs to get done?". All too predictable.

And I'm the retarded one? Would you rather have peace or "get things done"? And where's your proof for this? Wait, that's right, you have none. How can you proof that reality is objective if we can only perceive reality as what we percieve it to be? Meaning, if I look at something, and you look at something, and they're the same, it would only proof that we both percieve the samethings, not that it's a fact, not that it's true or anything like that.

1. False, Conservation of mass law
2...8 (excluding 5) collapses all other statements

I'll try explaining something. Desire -> Suffering. If you take away desire, you also take away suffering. For instance, let's say you desire food, while desiring this food, you are suffering, when you get the food, and the desire is gone, the suffering is also gone (unless a new desire emerges). Selfishness, attachement, materialism are all related to desire. We naturally desire things, so to eliminate desire, in Buddhism you desire to not desire. This desire will ofcourse cause suffering also, but after you achieve a state where you no longer even think about thinking about desiring anything, then there will be no suffering.

Also, while in the sleeping state (that's not REM) we don't desire, we're not aware, we're not selfish, we're not happy, sad, etc..nothing exists for that period, not even time (to the person experiencing it). The best way to explain the state where you're completely unselfish, is like that sleeping state, except you're aware. I know you'll probably argue, or redicule this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

VitalOne

01-30-04, 10:20 PM

First things first, you're a charlatan. I know it's wrong to use ad hominem arguments but after that poor excuse for a rebuttal, I'm left wondering that out of the 40,000 people that die everday, why aren't you one of them?

So you're saying that standing in front of a truck and getting hit by it, leaving your brain all over the grill, would just be "in your mind"? Shame, I think you're eligible for public charity, you might just be legally retarded. There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.

Well, junior, why don't you recognize the cognitive dissonance between these two quotes. Listen sparky, you won't test your theory that your mind "won't be over" if it's hit by a truck, yet you don't fear death? Hmmmm...yup, you're an idiot.

Man are you ignorant. Was that first paragraph some type of threat? Really, No proof? Ever heard of reincarnation? http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2002/10/025.html . I'm sure you'll spend sometime coming up with something to deny this. Yes, I won't test my theory, but does that mean that I fear it? That's like saying if you don't go to the store at 4 AM, you fear going to the store at 4 AM. Or, if you don't right your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times, you fear doing it. You really are an idiot.

Oh yeah, ever heard of the conservation of mass law? Nothing can created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no death of the mind or body.

VitalOne

01-30-04, 10:38 PM

Squashbuckler:

IdleOne (I mean, VitalOne):

You know what the scariest part about that was? The fact that you probably believe you're right. :eek:

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. :rolleyes: And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

Surely you can explain color to a blind man, right? Come on, just explain color to him, it's not that hard, right? Go ahead and explain sound to a deaf man too. What's this? They haven't experienced it, therefore their brains can't comprehend it. It's like imagining the 4th dimension or a new color (not within the 10 million or so that we see).

The reason that I said you have to experience it is because it's very difficult to explain. Well all I can say is, it's not like happiness,sadness,anger, or anything like that, just emptyness (if you haven't experienced it obviously you can't relate).

Chalaco

01-30-04, 11:53 PM

And I'm the retarded one? Would you rather have peace or "get things done"?

First off, sparky, I would rather get things done. Life is neutral, this putative peace you speak of is specious, for there to BE peace there has got to be the opposite, the counterbalance, the contrast to remind you what is peace.

And where's your proof for this?

I said it is my opinion that nothing would get done. Of course, that's my mistake for assuming you're in tune with reading comprehension... my mistake. Really, what did you do in school, sniff glue? :eek:

Wait, that's right, you have none. How can you proof that reality is objective if we can only perceive reality as what we percieve it to be? Meaning, if I look at something, and you look at something, and they're the same, it would only proof that we both percieve the samethings, not that it's a fact, not that it's true or anything like that.

I now know why Squashbuckler decided to refrain from congregating with you. If reality is subjective, why don't you tell your mind you're in China right now, close your eyes, tap your shoes and you'll be there. Then, head over to Austria, learn how to ski while you're there. :bugeye: Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Reality is not subjective, ethics is, morality is, your perception of what's charming is, etc. etc. I don't even feel I should have to explicate WHY reality isn't subjective. You seem quite content in your little bubble, mister subjectivity. I done debunked the whole skeptic argument through the use of Epicurus' wonderful epistemology.

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

Really, impugn the merits of my argument, what I quoted Epicurus on, anything, but don't sit there and ignore it and continue to type bollocks in hopes that you will expatiate yourself out of this one.

I said a whole bunch in that post, I proved altruism to be spurious and specious, and all you people can do is pretend I said nothing. You can keep it in clandestine if you so desire, but if you wish to offer a rebuttal, make it thorough.

Chalaco

01-30-04, 11:57 PM

Was that first paragraph some type of threat?

Don't flatter yourself. I don't threaten people in forums, and if you took that as a threat, it speaks volumes on your character, says a world of information. You're missing the point of pontification, old timer.

Really, No proof? Ever heard of reincarnation? http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2002/10/025.html . I'm sure you'll spend sometime coming up with something to deny this.

I don't even know why I'm replying to the link you gave to this putative reincarnation crap. If this story makes reincarnation possible then every story of some freak claiming to know/see/smell/taste/talk with/ etc. virgin mary, jesus, god, allah, moses, and fucking ELVIS would all be proven to exist! I mean, really, what did you think was going to do, if this story holds weight, then consider ghosts and phantoms as now being real. You're veritably myopic (hint: look that word up).

Fun with quotes from the article in your link: "I have some scientific basis to claim rebirth is possible". Oh yeah, and I have some scientific basis to claim all this coming from the big bang theory is possible, and I have some scientific basis to claim Darwin's theory of evolution is possible, I have some scientific basis to claim I am God, I have soem scientific basis to claim you're an idiot, I have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw a plastic bag caught in a branch of a tree the other day, get the hint? I can have some scientific basis to claim anything I want, really. I doubt you even know what scientific basis means. Talk about equivocation :rolleyes: I got to roll my eyes at that one, junior.

Yes, I won't test my theory, but does that mean that I fear it? That's like saying if you don't go to the store at 4 AM, you fear going to the store at 4 AM. Or, if you don't right [SIC] your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times, you fear doing it. You really are an idiot.

You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times :bugeye: Stupid.

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).

Now, having said all that. I still defy you to prove your "my mind won't be over" if hit by a big mack ten truck theory. After all, you "don't fear death".

Oh yeah, ever heard of the conservation of mass law? Nothing can created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no death of the mind or body.

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

Man are you ignorant

No, I'm not ignorant. You seemed to be well versed in facetious repartee , though <-- that's sarcasm by the way :bugeye:

Calling me ignorant, I'd feel compelled to defend myself if I felt like you were even remotely insulting. This is just weak.

Chalaco

01-31-04, 01:15 AM

Surely you can explain color to a blind man, right? Come on, just explain color to him, it's not that hard, right? Go ahead and explain sound to a deaf man too. What's this? They haven't experienced it, therefore their brains can't comprehend it. It's like imagining the 4th dimension or a new color (not within the 10 million or so that we see).

Did I mention I'm not blind? And also, not deaf, did I mention that? Thought I'd mention that. We have all of our senses, so use 'em and explicate.

The reason that I said you have to experience it is because it's very difficult to explain. Well all I can say is, it's not like happiness,sadness,anger, or anything like that, just emptyness (if you haven't experienced it obviously you can't relate).

If you use the fucking experience garbage, then what is the point of posting in these forums.

person A: "Oh, I have something to say, blah blah blah :o blah blah blah blah blah"

person B: "That's where I think you're wrong, why did you say that, explain it further".

person A: "You have to experience it, you need to feel it".

I can already see it now :bugeye: Stay idle, kid. It does you good.

You could have said from the beginning to Squashbuckler that that was his putative problem, but you waited until you had your ankle - not your foot - in your mouth to use that cop-out. Well done.

Everyone can say, "oh, you need to feel it first", that saying is too trite to be effective in debate. How about, instead of stating the obvious (like that truism you gave Squash) you give your opinion on what comes after this feeling, or during, or before, what changes, what stays the same, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Or how about, just like how you expressed your feelings of me being ignorant, you do the same and express your feelings on your point with Squashbuckler. Think he deserves that much. And if that kid in your article was able to explain his putative "past life" and the rest of his story, as intricate as that situation is, I think you can manage this just fine. Go ahead, we believe in you, you can do it.

Of course, you could choose to abstain from doing so. After all, that would be more efficient congregating, and we all know that's not in nobody's interests, right :bugeye:

Short and to the point. If you can't explain a feeling or an experience (whether vicarious or first hand), don't bring it up! That's just like me going, "I just seen Elvis!". Only to have someone combat with, "where?". Where I reply with, "can't tell ya". Bah!... sounds like shlt to me.

Chalaco

01-31-04, 02:27 AM

Apropos, I now recant my stance on death, I fear it will be of no interest to me and not conducive to my happiness, thus I do fear it. However, its inevitability does not cause me distress. I just feel that engaging in an activity that will lead to my death (i.e. suicide) as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to my current interests. I fear I will not enjoy it and it will take time (an eternity's worth) away from my other - more important - interests.

Now, I shan't hear no talk of, "see, I told you so". I am man enough to put sapience ahead of pride, however, the one to prove Epicurus wrong and debunk his stance on death was me, not any of you. For you see, when I posted this...

You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times Stupid.

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).

I came to realize it debunks Epicurus' whole stance on death and mine too. I've told you my new stance. Now, as for the whole desire bit, take that up with Squashbuckler because I have yet to bring that up or argue for or against any of that crap. I came into the game on the altruism, anti-skeptic arguments, and the fear of death. I've recanted on the latter, but if any of you wish to offer anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal, make sure to bring up MY points, not squashbucklers, not anybody else's.

VitalOne

01-31-04, 10:29 PM

First off, sparky, I would rather get things done. Life is neutral, this putative peace you speak of is specious, for there to BE peace there has got to be the opposite, the counterbalance, the contrast to remind you what is peace.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want peace (I can tell from your posts).
Life isn't neutral, there's always change.

I said it is my opinion that nothing would get done. Of course, that's my mistake for assuming you're in tune with reading comprehension... my mistake. Really, what did you do in school, sniff glue? :eek:

Ok, thankyou for explaining to me that there's no reason to believe you at all.

I now know why Squashbuckler decided to refrain from congregating with you. If reality is subjective, why don't you tell your mind you're in China right now, close your eyes, tap your shoes and you'll be there. Then, head over to Austria, learn how to ski while you're there. :bugeye: Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Reality is not subjective, ethics is, morality is, your perception of what's charming is, etc. etc. I don't even feel I should have to explicate WHY reality isn't subjective. You seem quite content in your little bubble, mister subjectivity. I done debunked the whole skeptic argument through the use of Epicurus' wonderful epistemology.

See, I hate it when people argue like this. Instead of answering, they just insult because they can't counter argue. Thanks for trying, your pathetic mind wouldn't be able to counter argue anyway. All you can say is basically that it "just isn't".

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

No.

Really, impugn the merits of my argument, what I quoted Epicurus on, anything, but don't sit there and ignore it and continue to type bollocks in hopes that you will expatiate yourself out of this one.

I said a whole bunch in that post, I proved altruism to be spurious and specious, and all you people can do is pretend I said nothing. You can keep it in clandestine if you so desire, but if you wish to offer a rebuttal, make it thorough.
You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.

VitalOne

01-31-04, 10:44 PM

Don't flatter yourself. I don't threaten people in forums, and if you took that as a threat, it speaks volumes on your character, says a world of information. You're missing the point of pontification, old timer.

Sorry for asking a question, if it bothered you that much that you would rather write insulting statements rather than simply answering the question I wouldn't have said anything.

I don't even know why I'm replying to the link you gave to this putative reincarnation crap. If this story makes reincarnation possible then every story of some freak claiming to know/see/smell/taste/talk with/ etc. virgin mary, jesus, god, allah, moses, and fucking ELVIS would all be proven to exist! I mean, really, what did you think was going to do, if this story holds weight, then consider ghosts and phantoms as now being real. You're veritably myopic (hint: look that word up).

Fun with quotes from the article in your link: "I have some scientific basis to claim rebirth is possible". Oh yeah, and I have some scientific basis to claim all this coming from the big bang theory is possible, and I have some scientific basis to claim Darwin's theory of evolution is possible, I have some scientific basis to claim I am God, I have soem scientific basis to claim you're an idiot, I have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw a plastic bag caught in a branch of a tree the other day, get the hint? I can have some scientific basis to claim anything I want, really. I doubt you even know what scientific basis means. Talk about equivocation :rolleyes: I got to roll my eyes at that one, junior.

All you can say is that it's crap, and that it's not true. You're just basically denying it because you don't want to accept it. Using your moronic sense, to counter argue you say things like "do you believe this story or this story is true?" instead of using some type of concrete evidence. There's concrete forensic evidence, all you're doing is ridiculing the article (like I said you would) because you can't argue otherwise with real evidence.

You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times :bugeye: Stupid.

I must say this is true, and that you actually used some type of logic to argue. Well done, I agree (you could never say this, now could you?). I do fear dying now, but not later.

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).

Now, having said all that. I still defy you to prove your "my mind won't be over" if hit by a big mack ten truck theory. After all, you "don't fear death".

I thought you could've at least argued without using insults for two paragraphs, but I guess I was wrong. Go ahead and release your anger. What a mean person...

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

No, I'm not ignorant. You seemed to be well versed in facetious repartee , though <-- that's sarcasm by the way :bugeye:

Calling me ignorant, I'd feel compelled to defend myself if I felt like you were even remotely insulting. This is just weak.
Ok...you might want to take some anger management classes....

VitalOne

01-31-04, 10:50 PM

Did I mention I'm not blind? And also, not deaf, did I mention that? Thought I'd mention that. We have all of our senses, so use 'em and explicate.

Sorry that you didn't get my point. I was simply using those as examples to explain how you can't explain experiences to others who haven't experienced an experience close to that experience.

If you use the fucking experience garbage, then what is the point of posting in these forums.

Calm down...please stop using the profanity (I do understand that you're angry) and also try to make some sense.

person A: "Oh, I have something to say, blah blah blah :o blah blah blah blah blah"

person B: "That's where I think you're wrong, why did you say that, explain it further".

person A: "You have to experience it, you need to feel it".

I can already see it now :bugeye: Stay idle, kid. It does you good.

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

You could have said from the beginning to Squashbuckler that that was his putative problem, but you waited until you had your ankle - not your foot - in your mouth to use that cop-out. Well done.

Everyone can say, "oh, you need to feel it first", that saying is too trite to be effective in debate. How about, instead of stating the obvious (like that truism you gave Squash) you give your opinion on what comes after this feeling, or during, or before, what changes, what stays the same, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Or how about, just like how you expressed your feelings of me being ignorant, you do the same and express your feelings on your point with Squashbuckler. Think he deserves that much. And if that kid in your article was able to explain his putative "past life" and the rest of his story, as intricate as that situation is, I think you can manage this just fine. Go ahead, we believe in you, you can do it.

Of course, you could choose to abstain from doing so. After all, that would be more efficient congregating, and we all know that's not in nobody's interests, right :bugeye:

Short and to the point. If you can't explain a feeling or an experience (whether vicarious or first hand), don't bring it up! That's just like me going, "I just seen Elvis!". Only to have someone combat with, "where?". Where I reply with, "can't tell ya". Bah!... sounds like shlt to me.

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.

Chalaco

02-01-04, 02:35 PM

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want peace (I can tell from your posts).
Life isn't neutral, there's always change.

I know there will always be change, that's just my point; life will never be linear. There will never be peace or constant war, there will always be both, all ends of the spectrum, life does not discriminate. I told you, you can't have peace all the time, you need the counterbalance, the contrast to remind what peace is. Learn to read, nudnick.

Ok, thankyou for explaining to me that there's no reason to believe you at all.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well, stumpy, if you would've read rather than look for something to use against me, you would've seen how I told you that it is my opinion that nothing would get done if the whole world was buddhist, and I made that a point when I first posted...

If the whole world was buddhist, nothing would ever get done (in my opinion, although I can only speculate). But then again, all you pious buddhists out there would retort with, "Well, what needs to get done?". All too predictable.

And for the record, you CAN have a healthy amount of peace (though never totality because I've already showed you how life is neutral and not linear) and still get things done. That's YOUR own complexity that has you thinking because I said my opinion if the whole world was buddhist nothing would get done as being I would rather get things done than have peace. However, NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE in that comment. Just that the world would stay much like you - idle. Well, actually, that's just being hyperbolical, I still aver that if the WHOLE world was buddhist, not much would get done. And I expect you to either twist my words around and take it as meanign something I made no reference to (much like that 'peace' card you tried playing on that one) or retort with, "well, what needs to get done?". As I said, all too predictable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

I now know why Squashbuckler decided to refrain from congregating with you. If reality is subjective, why don't you tell your mind you're in China right now, close your eyes, tap your shoes and you'll be there. Then, head over to Austria, learn how to ski while you're there. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Reality is not subjective, ethics is, morality is, your perception of what's charming is, etc. etc. I don't even feel I should have to explicate WHY reality isn't subjective. You seem quite content in your little bubble, mister subjectivity. I done debunked the whole skeptic argument through the use of Epicurus' wonderful epistemology.

See, I hate it when people argue like this. Instead of answering, they just insult because they can't counter argue. Thanks for trying, your pathetic mind wouldn't be able to counter argue anyway. All you can say is basically that it "just isn't".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

No.

Hmmm..... n0! As a matter of fact, I DID counteragrue, I showed you through the anti-skeptical arguments why YOU'RE the one not making a claim; if you say nothing can be known, and when asked if you KNOW THIS, you reply with no, then you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you. I didn't just say, "it isn't". I've already debunked your "reality is subjecive" notion

Now, allow me to debunk AGAIN with the help of Epicurus (link here (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm))

Anti-skeptical Arguments

1. The "lazy argument"

Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

2. The self-refutation argument

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses

Hmmm, not only are you an idiot, but as it turns out, you say that nothing can be known, and to top it off, when I asked you if you KNOW that nothing can be known, you said, "no"... well, in that case, you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you, NOBODY DOES! You're an idiot. Look, I come and say, "oh it's going to rain tomorrow", my friend turns to me and goes, "what, you serious, do you know that it's going to rain tomorrow?", then I go, "no". Why on earth would anyone pay me mind that way. If your grammer follies weren't enough for me to chide you with, you've now exposed yourself as being the worst type of debator - one who doesn't make any claims, just says stuff. Congratulations, you're mediocre!

You say that nothing can be known, and we only use our sense but even we can't trust them, and only aver them to be reliable because the other six billion people on this planet share the same sense..... well, if you can't trust the sense, where do you get your knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as you claim, then you are not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating your thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Just read what I've pasted for the second time rather than have me fit it into this situation, if you can't see past your own follies, you're beyond help and not worthy of my time. Do you like having someone make you look this stupid? Not that it took much, though. It was actually quite facile.

You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.

Chalaco

02-01-04, 05:34 PM

All you can say is that it's crap, and that it's not true. You're just basically denying it because you don't want to accept it. Using your moronic sense, to counter argue you say things like "do you believe this story or this story is true?" instead of using some type of concrete evidence. There's concrete forensic evidence, all you're doing is ridiculing the article (like I said you would) because you can't argue otherwise with real evidence.

NO, I was not strawmanning (What is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms) as I have already told you that if this article has merit, as does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis.

I swear you must be slow... do you know what it is to have a scientific basis to claim something, or what the words forensic and science mean?

The subsequent definitions are for science and forensic, respectively. Both are from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) so you too can reference them, simpleton.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

Now, I could have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw one hanging off a branch from a tree the other day. However, there's already a science to the making of plastic bags, and little sense in the possibility of trees making plastic bags, so the probability of this claim interesting me enough to take it seriously is little to none. Just because a claim is made don't make it scientific. The science happens when scientists go and check the science of it. Meaning, anyone could have some scientific basis to claim almost anything they want.

Forensic Science is the application of science to law, also known as "medical jurisprudence". And, as a point of interest, the definition for "forensic" is...

fo·ren·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-rnsk, -zk)
adj.
Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

Now, in this article, it states that the handwritings are identical, so this leans to the possibility of re-incarnation. But since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former boy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

There's forensic science to the fact that the boy's handwriting is identical to the next boy's but there isn't forensic evidence to the issue of the boy being a re-incarnate.

Sorry for asking a question, if it bothered you that much that you would rather write insulting statements rather than simply answering the question I wouldn't have said anything.

That was not pertinent, thanks for wasting time.

I must say this is true, and that you actually used some type of logic to argue. Well done, I agree (you could never say this, now could you?). I do fear dying now, but not later.

I don't think you, nor anyone, can really say that with certainty. You don't know what you will fear later, stop fooling yourself.

I thought you could've at least argued without using insults for two paragraphs, but I guess I was wrong. Go ahead and release your anger. What a mean person...

Ahhh :( Sad are you? Awwwwww........ :bugeye: cry me a river, boo hoo, if you miss the point of pontification, not my fault, if I seem curt, dry your eyes, it's not that serious. Booo hooo hooo! Hey IdleOne, heed MY advice and stop crying about "what a mean person" I am; it makes you sound like a milksop. Sadly, I think you actually thought this was going to evoke sympathy; way to fuel the fire!

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

Ok...you might want to take some anger management classes....

If you would've read, I dismissed your petty insolence for it was not even witty. It was just weak. Me acknowledging it as beign weak does not warrant anger management classes.

P.S. Would you like some cheese to go with that wine?

Chalaco

02-01-04, 07:07 PM

Sorry that you didn't get my point. I was simply using those as examples to explain how you can't explain experiences to others who haven't experienced an experience close to that experience.

I got your point, I was patronizing. My gosh, nothing gets past you, does it :bugeye:

Calm down...please stop using the profanity (I do understand that you're angry)

Hmmm..... YUP, I'll do what I want :D

and also try to make some sense.

I've made perfect sense, why bother making a claim if you can't back it up. Shouldn't have brought it up then.

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

Nowhere in my example did I say there was going to be a contradiction (not sure if you're even using the word in the right context; go read a book). Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered, or felt, happiness, it's not a very important debate... the likelihood isn't great, stick to practical examples, alright. First the blind man, the deaf person, now someone who's not happy? I'm going to expose all this once and for all...

Let's have fun with quotes, shall we...

From page four, the very first post was yours, and you said...

Quote:
If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life. You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be. Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep. In " not wanting things" that makes you free? THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system. It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you? Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.

If you remove the fear of death, you will be happier. Do you like fearing death? Does it make you feel good? If you remove that, you'll feel more secure. Have you removed the fear of death from yourself? If you haven't experienced it don't assume things. You do not need to be attached to something material in order to be happy. If one were not attached to anything material they would value the non-material things. Again, you must experience it, and not assume things (what you're doing). You sound like a complete moron (no offense) who has only read things and has experienced nothing. I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it. Once you experience it, it will answer all of your questions. You will still value yourself. You see, you have a euro-centric mind. You can't imagine life without desire. You think it'll be horrible

Now, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here - correct me if I'm wrong - but Squashbuckler didn't ask IdleOne - I mean VitalOne - if he could explain a feeling. Could it be because you made it up in hopes that it would justify why you put that that a feeling could not be explained? I think so, as a matter of fact, I KNOW SO.

I've also read through the whole page looking for him asking you to explicate a feeling to him; didn't find anything. I'll venture a guess and say you've been caught with your ankle in your mouth and you're trying to expatiate yourself out of this one by making up a story that he asked you to explain a feeling when, in fact, he did no such thing. He didn't ask you anything of that nature, you still brought it up and since you can't explain it, you shouldn't have came with it. If you're not going to be backing up any claims, what's the point of posting - don't answer that question, actually.

I read the third page again, to refresh my memory, he posed a lot of questions to you and they all fell on deaf ears, you just continued to expatiate on the whole fear of death issue (which I have already debunked and gotten you to admit that you fear death; like me, but we've already established that I fear death, so don't think you can use that against me). Learn to read, learn to remember, and learn to know when to stop posting (hint: now would be a good time).

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.

No, he wasn't, I've already pasted your post, and what you were answering, he didn't ask you no such thing, get over yourself, you're a fraud. Furthermore, explaining what it is to feel selfless is impossible, for I have already debunked altruism. And an experience CAN be put into words; with limits. Whether vicarious or first hand, it can be done. It's done on a contant basis, you tell your friends about your trip to where ever, for instance. I could go on, but you wouldn't get the point even if I did.

Chalaco

02-01-04, 07:34 PM

Ok, how is there a contradiction? Can you explain the emotion of happiness to someone who's never been happy (if you do get the point)?

You're strawmanning, setting up an imaginary argument that you think you can easily prove, whilst ignoring my point completely. If that KID, a little KID, in the article you gave link to, can expliain how he feels he's a re-incarnate, then I think you can manage to explain this feeling you speak of (which squashbuckler never asked you about, mind you). You brought it up, to merit your point, now back it up.

He was asking me about how can someone feel selfless, and not be selfish, so I was trying to say that you have to experience that feeling, it can't really be explained.

I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:

Chalaco

02-01-04, 07:35 PM

I'll try explaining something. Desire -> Suffering. If you take away desire, you also take away suffering. For instance, let's say you desire food, while desiring this food, you are suffering, when you get the food, and the desire is gone, the suffering is also gone (unless a new desire emerges). Selfishness, attachement, materialism are all related to desire. We naturally desire things, so to eliminate desire, in Buddhism you desire to not desire. This desire will ofcourse cause suffering also, but after you achieve a state where you no longer even think about thinking about desiring anything, then there will be no suffering.

Also, while in the sleeping state (that's not REM) we don't desire, we're not aware, we're not selfish, we're not happy, sad, etc..nothing exists for that period, not even time (to the person experiencing it). The best way to explain the state where you're completely unselfish, is like that sleeping state, except you're aware. I know you'll probably argue, or redicule [SIC] this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

Chalaco

02-02-04, 01:02 PM

VitalOne, you can take your time with these, as I'm sure you'll postulate some form of bollocks in hopes that it will give you, or your argument (if you can even call it that) validity. Don't bother, stay idle. You can't beat me. :D

VitalOne

02-02-04, 01:52 PM

I know there will always be change, that's just my point; life will never be linear. There will never be peace or constant war, there will always be both, all ends of the spectrum, life does not discriminate. I told you, you can't have peace all the time, you need the counterbalance, the contrast to remind what peace is. Learn to read, nudnick.

Agreed (except about the learning to read part).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well, stumpy, if you would've read rather than look for something to use against me, you would've seen how I told you that it is my opinion that nothing would get done if the whole world was buddhist, and I made that a point when I first posted...

Ok, it's your opinion.

And for the record, you CAN have a healthy amount of peace (though never totality because I've already showed you how life is neutral and not linear) and still get things done. That's YOUR own complexity that has you thinking because I said my opinion if the whole world was buddhist nothing would get done as being I would rather get things done than have peace. However, NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE in that comment. Just that the world would stay much like you - idle. Well, actually, that's just being hyperbolical, I still aver that if the WHOLE world was buddhist, not much would get done. And I expect you to either twist my words around and take it as meanign something I made no reference to (much like that 'peace' card you tried playing on that one) or retort with, "well, what needs to get done?". As I said, all too predictable.

Yes, you can have a healthy amount of peace, and get things done. Buddhists get things done, in fact since they support altruism, they would get a lot done for others. Can you clarify what you mean by "getting things done"?. Oh, and I don't idle, it's just that I don't check these forums every hour of everyday. I stopped checking them for a while. Everytime I check the forums, I reply to your messages.

Hmmm..... n0! As a matter of fact, I DID counteragrue, I showed you through the anti-skeptical arguments why YOU'RE the one not making a claim; if you say nothing can be known, and when asked if you KNOW THIS, you reply with no, then you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you. I didn't just say, "it isn't". I've already debunked your "reality is subjecive" notion

No you didn't. You said something like "I don't even know why I have to explain why reality is objective". You didn't even use any evidence. In fact, you can't prove it at all. Our subconscious controls it, not our conscious, so you can't consciously close your eyes and go to China. You must not know anything about the mind. Your subconscious controls things that your conscious can't (normally) control. You did counterargue, but with horrible arguments. Oh yeah, and THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

Now, allow me to debunk AGAIN with the help of Epicurus (link here (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm))

Anti-skeptical Arguments

1. The "lazy argument"

Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

2. The self-refutation argument

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

3. The argument from concept-formation

Let me clarify this, THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses

Hmmm, not only are you an idiot, but as it turns out, you say that nothing can be known, and to top it off, when I asked you if you KNOW that nothing can be known, you said, "no"... well, in that case, you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you, NOBODY DOES! You're an idiot. Look, I come and say, "oh it's going to rain tomorrow", my friend turns to me and goes, "what, you serious, do you know that it's going to rain tomorrow?", then I go, "no". Why on earth would anyone pay me mind that way. If your grammer follies weren't enough for me to chide you with, you've now exposed yourself as being the worst type of debator - one who doesn't make any claims, just says stuff. Congratulations, you're mediocre!

You say that nothing can be known, and we only use our sense but even we can't trust them, and only aver them to be reliable because the other six billion people on this planet share the same sense..... well, if you can't trust the sense, where do you get your knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as you claim, then you are not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating your thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.

Just read what I've pasted for the second time rather than have me fit it into this situation, if you can't see past your own follies, you're beyond help and not worthy of my time. Do you like having someone make you look this stupid? Not that it took much, though. It was actually quite facile.

No one needs to listen to you either, as you are an even bigger idiot. We can "know" or believe things, but we can never be certain that these things are true. So I can know or believe in that statement, but never know that it's absolutely true. And how can you be absolutely sure that it's going to rain tommorow? Even the weathermen have their % chances for predictions, and the percent is never 100 (as almost anything can happen).

I get my knowledge from my mind, and my senses. I said we couldn't trust our senses, not that we weren't entitled to use them, what are you, stupid? You are quite ignorant.

Oh, and I can't tell that it didn't take much, it always seems like you're not using your brain at all.

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.
Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree. When I explained the unselfish feeling in a previous post, you arrogantly said

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

Canute

02-02-04, 02:09 PM

I'm not sure I understand the precise disgreement here but just to clarify a couple of things that seem to be muddled. This is how I see it anyway.

'Suffering' is not a good translation of the original term. 'Unsatisfactoriness' is closer (but clumsier). Losing one fear of death does not bring an end to 'suffering'. Transcendence of self does that.

Reducing desire is part of achieving detachment. But detachment is not indifference. The desire doesn't go away, it just isn't important. Much of this is common sense in a way, it's better to enjoy an occasional drink than be a dependent alcaholic.

It is claimed that it is possible to have experiences that provide direct knowledge of reality, (and that once thought is subdued it's difficult to have any other kind). Millions of people (and I think Vitalone) claim this.

However it is not possible to describe the experience in any meaningful way to anyone else. Either you know it or you don't, no argument about it is possible. Perhaps it is all a matter of delusion, perhaps it isn't. There's only one way to find out. It is possible to share the experience to some extent with people who have experienced something similar, or the same, as it is for other kinds of experiences, but not with someone who has not been there. This isn't elitism, anyone can do it, nor is it evasiveness. It just follows inevitably from the first-person nature and 'incommensurability' of experiences.

Chalaco

02-02-04, 02:13 PM

but then it's pointless to bring it up in an argument if you're not going to put it into detail, isn't it

and canute, I said nothing of the suffering bit, neither did idle, no one really has for a coupelof pages, but thanks for clearing it up same way.

VitalOne

02-02-04, 02:15 PM

NO, I was not strawmanning (What is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms) as I have already told you that if this article has merit, as does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis.

Does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis have forensic science to back up their claim? Do they have the concrete evidence layed out right there?

I swear you must be slow... do you know what it is to have a scientific basis to claim something, or what the words forensic and science mean?

The subsequent definitions are for science and forensic, respectively. Both are from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/) so you too can reference them, simpleton.

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

Now, I could have some scientific basis to claim that trees make plastic bags because I saw one hanging off a branch from a tree the other day. However, there's already a science to the making of plastic bags, and little sense in the possibility of trees making plastic bags, so the probability of this claim interesting me enough to take it seriously is little to none. Just because a claim is made don't make it scientific. The science happens when scientists go and check the science of it. Meaning, anyone could have some scientific basis to claim almost anything they want.

Forensic Science is the application of science to law, also known as "medical jurisprudence". And, as a point of interest, the definition for "forensic" is...

fo·ren·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-rnsk, -zk)
adj.
Relating to, used in, or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation.
Of, relating to, or used in debate or argument; rhetorical.
Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.

Now, in this article, it states that the handwritings are identical, so this leans to the possibility of re-incarnation. But since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former boy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

There's forensic science to the fact that the boy's handwriting is identical to the next boy's but there isn't forensic evidence to the issue of the boy being a re-incarnate.

Are you some type of complete utter moron? Obviously if the handwritings are identical it must mean that their conscious minds are at least similar. And it wasn't a former boy, it was a former adult man. Also, it wasn't his handwriting alone that was the same, he also had memories of confirmed events in the former man's life. This is disputable, but you said there was no evidence, and simply gave you some. Also, what are the chances that he would remember events that occured in the former man's life, and have handwriting identical to the other mans? It would be nearly impossible by random coincidence. What else could it mean if the boy claims he is the other man, has handwriting identical to the other man, and has memories of confirmed events that the other man experienced other than their two minds are identical, or at least very similar? The argument isn't about "what traits make someone re-incarnate" but "is he a reincarnation". The easiest way to find out if he is a reincarnation is to find out if the two conscious minds are the same, and what better way than forensic science. Also, lots of accepted theories in science are disputable, yet they are widly accepted.

How else could you prove reincarnation true or false? The only logical way would be comparing the minds of the dead and living and finding out if they are identical. As the doctrine of reincarnation states the mind moves to a different body after death.

That was not pertinent, thanks for wasting time.

You wasted your own time as you consciously made the decision to argue.

I don't think you, nor anyone, can really say that with certainty. You don't know what you will fear later, stop fooling yourself.

Like I said, nothing can be known as the 100% absolute truth.

Ahhh :( Sad are you? Awwwwww........ :bugeye: cry me a river, boo hoo, if you miss the point of pontification, not my fault, if I seem curt, dry your eyes, it's not that serious. Booo hooo hooo! Hey IdleOne, heed MY advice and stop crying about "what a mean person" I am; it makes you sound like a milksop. Sadly, I think you actually thought this was going to evoke sympathy; way to fuel the fire!

Actually I expected this, it's so predictable from your character. I'm not crying , I'm actually laughing.

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

Exactly.

If you would've read, I dismissed your petty insolence for it was not even witty. It was just weak. Me acknowledging it as beign weak does not warrant anger management classes.

P.S. Would you like some cheese to go with that wine?

You didn't simply acknowledged it as weak, it's pretty obvious that you're repressing some type of anger.

VitalOne

02-02-04, 02:27 PM

I got your point, I was patronizing. My gosh, nothing gets past you, does it :bugeye:

I was thinking the same thing about you.

Hmmm..... YUP, I'll do what I want :D

Go ahead.

I've made perfect sense, why bother making a claim if you can't back it up. Shouldn't have brought it up then.

You've perfectly made no sense.

Nowhere in my example did I say there was going to be a contradiction (not sure if you're even using the word in the right context; go read a book). Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered, or felt, happiness, it's not a very important debate... the likelihood isn't great, stick to practical examples, alright. First the blind man, the deaf person, now someone who's not happy? I'm going to expose all this once and for all...

Let's have fun with quotes, shall we...

From page four, the very first post was yours, and you said...

Now, I'm going to take a stab in the dark here - correct me if I'm wrong - but Squashbuckler didn't ask IdleOne - I mean VitalOne - if he could explain a feeling. Could it be because you made it up in hopes that it would justify why you put that that a feeling could not be explained? I think so, as a matter of fact, I KNOW SO.

I've also read through the whole page looking for him asking you to explicate a feeling to him; didn't find anything. I'll venture a guess and say you've been caught with your ankle in your mouth and you're trying to expatiate yourself out of this one by making up a story that he asked you to explain a feeling when, in fact, he did no such thing. He didn't ask you anything of that nature, you still brought it up and since you can't explain it, you shouldn't have came with it. If you're not going to be backing up any claims, what's the point of posting - don't answer that question, actually.

I read the third page again, to refresh my memory, he posed a lot of questions to you and they all fell on deaf ears, you just continued to expatiate on the whole fear of death issue (which I have already debunked and gotten you to admit that you fear death; like me, but we've already established that I fear death, so don't think you can use that against me). Learn to read, learn to remember, and learn to know when to stop posting (hint: now would be a good time).

No, he wasn't, I've already pasted your post, and what you were answering, he didn't ask you no such thing, get over yourself, you're a fraud. Furthermore, explaining what it is to feel selfless is impossible, for I have already debunked altruism. And an experience CAN be put into words; with limits. Whether vicarious or first hand, it can be done. It's done on a contant basis, you tell your friends about your trip to where ever, for instance. I could go on, but you wouldn't get the point even if I did.

Ok then, why did you bring it up if their was no contradiction? Also, he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier.

VitalOne

02-02-04, 02:32 PM

You're strawmanning, setting up an imaginary argument that you think you can easily prove, whilst ignoring my point completely. If that KID, a little KID, in the article you gave link to, can expliain how he feels he's a re-incarnate, then I think you can manage to explain this feeling you speak of (which squashbuckler never asked you about, mind you). You brought it up, to merit your point, now back it up.

Why did you bring it up if there was no contradiction? It seemed like you were trying to point out some type of contradiction that's all.

I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:
He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did. I was simply challenging his statement
If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life.

VitalOne

02-02-04, 02:43 PM

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple.

You wanted to me explain the feeling. That's cool anyway.

Chalaco

02-02-04, 04:44 PM

Agreed (except about the learning to read part)

You seem to be doing that a lot these days - agreeing with me.

Ok, it's your opinion.

This I can't stand, see. I done told you more than once that it is my opinion, if you're going to retort by repeating what I already put, why bother. Either state that you concur or leave it be, but don't repeat what I was trying to tell you. You're just stating the obvious, of course I would know it is my opinion, that was my point entirely and what it was I trying to tell you.

Yes, you can have a healthy amount of peace, and get things done. Buddhists get things done, in fact since they support altruism, they would get a lot done for others. Can you clarify what you mean by "getting things done"?. Oh, and I don't idle, it's just that I don't check these forums every hour of everyday. I stopped checking them for a while. Everytime I check the forums, I reply to your messages.

You're beyond help, I feel sorry for you, really. I really do. You've already stated that you agree with me that altruism is specious, yet you aver that because buddhists support altruism they get things done for others? Wow! The very altruism you agreed as being specious. Tsk tsk.

No you didn't. You said something like "I don't even know why I have to explain why reality is objective". You didn't even use any evidence. In fact, you can't prove it at all. Our subconscious controls it, not our conscious, so you can't consciously close your eyes and go to China. You must not know anything about the mind. Your subconscious controls things that your conscious can't (normally) control. You did counterargue, but with horrible arguments. Oh yeah, and THINGS CAN BE KNOWN.

No, I actually said, "I don't feel as if though I should even have to explain why reality isn't subjective". And I showed you why reality is not subjective before, you just didn't read. Allow me to quote and make you look stupid again (apropos, I'm getting tired of quoting myself because you didn't read; learn to read, stupid :bugeye: )...

Actually, why bother. You've stated that now, all of a sudden that you've been caught in a web of stupidity, things CAN be known. Ah, quite the turn around, charlatan. How did you manage to do the one eighty with such facility. Now let me see if I get this straight, things CAN be known, YET reality is subjective? Well, what the hell kinda shlt is that? If things can be known, then they are objective. Thus, reality is objective. You make my job easier by the post, stupid

Hey vital,I am saying this with absolute respect.... I guess if you stand in front of a semi-truck......your mind would be all over the front of it,...or is that just in your mind too?

Just in your mind too. And, I'm not sure, but pretty sure that your mind won't be over (won't test this).

Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds....

"Reality" is just another word for a constant dream or illusion. Without the mind, nothing exists. If everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist"

If your brain does not create the rock then why do you need sight, and touch for the rock to "be". Without them, it would not exist. Your brain creates what you see and what you touch.

So material things are just signals interpreted by our brains

Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously)

Its all an elaborate illusion

Reality IS subjective

There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion.

Let me clarify this, THINGS CAN BE KNOWN

Wow! :eek: Do your parents know you're this smart. But hey, being coherent is overrated, right..... wrong :bugeye: You've contradicted yourself into defeat.

Recognize the cognitive dissonance, kid. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Now that "things can be known" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) that debunks your whole reality is subjective notion. If YOU can't see that, then you are one of those people you spoke of earlier, the ones who don't have all senses - because you're blind!

I debunked your whole reality is subjective theory when I posted this...

It is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses

So, yes, I did use 'evidence', as you put it. Furthermore, I've put it probably three or four times already (including this time). I think it's back to school for you, old timer. Learn to read while you're there. There must be a school nigh; sign up, don't hold back.

No one needs to listen to you either

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory.

as you are an even bigger idiot.

You're basically saying "yes, I am an idiot, but you're 'an even bigger idiot.'" Good job imbecile, you've rebuked nothing. What difference does it make if the person calling you an idiot is one as well? You're still an idiot. And even if it were to make a difference (which it doesn't) I'm no idiot, so your putative "comeback" holds no weight regardless. You never cease to amaze me.

We can "know" or believe things, but we can never be certain that these things are true. So I can know or believe in that statement, but never know that it's absolutely true.

Well, then how can you say "THINGS CAN BE KNOWN" then? If they're never absolutely true, then how can they be known? You've contradicted yourself. Do you see the pattern here, you're skewed into the depths of stupidity. You're lost.

And how can you be absolutely sure that it's going to rain tommorow? Even the weathermen have their % chances for predictions, and the percent is never 100 (as almost anything can happen)

Stupid, that was just my point. If someone makes a claim yet doesn't know if what he/she is saying to be true, then the claim does not need to be heeded. Simple. And yes, even the weatherman don't know for sure, but it was a practical application to prove my point, STOP STRAWMANNING! (what is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms). Everyone knows the weathermen don't konw for sure or with certainty, but my point didn't have anything to do with that. It had to do with the inanity of paying mind to a claim that doesn't know it to be true or even believe it to be true, in my opinion it is inane to heed such a claim.

I get my knowledge from my mind, and my senses. I said we couldn't trust our senses, not that we weren't entitled to use them, what are you, stupid? You are quite ignorant.

"You are quite ignorant" If only you realized how effete that came across. Anyway, not to digress, back to the point. You said you can't trust the senses, what does using them have to do with your point. Thank you for stating that truism (hint: look that word up, you'd be surprised as to what it means). That acute observation is trite - we all use our senses. And it is these very same senses that have enabled you to postulate on whether you trust them or not. Do you KNOW FOR SURE that you can't trust them, I mean they are what has led you to this putative ontology of yours. If you can't trust what has led you to this spurious conclusion, then hwo can you trust the conclusion? Ahhh, funny how that works, huh.

Oh, and I can't tell that it didn't take much, it always seems like you're not using your brain at all.

That wasn't the very least bit clever; did you come up with that after you decided to "right [SIC] your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times"? Then, maybe you'd have an excuse for coming with such an asinine display of an insult or repartee.

Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree.

Much better, I predict this will be a pattern in the posts to come.

When I explained the unselfish feeling in a previous post, you arrogantly said

I was referring to you attempting to kick knowledge to me on the whole desire crap. Whilst I never made any reference to desire, I'm still not the least bit surprised that you thought I was commenting on something totally different than I was actually commenting on - and that is because you can't read.

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple

See, I made reference to the "desire crap". The post I replied to when I posted that was mroe than half full of you trying to drop knowledge on me about desire. It is not pertinent for I have yet to call you out on your thoughts on desire. As I've mentioned time and time again, I came in on the altruism, the death, and the anti-skeptic arguments. Those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss; reincarnation can be thrown out the window too. Since "what makes up the mind" is one of science's greatest mysteries, then we can't yet know for sure about reincarnation, for the mind and its makeup are variables in that case.

VitalOne

02-02-04, 11:52 PM

You seem to be doing that a lot these days - agreeing with me.

So what?

This I can't stand, see. I done told you more than once that it is my opinion, if you're going to retort by repeating what I already put, why bother. Either state that you concur or leave it be, but don't repeat what I was trying to tell you. You're just stating the obvious, of course I would know it is my opinion, that was my point entirely and what it was I trying to tell you.

And I said, "Ok, it's your opinion" (yet you can even make an argument out of that), thankyou for wasting a paragraph.

You're beyond help, I feel sorry for you, really. I really do. You've already stated that you agree with me that altruism is specious, yet you aver that because buddhists support altruism they get things done for others? Wow! The very altruism you agreed as being specious. Tsk tsk.

You're dodging the argument by changing the subject. Besides, I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest, not that altruism is specious.

No, I actually said, "I don't feel as if though I should even have to explain why reality isn't subjective". And I showed you why reality is not subjective before, you just didn't read. Allow me to quote and make you look stupid again (apropos, I'm getting tired of quoting myself because you didn't read; learn to read, stupid..

I said that you said something like that, not that you said those exact words (and I can't read?). You didn't show me anything. How did you in anyway prove that the reality we observe doesn't exist only in the mind?

Actually, why bother. You've stated that now, all of a sudden that you've been caught in a web of stupidity, things CAN be known. Ah, quite the turn around, charlatan. How did you manage to do the one eighty with such facility. Now let me see if I get this straight, things CAN be known, YET reality is subjective? Well, what the hell kinda shlt is that? If things can be known, then they are objective. Thus, reality is objective. You make my job easier by the post, stupid

How does the definition of know:
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

Contradict with reality being subjective? Yes, you can "know" things by that definition. That is the 1st definition of know & known (from dictionary.com), the one that I was referring to. I can percieve something directly, and grasp it in the mind with clarity/certainty, and reality can still be subjective. So things can be known, and reality can still be subjective. Thanks for making my job easier, you should use the dictionary once in a while.

Wow! Do your parents know you're this smart. But hey, being coherent is overrated, right..... wrong You've contradicted yourself into defeat.

Recognize the cognitive dissonance, kid. Seriously, what right do you have to be this stupid? Now that "things can be known" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) that debunks your whole reality is subjective notion. If YOU can't see that, then you are one of those people you spoke of earlier, the ones who don't have all senses - because you're blind!

I debunked your whole reality is subjective theory when I posted this...

Right....http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know definition one says it all.

So, yes, I did use 'evidence', as you put it. Furthermore, I've put it probably three or four times already (including this time). I think it's back to school for you, old timer. Learn to read while you're there. There must be a school nigh; sign up, don't hold back.

What evidence? How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?

If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses
How does this prove that reality doesn't exist only in the mind? The concepts are derived from the senses which are created by the mind...thus one can argue that reality still exists only within the mind (subjective). The truth and knowledge concepts wouldn't contradict at all.

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory.

Hold on let me get this straight...you're saying that if someone believes that reality exists externally then people should listen to them...but if someone believes that reality exists only within the mind people shouldn't? How does that make sense at all?

You're basically saying "yes, I am an idiot, but you're 'an even bigger idiot.'" Good job imbecile, you've rebuked nothing. What difference does it make if the person calling you an idiot is one as well? You're still an idiot. And even if it were to make a difference (which it doesn't) I'm no idiot, so your putative "comeback" holds no weight regardless. You never cease to amaze me.

Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one.

Well, then how can you say "THINGS CAN BE KNOWN" then? If they're never absolutely true, then how can they be known? You've contradicted yourself. Do you see the pattern here, you're skewed into the depths of stupidity. You're lost.

Dictionary.com once again. There are multiple definitions of known (obviously). That's like saying, if they're never absolutely true, then how can they be percieved directly; grasped in the mind with clarity or certainty.

Stupid, that was just my point. If someone makes a claim yet doesn't know if what he/she is saying to be true, then the claim does not need to be heeded. Simple. And yes, even the weatherman don't know for sure, but it was a practical application to prove my point, STOP STRAWMANNING! (what is referred to as straw-manning: setting-up imaginary arguments that are easy to disprove, while ignoring the ACTUAL criticisms). Everyone knows the weathermen don't konw for sure or with certainty, but my point didn't have anything to do with that. It had to do with the inanity of paying mind to a claim that doesn't know it to be true or even believe it to be true, in my opinion it is inane to heed such a claim.

That wasn't strawmanning as I was arguing your argument about the weather. Nothing can be known as the 100% truth, but somethings are heeded to make sense out of things.

"You are quite ignorant" If only you realized how effete that came across. Anyway, not to digress, back to the point. You said you can't trust the senses, what does using them have to do with your point. Thank you for stating that truism (hint: look that word up, you'd be surprised as to what it means). That acute observation is trite - we all use our senses. And it is these very same senses that have enabled you to postulate on whether you trust them or not. Do you KNOW FOR SURE that you can't trust them, I mean they are what has led you to this putative ontology of yours. If you can't trust what has led you to this spurious conclusion, then hwo can you trust the conclusion? Ahhh, funny how that works, huh.

No, I don't know for sure (100% absolute truth) that we can't or can trust our senses, I just strongly believe that we can't trust our senses.

That wasn't the very least bit clever; did you come up with that after you decided to "right [SIC] your name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times"? Then, maybe you'd have an excuse for coming with such an asinine display of an insult or repartee.

Sheesh, argue about the real arguments not about petty statements (did it offend you :( ?). Why would I care if you think that it "wasn't the very least bit clever"?. I don't understand why you do care so much (you even waste time typing in IdleOne)...

Much better, I predict this will be a pattern in the posts to come.

I guess your prediction was completely wrong (I mean COMPLETELY wrong).

I was referring to you attempting to kick knowledge to me on the whole desire crap. Whilst I never made any reference to desire, I'm still not the least bit surprised that you thought I was commenting on something totally different than I was actually commenting on - and that is because you can't read.

And I was referring to you asking me to explain the experience -

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

I wasn't attempting to "kick knowledge" to you (you can choose to accept or reject it), sorry for not clarifying that.

See, I made reference to the "desire crap". The post I replied to when I posted that was mroe than half full of you trying to drop knowledge on me about desire. It is not pertinent for I have yet to call you out on your thoughts on desire. As I've mentioned time and time again, I came in on the altruism, the death, and the anti-skeptic arguments. Those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss; reincarnation can be thrown out the window too. Since "what makes up the mind" is one of science's greatest mysteries, then we can't yet know for sure about reincarnation, for the mind and its makeup are variables in that case.

I was using the desire stuff as background information, you wanted me to be detailed, so I tried to be. Besides, if you were only referring the desire portion, why did you quote both paragraphs.

Chalaco

02-03-04, 12:21 PM

Does every nut who claims to have seen Elvis have forensic science to back up their claim? Do they have the concrete evidence layed out right there?

I'm not even topical, yet I hear of nuts claiming to have seen Jesus, Mary, Elvis, all the time, some with enough concrete evidence to be in the press..... I bet you're the type to call miss cleo, huh..... stupid.

Are you some type of complete utter moron?

Chapter 3, Page 87, Sentence structure, 2nd grade.

Were you sick that day?

Utter means complete/absolute, you might as well have put "complete complete moron". You don't even know it, but you used a moronic sentence to call ME a moron. Good job. Although, you could've done it as a pardoy, a satire of sorts..... on second thought, NAH, you're not that cunning :D .

Obviously if the handwritings are identical it must mean that their conscious minds are at least similar.

I can remember that in my youth, in school, there were a couple of kids with similar handwritings (and remember, the article is about two boys). I used it insidiously to my advantage as well. However, that, by no means, infers we had similar conscious minds. Take my word for it, or call up miss cleo, I'm sure she'd come to an accord with me on this one. And notice I said, similar handwritings, not identical..

And it wasn't a former boy, it was a former adult man.

Ahhh, there you go again. Not reading... tsk tsk.

To quote the article: "Chauhan took samples of both boys’ handwriting and compared them" (first sentence, fifth paragraph).

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What RIGHT do you have to be this stupid? You claim to know how to read yet say it was an adult when the article states clearly it was two boys? You're so sub-intellect with your thinking, it's almost disgusting.

Also, it wasn't his handwriting alone that was the same, he also had memories of confirmed events in the former man's life. This is disputable, but you said there was no evidence, and simply gave you some. Also, what are the chances that he would remember events that occured in the former man's life, and have handwriting identical to the other mans? It would be nearly impossible by random coincidence. What else could it mean if the boy claims he is the other man, has handwriting identical to the other man, and has memories of confirmed events that the other man experienced other than their two minds are identical, or at least very similar?

Notice that while you aver this to be reincarnation, the article never states it as being factual, it says there is a possibility (granted, there's a possibility for ANYTHING). You're right, it IS disputable. The article features such words as "USUALLY" and "THEORY". But I know what you will retort with, and I will save you the trouble. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, then consider these:

-- only one of them is alive, remember?

-- you say he knew of past events... so? somone could have told the boy

-- he's been talking about it since he was two,
right? do we know that? again, they could have told the boy

-- it could all be a hoax for fame and prosperity. they are poor, remember? They won't give him up, remember?

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Proof there is not, otherwise this wouldn't be an article on some stupid web site, it'd be undergoing mass investigation and all that by scientists around the world.

We don't know what makes up the mind, to figure out if two minds are the same we'd first have to know what makes up the mind. We don't know enough about the mind to prove reincarnation or what makes up a reincarnate.

The argument isn't about "what traits make someone re-incarnate" but "is he a reincarnation".

No. How can we determine if he is a reincarnate if we do not know what traits make someone a reincarnate? Marinate on that.

Since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former bwoy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

The easiest way to find out if he is a reincarnation is to find out if the two conscious minds are the same, and what better way than forensic science. Also, lots of accepted theories in science are disputable, yet they are widly accepted

Again, we don't even know what makes up the mind. Allow me to make you look stupid. Here's the definition for "conscious"

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

One's dead, how can they BOTH have conscious minds? :bugeye:

Oh and good luck comparing the mind of a boy who's dead to one who's alive.

Now, two boys are the subject of the article. The article talks about how it's possible that one could be a reincarnate of the other, who's DEAD. If one is dead, then where's the second conscious mind?

Furthermore, the whole idea of reincarnation (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong) is that once one dies, the mind comes back in the form of another body, with the same MIND. The soul comes back, or so you would have us beleive. So this putative theory of the two conscious you keep bringing up is bollocks. It makes no sense, it goes against what you claim to be possible.

You wasted your own time as you consciously made the decision to argue

Made the decision to debunk.

Like I said, nothing can be known as the 100% absolute truth.

We're not going to get into that just yet.

Actually I expected this, it's so predictable from your character. I'm not crying , I'm actually laughing.

That makes two of us.

You didn't simply acknowledged it as weak, it's pretty obvious that you're repressing some type of anger.

I think I would know if I repressed anger or not, mister I can read peoples minds and figure out if they repress some type of anger through what they post in a forum. :bugeye:

Chalaco

02-03-04, 01:14 PM

I was thinking the same thing about you.

good one :rolleyes:

You've perfectly made no sense.

As oppose to imperfectly making no sense? :bugeye:

Ok then, why did you bring it up if their was no contradiction? Also, he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier.

Again, nowhere did I say there was a contradiction, I brought it up and used it as an example to show how pointless it would be to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up with substance (so to speak). It just seems pointless to me to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up. Simple. Shouldn't have came with it in the first place. You kept strawmanning (and yes you were, bringing up explaining sight to a blind man, knowing full well no one could prove something like that to be otherwise; should've stuck to the topic at hand instead of ignoring it with strawman). I was using a practical application for my notion that using that experience/feeling garbage when asked to explain something (and you asked yourself because Squashbuckler didn't ask you, you brought it up and in that very same post you said it couldn't be explained). I want to know why you're so inept in reading. Anybody could've seen what I meant, but you had to take it as me infering a contradiction. Something is wrong with your thought process, it's very linear.

Give it up, you've been caught lying, he never asked you to explain anything.
He asked you this...

If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known?
Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

You didn't answer any of those questions.

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life.
You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be.
Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep.
In " not wanting things" that makes you free?
THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system.
It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you?
Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.
"Material things dont control you"
Do they "control you"
I dont feel that they control me at all.
I studied buddhism for almost 2 years. Ive read many books on the subject. If everyone wants to say that " i have a muddled concept of buddhism", then i would suggest that maybe it is they who are confused.

Inner peace does not come from removing the mind and its desires. What thats called is " nothing". You are nothing. You are a dog without an ID

Where is the implication you said he made? You said, "he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier", well where does he imply this? I've read it and I don't see where he intimates such an inquiry.

Congratulations, you're legally retarded and eligible for public charity.

Chalaco

02-03-04, 01:25 PM

Why did you bring it up if there was no contradiction? It seemed like you were trying to point out some type of contradiction that's all.

You seem to be under the impression that one can't bring up something up without trying to point out contradiction. Let me be the first to inform you that one can post something without trying to point out contradiction. I've already told you why I brought it up in a couple posts prior. Learn to read.

He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did. I was simply challenging his statement

You might want to challenge with things you can back up more thoroughly. Just a suggestion :bugeye:

And it's high time you admit you were wrong. Took you long enough. :bugeye:

Chalaco

02-03-04, 04:42 PM

So what?

Well, dummy, I meant that you seem to be agreeing with me, meaning you are recanting a lot as a result of this (altruism, fear of death, life not being linear, etc.).

And I said, "Ok, it's your opinion" (yet you can even make an argument out of that), thankyou for wasting a paragraph.

You need not say it's my opinion for I know it to be such. That was exactly what I was trying to show you, don't concur as if you knew all along because you didn't. Stop wasting time.

You're dodging the argument by changing the subject. Besides, I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest, not that altruism is specious.

You know, it's funny. It's funny because you've already agreed with me that altruism is specious (I will quote you as saying so hereinafter). It's funny because you say that people do what's in their interest, and that is exactly what selfishness is. You're looking out for your own interests, sounds selfish to me. And altruism is the practice of being unselfish as a tenet. So, how can you say that you agree with me that people do what's in their best interest yet don't think altruism is specious?? (note for the slow: specious = plausible but wrong). It's impossible to be unselfish.

Doing what's in your interests is looking after your own self, your own interests, for yourself. That's selfish. Concordantly, everythign we do is selfish. Now, altruism is about being unselfish. How can you deny altruism being specious if you agree what people do what's in their interest?? Don't you get it? You're stupid. Stupid, I tell you, stupid.

You agree with me on both counts, you're just too proud to admit you agree. You can't NOT agree because there's a contradiction then. Hypocrite.

Remember this?

You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again.

Altruism = specious.

Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree.

I suggest you pick a stance and stand by. You're contradicting yourself. First you agreed after I posted that altruism is specious and people are naturally selfish and do what's in their best interest, you agreed with me on that. Now you say altruism is not specious? Come on now, which one is going to be? You probably mean that being charitable isn't specious. That's not what I'm talking about, though. How can altruism say to be unselfish if everything we do is selfish. It would prove to be an excercise in futility as it's not possible. I'll re-post what I've already posted (page four):

You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial.

People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable.

This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.

Marinate on that.

I said that you said something like that, not that you said those exact words (and I can't read?).

Yeah, and I was correcting you.

You didn't show me anything. How did you in anyway prove that the reality we observe doesn't exist only in the mind?

I'll re-iterate what I showed you hereinafter.

How does the definition of know:

Quote:
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.

Contradict with reality being subjective? Yes, you can "know" things by that definition. That is the 1st definition of know & known (from dictionary.com), the one that I was referring to. I can percieve something directly, and grasp it in the mind with clarity/certainty, and reality can still be subjective. So things can be known, and reality can still be subjective. Thanks for making my job easier, you should use the dictionary once in a while.

Right....http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know definition one says it all.

Simple, we can now look at the OTHER denotations for the word, "know". Let's do that now, shall we...

know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor” (William Faulkner).

To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

Now, you didn't think I meant the ninth denotation, did you? No, the connotation I was using was the second ("To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail").

Now, I'll ask you again, do you regard as true beyond doubt that nothing can be regarded as true beyond doubt? If you answer with no, then you are not making a claim. How myopic can you be? You answer no, then you're not making a claim. You answer yes, and you are contradicting yourself.

And you did contradict yourself for you stated in the beginning of this thread that reality is just our interpretations...

Quote:
Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds....

Quote:
"Reality" is just another word for a constant dream or illusion. Without the mind, nothing exists. If everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist"

Quote:
If your brain does not create the rock then why do you need sight, and touch for the rock to "be". Without them, it would not exist. Your brain creates what you see and what you touch.

Quote:
So material things are just signals interpreted by our brains

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdleOne_second page post

Quote:
Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously)

Quote:
Its all an elaborate illusion

Quote:
Reality IS subjective

then, come the fourth page, you stated that "There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion".

How can you not see the contradiction?

How does this prove that reality doesn't exist only in the mind? The concepts are derived from the senses which are created by the mind...thus one can argue that reality still exists only within the mind (subjective). The truth and knowledge concepts wouldn't contradict at all.

Idiot, allow me to point something out. Saying reality is subjective IS saying it exists only in the mind. If you're going to use words, know what they mean.

Directly quoting Epicurus...

source (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm#Sensible%20Qualities)

[Epistemology

Epicurus' epistemology is resolutely empiricist and anti-skeptical. All of our knowledge ultimately comes from the senses, thinks Epicurus, and we can trust the senses, when properly used. Epicurus' epistemology was contained in his work the 'Canon,' or 'measuring stick,' which is lost, so many of the details of his views are unavailable to us.

The Canon: sensations, preconceptions, and feelings

Epicurus says that there are three criteria of truth: sensations, 'preconceptions,' and feelings. Sensations give us information about the external world, and we can test the judgments based upon sensations against further sensations; e.g., a provisional judgment that a tower is round, based upon sensation, can be tested against later sensations to be corroborated or disproved. Epicurus says that all sensations give us information about the world, but that sensation itself is never in error, since sensation is a purely passive, mechanical reception of images and the like by sense-organs, and the senses themselves do not make judgments 'that' the world is this way or that. Instead, error enters in when we make judgments about the world based upon the information received through the senses.

Epicurus thinks that, in order to make judgments about the world, or even to start any inquiry whatsoever, we must already be in possession of certain basic concepts, which stand in need of no further proof or definition, on pain of entering into an infinite regress. This concern is similar to the Paradox of Inquiry explored by Plato in the Meno, that one must already know about something in order to be able to inquire about it. However, instead of postulating that our immaterial souls had acquaintance with transcendent Forms in a pre-natal existence, as Plato does, Epicurus thinks that we have certain 'preconceptions'--concepts such as 'body,' 'person,' 'usefulness,' and 'truth'--which are formed in our (material) minds as the result of repeated sense-experiences of similar objects. Further ideas are formed by processes of analogy or similarity or by compounding these basic concepts. Thus, all ideas are ultimately formed on the basis of sense-experience.

Feelings of pleasure and pain form the basic criteria for what is to be sought and avoided

source (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm)

Hold on let me get this straight...you're saying that if someone believes that reality exists externally then people should listen to them...but if someone believes that reality exists only within the mind people shouldn't? How does that make sense at all?

Hmmm..... NOPE, I didn't say that. Let's take a history lesson, shall we...

I said that no one needs to listen to you because you make a claim and you're not sure of it yourself. You retorted with, "No one needs to listen to you either, as you are an even bigger idiot" which was not only an admittance of your idiocy, but a stupid thing to say. When I make claims, I do my best to illustrate my points with lucidity, with substance, with examples, with practical applications for the mesage[s] I'm trying to convey. You say reality is subjective yet when asked...

If nothing can be known, do you KNOW that nothing can be known?

No.

You're not making a claim; you're not saying anything, really.

Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one.

I think you just did.

Dictionary.com once again. There are multiple definitions of known (obviously). That's like saying, if they're never absolutely true, then how can they be percieved directly; grasped in the mind with clarity or certainty.

I've already changed the wording of my question to "regard as true beyond doubt"..... why don't you quit strawmanning and answer.

That wasn't strawmanning as I was arguing your argument about the weather. Nothing can be known as the 100% truth, but somethings are heeded to make sense out of things.

The weather wasn't my argument, it was the vessel to hammer home my point. You're a bright one, huh.

No, I don't know for sure (100% absolute truth) that we can't or can trust our senses, I just strongly believe that we can't trust our senses.

Well then how can you STRONGLY BELIEVE you can't trust the senses? What has led you to your conclusion is your senses, if you can't trust what has led you to this conclusion then how can you trust the conclusion? And try answering for a change, other than state things and then recant and say, "I strongly believe, though not for sure" (I put it into my own words, by the way). You're not making a claim if you do so, and you look foolish trusting your strong belief that you can't trust the senses when those very same senses have led you to that. You don't get it, do you. There's no excuse for this kind of stupidity. There really isn't.

Sheesh, argue about the real arguments not about petty statements (did it offend you :( ?). Why would I care if you think that it "wasn't the very least bit clever"?. I don't understand why you do care so much (you even waste time typing in IdleOne)...

Now see, what is regarded as wasting time is subjective and different to everyone. The two seconds it takes to change the typing (which I would have to do anyway) from VitalOne to IdleOne not only does a good job to decry but it also saves me time in that I type in one less letter (though the time it saves me is not enough to be pertinent to anything, however). So no, I don't waste time, kid.

And how could it have offended me when I poked fun at your diction of prior posts. Think about that when you "right [sic] your name" next time. :D

I guess your prediction was completely wrong (I mean COMPLETELY wrong).

We'll see about that.

And I was referring to you asking me to explain the experience -

You did so in the second paragraph of your two paragraph post, the first was about desire; which was not pertinent to the topic at hand. I made it quite clear what I meant as I typed out "desire". You didn't need to tell me about desire, or even about the experience. Especially the experience/feeling crap because no one asked you to do so (except me, but I now take it back having realized no one asked you to do so prior to me, not squashbuckler, nobody). But if the desire bit had to do with your "experience" then let it stand, it is no longer pertinent because we've already established you were wrong having brought that up.

I was using the desire stuff as background information, you wanted me to be detailed, so I tried to be. Besides, if you were only referring the desire portion, why did you quote both paragraphs.

Well, because I figured that since I typed DESIRE, that what I meant would be quite lucid since I typed out DESIRE. Again, did I mention I put DESIRE as the subject of that particular post/paragraph..... well, yes, I think that goes without saying

Chalaco

02-03-04, 06:11 PM

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne.

Exactly.

Now what the hell is that? You say 'exactly' as if that was your point when you first asked me this...

Oh yeah, ever heard of the conservation of mass law? Nothing can created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no death of the mind or body.

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

then...

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed, I'll let the death of the body argument percolate, give it some thought.

But, moving on...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

then...

True, but don't the atoms make up the body as well as the mind?

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne. :bugeye:

then...

If I happened to figure out what makes up the mind, I'd have solved one of science's greatest mysteries, IdleOne.

Exactly.

How can you come with "exactly" when you were the one inferring that atoms make up the mind? Are you trying to cover your tracks and not look stupid? Initially you thought atoms to make up the mind (evident in your rhetorical question) and asked me this as if to bring it to my attention. I retorted with the facts - we don't know what makes up the mind - and you try to save face by acting as if you knew that. Fraud. :bugeye:

spidergoat

02-03-04, 06:51 PM

What is happening here is a mechanical thing like in a computer. It is mechanically operating, trying to find out if there is any information stored in the computer (pointing to his head) related to what we are talking about. "Let me see," " Let me think;" these are statements you are just making, but there is no further activity and no thinking taking place there. You have an illusion that there is somebody who is thinking and bringing out the information.Look, this is no different from the extraordinary instrument we have, the word-finder. You press a button and "Ready," it says. Then you ask for a word; "Searching," it says. That searching is thinking. But it is a mechanical process. In that word-finder or computer there is no thinker. There is no thinker thinking there at all. If there is any information or anything that is referred to, the computer puts it together and throws it out. That is all that is happening. It is a very mechanical thing that is happening. We are not ready to accept that thought is mechanical because that knocks off the whole image that we are not just machines. It is an extraordinary machine. It is not different from the computers we use. But this [pointing to his body] is something living, it has got a living quality to it. It has a vitality. It is not just mechanically repeating; it carries with it the life energy like that current energy.

U.G. Krishnamurti

There is no mind anywhere!

VitalOne

02-03-04, 08:19 PM

I'm not even topical, yet I hear of nuts claiming to have seen Jesus, Mary, Elvis, all the time, some with enough concrete evidence to be in the press..... I bet you're the type to call miss cleo, huh..... stupid.

So you're saying that you'd refuse to believe something even if there was concrete evidence to support it? Oh, and I'm not the type to call miss cleo.

Chapter 3, Page 87, Sentence structure, 2nd grade.

Were you sick that day?

Utter means complete/absolute, you might as well have put "complete complete moron". You don't even know it, but you used a moronic sentence to call ME a moron. Good job. Although, you could've done it as a pardoy, a satire of sorts..... on second thought, NAH, you're not that cunning :D .
.

I forgot the comma, it should be "complete, utter moron". Sorry that you couldn't figure that one out.

I can remember that in my youth, in school, there were a couple of kids with similar handwritings (and remember, the article is about two boys). I used it insidiously to my advantage as well. However, that, by no means, infers we had similar conscious minds. Take my word for it, or call up miss cleo, I'm sure she'd come to an accord with me on this one. And notice I said, similar handwritings, not identical..

Hmmm....your personality and thoughts strongly influence your handwriting. Also, in a lot in criminal cases they compare handwriting to confirm if someone did write something like a letter. Now why would they do that if it "by no means, infers" that the same person wrote a document, letter, etc..?

Ahhh, there you go again. Not reading... tsk tsk.

To quote the article: "Chauhan took samples of both boys? handwriting and compared them" (first sentence, fifth paragraph).

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What RIGHT do you have to be this stupid? You claim to know how to read yet say it was an adult when the article states clearly it was two boys? You're so sub-intellect with your thinking, it's almost disgusting.

Ok, it was a boy. Also, everyone has rights to be however intelligent they want to be. Why do you always insist on adding in comments not related to the discussion at all?

Notice that while you aver this to be reincarnation, the article never states it as being factual, it says there is a possibility (granted, there's a possibility for ANYTHING). You're right, it IS disputable. The article features such words as "USUALLY" and "THEORY". But I know what you will retort with, and I will save you the trouble. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, then consider these:

-- only one of them is alive, remember?

-- you say he knew of past events... so? somone could have told the boy

-- he's been talking about it since he was two,
right? do we know that? again, they could have told the boy

-- it could all be a hoax for fame and prosperity. they are poor, remember? They won't give him up, remember?

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Proof there is not, otherwise this wouldn't be an article on some stupid web site, it'd be undergoing mass investigation and all that by scientists around the world.

We don't know what makes up the mind, to figure out if two minds are the same we'd first have to know what makes up the mind. We don't know enough about the mind to prove reincarnation or what makes up a reincarnate.

Ok, it supplied evidence (which is what you were asking for), I never said it was factual. Hmm...you're saying that someone could've told the boy to continously tell his parents he was someone else, runaway from home, learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school), memorize a group of events, and force his handwriting to appear identical to the former boy's? This is possible, but unlikely. Yes it could be a hoax, but there is more evidence than just this to suggest reincarnation.

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be undergoing mass investigation. Most scientists don't like investigating cases like these.

We don't know what makes up the mind, but we do have ways of finding out if someone's mind is similar.

No. How can we determine if he is a reincarnate if we do not know what traits make someone a reincarnate? Marinate on that.

Since there's no edict or layout of "what traits make someone a re-incarnate", there would have to be more and more evidence to this possibility. That his handwriting is identical to that of the former bwoy could simply mean somthing totally different than re-incarnation. And all of the other oddities could mean something else, as well. There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it.

Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another. The simplest thing to do would be comparing the minds of the dead with the minds of the living.

There isn't "indisputable proof" of a lots of theories accepted in modern science. Also, your last sentence basically says there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation.

Again, we don't even know what makes up the mind. Allow me to make you look stupid. Here's the definition for "conscious"

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.

One's dead, how can they BOTH have conscious minds? :bugeye:

Oh and good luck comparing the mind of a boy who's dead to one who's alive.

Now, two boys are the subject of the article. The article talks about how it's possible that one could be a reincarnate of the other, who's DEAD. If one is dead, then where's the second conscious mind?

Furthermore, the whole idea of reincarnation (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not wrong) is that once one dies, the mind comes back in the form of another body, with the same MIND. The soul comes back, or so you would have us beleive. So this putative theory of the two conscious you keep bringing up is bollocks. It makes no sense, it goes against what you claim to be possible.

You must not understand. They can both have conscious minds because they're the same person. I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind. Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind. Obviously any idiot could see that I meant this.

Made the decision to debunk.

Debunk, waste time, what's the big difference?

We're not going to get into that just yet.

Ok.

I think I would know if I repressed anger or not, mister I can read peoples minds and figure out if they repress some type of anger through what they post in a forum. :bugeye:
Lot's of people don't know because it's repressed anger, anger that get's stored into the subconscious because of some frustrating event. People often release a portion of this subconscious anger over little things that don't matter. Insulting someone is a form of releasing anger. You seem to not be able to argue without insulting.

VitalOne

02-03-04, 08:51 PM

As oppose to imperfectly making no sense? :bugeye:

Yes.

Again, nowhere did I say there was a contradiction, I brought it up and used it as an example to show how pointless it would be to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up with substance (so to speak). It just seems pointless to me to make a claim if you're not prepared to back it up. Simple. Shouldn't have came with it in the first place. You kept strawmanning (and yes you were, bringing up explaining sight to a blind man, knowing full well no one could prove something like that to be otherwise; should've stuck to the topic at hand instead of ignoring it with strawman). I was using a practical application for my notion that using that experience/feeling garbage when asked to explain something (and you asked yourself because Squashbuckler didn't ask you, you brought it up and in that very same post you said it couldn't be explained). I want to know why you're so inept in reading. Anybody could've seen what I meant, but you had to take it as me infering a contradiction. Something is wrong with your thought process, it's very linear.

Almost everytime you bring up quotes you point out contradictions. I wasn't strawmanning, I was using those as examples to point out how you can't explain the experience (and when I do further explain it you get angry and ask why I brought it up). My thought process is linear? Yours seems to be linear, as you have your mind set on proving me wrong (while I agree occaisonally) no matter what.

Give it up, you've been caught lying, he never asked you to explain anything.
He asked you this...

You didn't answer any of those questions.

I didn't answer the questions? You should be the one learning to read as I clearly stated in my previous post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=27068&page=4&pp=20):

And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.

I even said "And to answer your question" with his quote above. Looks like you were completely wrong about this one (though you won't admit it, your mind's to weak to do that).

Where is the implication you said he made? You said, "he never directly asked me what the feeling was, but implied it by rejecting that if you remove your attachement towards life, you'll be happier", well where does he imply this? I've read it and I don't see where he intimates such an inquiry.

Congratulations, you're legally retarded and eligible for public charity.

He implied it simply here:

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life..........I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be. Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place.

I trying to tell him that you have to experience not fearing death to know if you would be happy or appreciate life. Again, you can't go without insulting during an argument, can you?

VitalOne

02-03-04, 08:56 PM

You seem to be under the impression that one can't bring up something up without trying to point out contradiction. Let me be the first to inform you that one can post something without trying to point out contradiction. I've already told you why I brought it up in a couple posts prior. Learn to read.

Congratulations! You have just wasted another paragraph.

You might want to challenge with things you can back up more thoroughly. Just a suggestion :bugeye:

And it's high time you admit you were wrong. Took you long enough. :bugeye:
Your mind is too weak to be able to admit when you're wrong, my mind isn't :) . So it's a good thing that I can admit when I'm wrong.

Squashbuckler

02-03-04, 09:27 PM

"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost.

VitalOne

02-03-04, 09:48 PM

Well, dummy, I meant that you seem to be agreeing with me, meaning you are recanting a lot as a result of this (altruism, fear of death, life not being linear, etc.).

Well dummy, I meant "So what?" as in So what if I agree? Do you have some type of subconscious desire to want me to disagree with you?

You need not say it's my opinion for I know it to be such. That was exactly what I was trying to show you, don't concur as if you knew all along because you didn't. Stop wasting time.

Wow, congratulations, you just argued about me agreeing with you that it was your opinion. I can waste all the time I want BTW.

You know, it's funny. It's funny because you've already agreed with me that altruism is specious (I will quote you as saying so hereinafter). It's funny because you say that people do what's in their interest, and that is exactly what selfishness is. You're looking out for your own interests, sounds selfish to me. And altruism is the practice of being unselfish as a tenet. So, how can you say that you agree with me that people do what's in their best interest yet don't think altruism is specious?? (note for the slow: specious = plausible but wrong). It's impossible to be unselfish.

Doing what's in your interests is looking after your own self, your own interests, for yourself. That's selfish. Concordantly, everythign we do is selfish. Now, altruism is about being unselfish. How can you deny altruism being specious if you agree what people do what's in their interest?? Don't you get it? You're stupid. Stupid, I tell you, stupid.

You agree with me on both counts, you're just too proud to admit you agree. You can't NOT agree because there's a contradiction then. Hypocrite.

Remember this?

I accidently included the "Altruism is specious" in the quote. Also, that's why in my previous post I said I partially agree, then I said I totally agreed because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to.

I already explained the unselfish feeling in the post you said didn't ask me about. It's not impossible to be unselfish. News Flash - People can do what's in their interest, and altruism can still not be specious. I never said all people do what's in their interest.

I suggest you pick a stance and stand by. You're contradicting yourself. First you agreed after I posted that altruism is specious and people are naturally selfish and do what's in their best interest, you agreed with me on that. Now you say altruism is not specious? Come on now, which one is going to be? You probably mean that being charitable isn't specious. That's not what I'm talking about, though. How can altruism say to be unselfish if everything we do is selfish. It would prove to be an excercise in futility as it's not possible. I'll re-post what I've already posted (page four):

Everything we do isn't selfish (Concerned chiefly or only with oneself). In altruism you're concerned more about the other person than yourself.

You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial.

People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable.

This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.

Marinate on that.

selfish - Concerned chiefly or only with oneself. If she isn't concerned only with herself, then she isn't selfish. She wasn't only concerned about her happiness.

Yeah, and I was correcting you.

What's there to correct?

Simple, we can now look at the OTHER denotations for the word, "know". Let's do that now, shall we...

know ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n)
v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) know·ing, knows
v. tr.
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: ?a black stubble that had known no razor? (William Faulkner).

To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.

Now, you didn't think I meant the ninth denotation, did you? No, the connotation I was using was the second ("To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail").

Now, you didn't think that I meant the second definition did you? I meant the first, not the second. It's a matter of differing definitions.

Now, I'll ask you again, do you regard as true beyond doubt that nothing can be regarded as true beyond doubt? If you answer with no, then you are not making a claim. How myopic can you be? You answer no, then you're not making a claim. You answer yes, and you are contradicting yourself.

And you did contradict yourself for you stated in the beginning of this thread that reality is just our interpretations...

Quote:
Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds....

Quote:
"Reality" is just another word for a constant dream or illusion. Without the mind, nothing exists. If everyone was deaf, blind, and paralyzed then nothing that we precieve would "exist"

Quote:
If your brain does not create the rock then why do you need sight, and touch for the rock to "be". Without them, it would not exist. Your brain creates what you see and what you touch.

Quote:
So material things are just signals interpreted by our brains

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdleOne_second page post

Quote:
Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously)

Quote:
Its all an elaborate illusion

Quote:
Reality IS subjective

then, come the fourth page, you stated that "There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion".

How can you not see the contradiction?

I see no contradiction. Again, I was using definition one for know and known, not definition two, can't you get that through your head? By definition two there would a contradiction, but not by definition one. I can know reality is subjective, and I wouldn't be contradicting myself.

Idiot, allow me to point something out. Saying reality is subjective IS saying it exists only in the mind. If you're going to use words, know what they mean.

Directly quoting Epicurus...

source (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm#Sensible%20Qualities)

[Epistemology

Ok....Epicurus was an ancient philosopher...why should I believe him? Why do you keep bringing him up? I know that saying it is subjective is saying it exist only the mind.

[COLOR=Red]Hmmm..... NOPE, I didn't say that. Let's take a history lesson, shall we...

I said that no one needs to listen to you because you make a claim and you're not sure of it yourself. You retorted with, "No one needs to listen to you either, as you are an even bigger idiot" which was not only an admittance of your idiocy, but a stupid thing to say. When I make claims, I do my best to illustrate my points with lucidity, with substance, with examples, with practical applications for the mesage[s] I'm trying to convey. You say reality is subjective yet when asked...

You're not making a claim; you're not saying anything, really.

No, you actually said:

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me.

It seems like when you try to make your point you do it with insults, twisting arguments, and taking everything literally.

I think you just did.

I didn't argue about it (but you just did).

I've already changed the wording of my question to "regard as true beyond doubt"..... why don't you quit strawmanning and answer.

You changed that after.

The weather wasn't my argument, it was the vessel to hammer home my point. You're a bright one, huh.

But it was used to illustrate your point, so how is arguing about the example used to illustrate your point strawmanning?

Well then how can you STRONGLY BELIEVE you can't trust the senses? What has led you to your conclusion is your senses, if you can't trust what has led you to this conclusion then how can you trust the conclusion? And try answering for a change, other than state things and then recant and say, "I strongly believe, though not for sure" (I put it into my own words, by the way). You're not making a claim if you do so, and you look foolish trusting your strong belief that you can't trust the senses when those very same senses have led you to that. You don't get it, do you. There's no excuse for this kind of stupidity. There really isn't.

Easy, I strongly believe I can't trust the senses, yet I use them anyway. My senses may have lead me to the conclusion, so I can't trust the conclusion either. It just seems logical really.

Now see, what is regarded as wasting time is subjective and different to everyone. The two seconds it takes to change the typing (which I would have to do anyway) from VitalOne to IdleOne not only does a good job to decry but it also saves me time in that I type in one less letter (though the time it saves me is not enough to be pertinent to anything, however). So no, I don't waste time, kid.

And how could it have offended me when I poked fun at your diction of prior posts. Think about that when you "right [sic] your name" next time. :D

Oh, ok, then you waste time decrying. Also, I could argue this entire argument is a waste of time as it seems that neither of us will change our views.

You did so in the second paragraph of your two paragraph post, the first was about desire; which was not pertinent to the topic at hand. I made it quite clear what I meant as I typed out "desire". You didn't need to tell me about desire, or even about the experience. Especially the experience/feeling crap because no one asked you to do so (except me, but I now take it back having realized no one asked you to do so prior to me, not squashbuckler, nobody). But if the desire bit had to do with your "experience" then let it stand, it is no longer pertinent because we've already established you were wrong having brought that up.

I made it quite clear that it was background information. Yes, I didn't need to tell you, but it's just background information. Oh, and before you asked me to explain the experience/feeling, so I did. You don't have to get all excited over an extra paragraph. How could I be wrong to bring up background information? It's just background information.

Well, because I figured that since I typed DESIRE, that what I meant would be quite lucid since I typed out DESIRE. Again, did I mention I put DESIRE as the subject of that particular post/paragraph..... well, yes, I think that goes without saying
Ok...sorry that you got all overly excited over an extra paragraph.

VitalOne

02-03-04, 09:55 PM

Now what the hell is that? You say 'exactly' as if that was your point when you first asked me this...

Exactly...

There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.

Yet you repeatly say that we don't know what makes up the mind, so how can you claim that your mind is dead if you get hit by a truck, if you don't know what makes up the mind?

How can you come with "exactly" when you were the one inferring that atoms make up the mind? Are you trying to cover your tracks and not look stupid? Initially you thought atoms to make up the mind (evident in your rhetorical question) and asked me this as if to bring it to my attention. I retorted with the facts - we don't know what makes up the mind - and you try to save face by acting as if you knew that. Fraud. :bugeye:
Objectively, atoms make up the brain, and at least effect the mind.

VitalOne

02-04-04, 01:41 PM

"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost.

Hey Squashbuckler, glad you're back. I explained it more in this post:

I'll try explaining something. Desire -> Suffering. If you take away desire, you also take away suffering. For instance, let's say you desire food, while desiring this food, you are suffering, when you get the food, and the desire is gone, the suffering is also gone (unless a new desire emerges). Selfishness, attachement, materialism are all related to desire. We naturally desire things, so to eliminate desire, in Buddhism you desire to not desire. This desire will ofcourse cause suffering also, but after you achieve a state where you no longer even think about thinking about desiring anything, then there will be no suffering.

Also, while in the sleeping state (that's not REM) we don't desire, we're not aware, we're not selfish, we're not happy, sad, etc..nothing exists for that period, not even time (to the person experiencing it). The best way to explain the state where you're completely unselfish, is like that sleeping state, except you're aware. I know you'll probably argue, or redicule this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

Besides, you know you can't really explain a feeling to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar to it.

VitalOne

02-04-04, 02:50 PM

Chalaco, I seem to be getting mixed information from you...

Contradiction 1:

Now, I am very far from a buddhist but yet, I do not fear death.

Yet when I say I don't fear death you reply with:

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple.

I don't think you, nor anyone, can really say that with certainty. You don't know what you will fear later, stop fooling yourself.

So you DO fear death, according you.

Contradiction 2:

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

It's just that IdleOne -- I mean VitalOne -- didn't even attempt to put it into words, if even in a pithy manner, it would've sufficed and allowed for further congregation.

You say these things, implying that you want me to further explain myself...but then you say...

I'll try explaining something. Desire -> Suffering. If you take away desire, you also take away suffering. For instance, let's say you desire food, while desiring this food, you are suffering, when you get the food, and the desire is gone, the suffering is also gone (unless a new desire emerges). Selfishness, attachement, materialism are all related to desire. We naturally desire things, so to eliminate desire, in Buddhism you desire to not desire. This desire will ofcourse cause suffering also, but after you achieve a state where you no longer even think about thinking about desiring anything, then there will be no suffering.

Also, while in the sleeping state (that's not REM) we don't desire, we're not aware, we're not selfish, we're not happy, sad, etc..nothing exists for that period, not even time (to the person experiencing it). The best way to explain the state where you're completely unselfish, is like that sleeping state, except you're aware. I know you'll probably argue, or redicule [SIC] this, but I'm just sharing information, you don't have to believe this.

Great. Now I'LL TRY EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU. I never brought up any of this desire crap, Squashbuckler did, you did, Canute did, Lucysnow did, NOT ME. Come at ME, or don't come at all. Fairly simple

The feeling was directly related to desire (unselfish, desireless feeling), exactly what you said you didn't bring up. That was in my first reply to your post.

Then at the end you try to get out of it:

Especially the experience/feeling crap because no one asked you to do so (except me, but I now take it back having realized no one asked you to do so prior to me, not squashbuckler, nobody).

By "taking it back". Also, no one directly asked you to post your views, so were you wrong in doing so?

Contradiction 3:

1. Death is annihilation.

Then you go on to say...

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed

Now, how would you know if death is anihilalation (destruction), if you have stated that Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed?
So which is it?

These are just a few I quickly found. I'm sure you'll simply say something like "these are my new views".

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:30 PM

So you're saying that you'd refuse to believe something even if there was concrete evidence to support it? Oh, and I'm not the type to call miss cleo.

Enough concrete evidence to get on TV; not enough to convince me.

I forgot the comma, it should be "complete, utter moron". Sorry that you couldn't figure that one out.

I obviously DID figure that one out. But the issue remains, "complete utter moron" even with the comma is nonsensical. Do I tell you, "you're veritably real.", or "an idiotic idiot", or "you're really real". No, for the simple fact that it's nonsensical. Saying something is complete, utter anything is ridiculous simply because 'utter' means complete/absolute. I'm sure you don't get all this, but take my word for it.

Hmmm....your personality and thoughts strongly influence your handwriting. Also, in a lot in criminal cases they compare handwriting to confirm if someone did write something like a letter. Now why would they do that if it "by no means, infers" that the same person wrote a document, letter, etc..?

I'd just as soon point out that you're typing like me (with your, "hmmm...") but that'll probably only encourage it more than it will perturb.

I said it does not infer me and the person with SIMILAR handwriting have the same conscious minds, duffer. Again, learn to read. I brought it up as a point of interest, and it is yet another example of your reading comprehension skills, or lack there of.

Ok, it was a boy.

You were wrong yet again. It was a boy, not "a former adult man".

Also, everyone has rights to be however intelligent they want to be. Why do you always insist on adding in comments not related to the discussion at all?

You're basically saying, "I have a right to be however intelligent or stupid I wish to be." because when you say 'everyone', that includes you. Good job, duffer; you've censured nothing. What does that say about what you think of your intelligence, that you're stupid but it's ok because you have the RIGHT to be that stupid? And they say high schools are doing a good job. This is just sad.

Ok, it supplied evidence (which is what you were asking for)

I never asked you for evidence, retard.

I never said it was factual.

Then why are you using this to support your reincarnation pseudo theory then??? :bugeye:

Why are you arguing for this article then?

If you admit it's not factual, or admit that you yourself don't even know it's factual then we are wasting time here. I've done my part to show you this isn't factual, and all along you knew that. Consider this article no longer a part of the discussion (chalk up another victory for me).

Hmm...you're saying that someone could've told the boy to continously tell his parents he was someone else, runaway from home, learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school), memorize a group of events, and force his handwriting to appear identical to the former boy's?

I'm not only saying that but I'm ALSO saying his parents could've told him, and the parents of the other dead boy could be in cahoots with them. They are poor, remember? Someone (anyone) could have told the boy all of those events, and I don't recall the article saying the boy handwrote something for Indian forensic scientist Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan to sample on the spot. It doesn't say whether he gave Chauhan an old putative piece of writing of his or something he wrote for him on the spot. I don't think I have to spell that one out for you. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, consider those ones too. If you insist on dismissing them, then you're not being objective and your opinion is no longer pertinent (not that it ever was).

learn how to read and write in multiple languages (before learning it in school)

Someone could've taught the boy the ALPHABETS of multiple languages (because it doesn't say he could read and write, retard).

from your article: "but yet when I told him to write the English and Punjabi alphabet, he wrote them correctly"

That's the SECOND time you've misread the article you gave, and the umpteenth time you've misread my point[s]. Your diction isn't exactly sublime neither. You're illiterate.

This is possible, but unlikely. Yes it could be a hoax, but there is more evidence than just this to suggest reincarnation.

But reincarnation IS likely?? :rolleyes:

The scenarios and possibilities I made reference to have happened and have been proven to have happened; reincarnation cannot say the same.

And it doesn't matter, if there's evidence for both and neither scenario has yet to be PROVEN, then you must consider everything, if not you aren’t being an objective judge.

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be undergoing mass investigation. Most scientists don't like investigating cases like these.

And I wonder why :rolleyes:

We don't know what makes up the mind, but we do have ways of finding out if someone's mind is similar.

Similar, maybe; but not identical.

Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another. The simplest thing to do would be comparing the minds of the dead with the minds of the living.

I'm laughing, yet again, at your poor excuse for a rebuttal..... oh and good luck comparing the mind of a DEAD BOY to one who is alive. I believe in you, you can do it.

There isn't "indisputable proof" of a lots of theories accepted in modern science.

What exactly does "of a lots of theories" mean to say? Stupid. Here's the word for the day: axiom. I would suggest thinking before you post and doing more research before you speak on science.

Also, your last sentence basically says there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation.

My last sentence was, "There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it". Which is to say, when actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation appears, then science will contrive a scientific way to prove reincarnation. Which is to say that there's no way to prove reincarnation YET, because if actual, indisputable proof were to appear then, obviously, there would be a way. Deduce the obvious conclusion next time, I'm getting tired of this.

You must not understand. They can both have conscious minds because they're the same person.

Funny, because you just contradicted yourself. Check, "Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another". So how can "the mind travel from one body to another" if "they can both have conscious minds"??? The mind travelling means it's just one mind, but now you're saying that it's two minds because they "both have conscious minds". Well, which one is it, is it the one mind travelling or is it that they both can have conscious minds? And what's this I hear about conscious minds? Only ONE OF THEM HAS A CONSCIOUS MIND. The one that's alive. Here's the definition for "conscious"...

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet

Give it up, dummy. Only one has a conscious mind because the other is DEAD!

Why do you even keep posting, it's obvious you're struggling at this point.

I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind.

Stupid, how can you compare a former conscious mind (which means it is no longer conscious) to one that is living. Have fun trying to figure that one out.

Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind. Obviously any idiot could see that I meant this.

Hmmm..... n0.

You have no idea what you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be struggling, searching for anything to use at this point. You can't compare the mind of a dead boy to one who is alive and expect to come out with actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation. Only one of them is alive, remember. All the "evidence" could simply mean something totally different than reincarnation. Any OBJECTIVE judge could see this. Your thought process is very linear, try thinking outside the box sometimes.

Debunk, waste time, what's the big difference?

I done told you before that what's considered wasting time is relative and subjective, not to mention different to everybody. You're a barrel of laughs, I laugh at you, then chide you subsequently. Making you look stupid is not wasting my time.

And for the record, here's what 'debunk' means...

de·bunk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

I see a BIG difference.

Lot's of people don't know because it's repressed anger, anger that get's stored into the subconscious because of some frustrating event. People often release a portion of this subconscious anger over little things that don't matter. Insulting someone is a form of releasing anger.

I know what repressed anger is and I know the effects of it, save your speech for someone else. Insulting you is funny; your posts are so asinine they're funny. And I think I'd know if I'm repressing any anger, pseudo-psychologist.

You seem to not be able to argue without insulting.

Sort of like how you can't go a post without bollocks and contradiction.

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:35 PM

Almost everytime you bring up quotes you point out contradictions.

Any idiot could see that I was not pointing out contradiction. I'm being serious now, you have no right to be this stupid. Try to brush up your skills on reading comprehension. Do you even know what contradiction means? Think back to that post, what in the world had you thinking I was trying to point out contradiction. There is just simply no excuse for all this. You're inept. Jut because I bring up contradictions (and not almost everytime) when I bring up quotes sometimes does not mean you should just ASSUME that everytime I bring up quotes that that's what I'm doing.

Speaking of which, I didn't bring up any quotes in that post. I made up a scenario to illustrate how inane it would be to use that cop-out.

In fact, how did you get me trying to point out a contradiction from this...
If you use the fucking experience garbage, then what is the point of posting in these forums.

person A: "Oh, I have something to say, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

person B: "That's where I think you're wrong, why did you say that, explain it further".

person A: "You have to experience it, you need to feel it".

I can already see it now. Stay idle, kid. It does you good.

Reading just ain't your thing, is it.

I wasn't strawmanning, I was using those as examples to point out how you can't explain the experience (and when I do further explain it you get angry and ask why I brought it up). My thought process is linear? Yours seems to be linear, as you have your mind set on proving me wrong (while I agree occaisonally) no matter what.

I asked you why brought up that desire garbage, for the last time learn to read. I told you in when I retorted to not bring up desire. I don't give a good god damn if it's "background" information, it's not pertinent. You just wanted to seem smart by reciting some stupid buddhist book. I even said, "desire crap", why would you think I meant the feeling/experience when I said 'desire crap'. Since when does 'desire crap' mean the 'feeling/experience' you had originally idiotically brough up? I don't care if it's background information. All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".

Desire was somethng you and squashbuckler were arguing about, I never had any part in such foolishness. The feeling of being "selfless" (which is not possible, mind you) would have sufficed and can be explained without that desire crap. And you know it can. Quit arguing, you've been caught, move on.

I didn't answer the questions? You should be the one learning to read as I clearly stated in my previous post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=27068&page=4&pp=20):

You said this...
And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this.

Nice answer, very thorough :rolleyes:

I even said "And to answer your question" with his quote above. Looks like you were completely wrong about this one (though you won't admit it, your mind's to weak to do that).

How about I meant you didn't provide THOROUGH answers; which is what answers SHOULD be anyways. Thought that went without saying, nudnick. You were just like because, "we have to...".

Sad.

He implied it simply here:

I trying to tell him that you have to experience not fearing death to know if you would be happy or appreciate life. Again, you can't go without insulting during an argument, can you?

Please :rolleyes:

Squashbuckler done told me he didn't imply that, you're searching. Quit now while you're behind, you're struggling at this point, it's almost vile.

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:37 PM

Congratulations! You have just wasted another paragraph.

What'd I tell you about wasting paragraphs and time? :bugeye: It's subjective.

Your mind is too weak to be able to admit when you're wrong, my mind isn't :) . So it's a good thing that I can admit when I'm wrong.

More like you're wrong because your mind is weak.

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:42 PM

Well dummy, I meant "So what?" as in So what if I agree? Do you have some type of subconscious desire to want me to disagree with you?

There you go again. I put, "well dummy" and your retort begins with, "well dummy". Well done.

I can waste all the time I want BTW.

Which is why 'IdleOne' is a very apt nom de plume. :D

Nice touch adding the internet colloquialism by the way; acronyms and abreviations are a nice touch, shows you're down with the internet lingo. :rolleyes:

I accidently included the "Altruism is specious" in the quote. Also, that's why in my previous post I said I partially agree, then I said I totally agreed because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

You've been caught, yet again, with your ankle in your mouth. Only cop-out you know is to say you just said agreed because you were too idle to explain what you meant? No wonder 'IdleOne' is the pseudonym I have bestowed upon you; you're worthless.

Face it, you agreed with me and when you're caught in a web of calumny, you cower. Why the hell would you even agree if you don't agree, just leaves you open to slander. You're, quite possibly, one of the worst debators I've ever come across..... who knows, you may just agree with me on that, only to take it back in a later post saying you posted that "because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to". Dumbass

I already explained the unselfish feeling in the post you said didn't ask me about.

Correction, I said I didn't ask for the desire crap which was more than half of your post (reading classes start next week; sign up).

It's not impossible to be unselfish. News Flash - People can do what's in their interest, and altruism can still not be specious.

Altruism is now no longer specious, you say? Hmmm....have a read
01-31-04, 11:29 PM
You said something. I agree partially about the altruism thing.
02-02-04, 02:52 PM
Ok, I don't partially agree, I totally agree.

And now you no longer agree? You sure know how to run around in circles, boy.

I never said all people do what's in their interest.

Actually, you did...02-03-04, 12:52 AM
I was agreeing that people do what's in their interest

If you didn't mean ALL people then you should have made that lucid, birdbrain. You're just lookign for an excuse not to look like a hypocrite.

Everything we do isn't selfish (Concerned chiefly or only with oneself). In altruism you're concerned more about the other person than yourself.

But why do you perform altruistic activities, because you obtain more pleasure from helping others than you would from serving your own interests. Ergo, you too are acting in a selfish manner. And also, you may feel guilty if you don't engage in altruism, you may feel like you're notbeing "moral", as they would have you believe. It can be said that happiness is a sense that everything is "right" happiness cannot exist with pain, fear, or guilt. You may fear that you're not "serving your fellow man" (as ridiculous as that notion is), you may feel guilty as a result of this, it may pain you emotionally. Altruists are happy when performing altruism, I think that's obvious. And if they're not, it may be because of a complexity they have that does not allow them to engage in other activities that without feeling pain, fear, or guilt.

Psychological Hedonism - people always act to maximize their own pleasure and avoid any pain, even if they fail to admit it.

selfish - Concerned chiefly or only with oneself. If she isn't concerned only with herself, then she isn't selfish. She wasn't only concerned about her happiness.

She was concerned only with herself, if she wasn't she wouldn't have gone to help all the indigent people she helped. She would've just stayed where ever she was and maybe got someone else to do it. You can't not be selfish. My oxford says selfishness is to be 'concerned chiefly or only with one's own interests or pleasure'. I've already shown you how this works with her, move on. I defy you to debunk my stance, don't just say it isn't, give me an example. Come with substance.

Oh and by the way, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you seem to think that denying it will make it go away. You run around in more circles than dogs on speed, you're worthless.

Now, you didn't think that I meant the second definition did you? I meant the first, not the second. It's a matter of differing definitions.

There you go again, repeating my first sentence in your rebuttal (a term of endearment if I ever knew one).

It's not a matter of differeing definitions, it's a matter of different denotations. The connotations I used was for the second denotation. So, we were both using two different connotations thinking we were using the same one. Now, I've rephrased my question to fit the denotation I implied, so as to make my question more lucid. Go ahead and answer the damn flippin' question!

I see no contradiction. Again, I was using definition one for know and known, not definition two, can't you get that through your head? By definition two there would a contradiction, but not by definition one. I can know reality is subjective, and I wouldn't be contradicting myself.

Of course you don't, you're stupid, remember? Now, allow me to retort. Do you regard that as true beyond doubt?

Ok....Epicurus was an ancient philosopher...why should I believe him? Why do you keep bringing him up?

Oh, so you're going to ignore all that just because he "was an ancient philosopher"? Don't be stupid. What I cited debunked your "can't trust the senses" theory, and how reality is not subjective (reading classes are almost full, hurry and sign up).

I know that saying it is subjective is saying it exist only the mind.

Then why did you say, " How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?". You put "or" as if the two mean something totally different from each other. Give it up, you've been caught, yet again.

No, you actually said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality beign subjective, so no one would need to listen to me.

I put, "First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality being subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory". What I meant, was that when someone says something that is fraudulent, no one needs to listen to them. I know 'reality is subjective' to be fraudulent, so that's what I meant. People need to listen to me when I back things up, not when I go off on some specious metaphysics. Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage.

It seems like when you try to make your point you do it with insults, twisting arguments, and taking everything literally.

So let me get this straight, I shouldn't take everything literally? I shouldn't take it in candour, should I take it in jest? This isn't comedy central, this is sciforums, get serious. If you're not going to post things that should be taken literally, then post them on your wall. I swear you're just so painfully dumb.

I didn't argue about it (but you just did).

No one said you argued about it, simpleton. You first said, "Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one". I stated in my rebuttal, "I think you just did". Which is to say you wasted your time by giving your own "worthless statement". No one said you argued. I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious. Henceforth, prior to replying to my posts, read them three times, carefully and slowly.

You changed that after.

I didn't change anything, really. We were both using correct denotations, just not the same one. In that regard, we were both wrong. So, to avoid letting you use that scapegoat, I changed my question to specifically meet the connotation/denotation I meant. I'll ask again...

Do you regard as true beyond doubt that nothing can be regarded as true beyond doubt? If you answer with no, then you are not making a claim. How myopic can you be? You answer no, then you're not making a claim. You answer yes, and you are contradicting yourself.

But it was used to illustrate your point, so how is arguing about the example used to illustrate your point strawmanning?

If I use a pencil to show you a math equation, don't argue against the pencil, question the math problem. If you're going to point out the fact that no one can know for sure what the weather will be like, you're ignoring my point entirely. Which was, what's the point of paying mind to someone who will tell you something as being this or that, and then when asked if he/she regards this to be true beyond, he/she replies with, 'no'. It's inane. You're just nit-picking, going after the uncertainty that is obvious about the weather. Pay attention.

Easy, I strongly believe I can't trust the senses, yet I use them anyway. My senses may have lead me to the conclusion, so I can't trust the conclusion either. It just seems logical really.

AH HA! Por fin! You admit to your own folly. Now, tell me, IdleOne, if you can't trust your own conclusion, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, trust it, or you, as well? By now, you should be getting the point, if not, you're hopeless and a lost cause.

Oh, ok, then you waste time decrying. Also, I could argue this entire argument is a waste of time as it seems that neither of us will change our views.

I actually save time as it saves me one less letter to type in. And you admitting to your own obstinacy just makes it more overt that you're not being an objective judge/debator.

I made it quite clear that it was background information. Yes, I didn't need to tell you, but it's just background information. Oh, and before you asked me to explain the experience/feeling, so I did. You don't have to get all excited over an extra paragraph. How could I be wrong to bring up background information? It's just background information.

Actually, you DIDN'T make it clear it was background information, and regardless of what information it was, it was not pertinent nor requested.

Ok...sorry that you got all overly excited over an extra paragraph.

I just don't like it when people feel the need to bring up redundant crap. And yes, it was redundant.

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:46 PM

Exactly...

Again :rolleyes:

Yet you repeatly say that we don't know what makes up the mind, so how can you claim that your mind is dead if you get hit by a truck, if you don't know what makes up the mind?

There's empirical evidence that leans to the possibility/suggests that your mind will cease to exist after getting hit by a truck, sparky.

Objectively, atoms make up the brain, and at least effect the mind.

Said mind, not brain.

Chalaco

02-06-04, 04:51 PM

Hey Squashbuckler, glad you're back. I explained it more in this post:

Besides, you know you can't really explain a feeling to someone who hasn't experienced anything similar to it.

The man just called you "lost". Wrote why he feels you're lost. And you welcome him back by saying you're "glad" he's back? :eek:

"experience that feeling, it can't really be explained"
"Desire -> suffering"

Do we really need to go any further on those statements? The man is lost

Newsflash, Squashbuckler knows you're a charlatan (as do I).

Look at this sap trying to play it off as if he's still got some dignity left in him. :rolleyes:

Chalaco

02-06-04, 05:36 PM

Chalaco, I seem to be getting mixed information from you...

Contradiction 1:

Yet when I say I don't fear death you reply with:

So you DO fear death, according you.

Please :rolleyes: I've already stated that I fear death and already recanted my previous stance on the issue

Here's a thought, try looking up the words present in my posts if you don't understand them. I've posted before that I RECANT my previous stance on death, here's a memory refresher...

Apropos, I now recant my stance on death, I fear it will be of no interest to me and not conducive to my happiness, thus I do fear it. However, its inevitability does not cause me distress. I just feel that engaging in an activity that will lead to my death (i.e. suicide) as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to my current interests. I fear I will not enjoy it and it will take time (an eternity's worth) away from my other - more important - interests.

Now, I shan't hear no talk of, "see, I told you so". I am man enough to put sapience ahead of pride, however, the one to prove Epicurus wrong and debunk his stance on death was me, not any of you. For you see, when I posted this...

You fear going to the store at four in the morning because you're too tired and maybe don't want to get up and be tired the next morning because of a late night trip to the store, or maybe you fear that it will be of no interest to you. I wouldn't dare, actually I just "don't right [SIC] my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times" because I do fear it, I fear it will be boring and tiresome. 'Sides, I'd rather LEFT my name on a sheet of paper 1,000 times. Stupid.

Really, it's simple hedonism here, if you don't want to do it, it's because you fear it will not bring you anything good. Hedonism. Plain and simple. If this TOO goes over your head, I will begin to refer it as your dunce cap, it goes over your head, and indicates your level of intelligence (that's a good one, and to think, it came to me just now).

I came to realize it debunks Epicurus' whole stance on death and mine too. I've told you my new stance. Now, as for the whole desire bit, take that up with Squashbuckler because I have yet to bring that up or argue for or against any of that crap. I came into the game on the altruism, anti-skeptic arguments, and the fear of death. I've recanted on the latter, but if any of you wish to offer anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal, make sure to bring up MY points, not squashbucklers, not anybody else's.
01-31-04, 03:27 AM

That takes care of that, consider this putative contradiction you speak of defenestrated (tossed out the window).

Contradiction 2:

You say these things, implying that you want me to further explain myself...but then you say...

The feeling was directly related to desire (unselfish, desireless feeling), exactly what you said you didn't bring up. That was in my first reply to your post.

Please :rolleyes:

EVERY feeling can be, and is, directly related to desire, you dope. There was no excuse for the redundance, stop searching.

Then at the end you try to get out of it:

By "taking it back".

I took it back because I realized you were lying when you said he asked you to explain this putative "feeling/experience" you spoke of. You even admitted to lying...

I want to know WHEN and WHERE he asked you this! :bugeye:

He never did. It was completely wrong to say it the way I did.

Also, no one directly asked you to post your views, so were you wrong in doing so?

I don't digress; you do, there's a difference.

Contradiction 3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

1. Death is annihilation

Yeah, I was citing Epicurus' stance on death, which I happened to share at the time. But then, here's the tricky part, you ready for this?............................ I RECANTED!. So there's no contradiction.

Then you go on to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalaco

Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed

Now, how would you know if death is anihilalation (destruction), if you have stated that Death of the mind can't be proven to be conserved or destroyed?
So which is it?

Hmmmm, considering I've since RECANTED that stance it doesn't make it a contradiction.

There's empirical evidence to the mind ending one the body passes away. I am an empiricist. Now, I don't know for sure, with certainty, and since I've recanted my Epicurian stance on death. And unlike you, or Epicurus, I shan't claim to know what happens to the mind once one passes away.

These are just a few I quickly found. I'm sure you'll simply say something like "these are my new views".

Funny, I make a post about YOUR contradictions (which you have yet to prove as being otherwise) and, lo and behold (and that is the correct spelling), you make a post about my putative "contradictions". Well guess what, stooge? They weren't contradictions and you look even stupider (didn't think that was possible up until now).

You're trying to do what I do, but there's just one problem: even if you wore size thirty six you couldn't fit in these shoes.

You struck out on this one. Three times you tried pointing out stuff that just wasn't there. All you did was libel me, and even that doesn't phase me. Better luck next time.

Just in case you're wondering, the definition for recant is as follows...

re·cant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-knt)
v. re·cant·ed, re·cant·ing, re·cants
v. tr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).

VitalOne

02-06-04, 09:05 PM

Enough concrete evidence to get on TV; not enough to convince me.

Ok. So you're the type that only believes something if some higher class of scientists believe it?

I obviously DID figure that one out. But the issue remains, "complete utter moron" even with the comma is nonsensical. Do I tell you, "you're veritably real.", or "an idiotic idiot", or "you're really real". No, for the simple fact that it's nonsensical. Saying something is complete, utter anything is ridiculous simply because 'utter' means complete/absolute. I'm sure you don't get all this, but take my word for it.

Really? I found a writer using "complete, utter" - http://www.dailyevergreen.com/nn4/news/index.asp?Story_ID=7536. I also found it on U.S. Senator John McCain's site - http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=499. Now, it's obvious that you're wrong.

I'd just as soon point out that you're typing like me (with your, "hmmm...") but that'll probably only encourage it more than it will perturb.

I said it does not infer me and the person with SIMILAR handwriting have the same conscious minds, duffer. Again, learn to read. I brought it up as a point of interest, and it is yet another example of your reading comprehension skills, or lack there of.

Hmm...I know you said a person with similar handwriting, that's why I only quoted the "by no means, infers" part (that's so obvious). No other arguments?

You were wrong yet again. It was a boy, not "a former adult man".

That's why I said "Ok, it was a boy".

You're basically saying, "I have a right to be however intelligent or stupid I wish to be." because when you say 'everyone', that includes you. Good job, duffer; you've censured nothing. What does that say about what you think of your intelligence, that you're stupid but it's ok because you have the RIGHT to be that stupid? And they say high schools are doing a good job. This is just sad.

Yes (to the first sentence), and No (to the third sentence), I was simply answering your question. Old people really are grumpy.

I never asked you for evidence, retard.

True, but you clearly stated:

There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.

By challenging my statement, you were basically asking me to provide evidence to back my claims up.

Then why are you using this to support your reincarnation pseudo theory then??? :bugeye:

Why are you arguing for this article then?

If you admit it's not factual, or admit that you yourself don't even know it's factual then we are wasting time here. I've done my part to show you this isn't factual, and all along you knew that. Consider this article no longer a part of the discussion (chalk up another victory for me).

I was claiming that it was credible, but not completely factual. I was claiming that it was evidence. Another victory for me!

I'm not only saying that but I'm ALSO saying his parents could've told him, and the parents of the other dead boy could be in cahoots with them. They are poor, remember? Someone (anyone) could have told the boy all of those events, and I don't recall the article saying the boy handwrote something for Indian forensic scientist Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan to sample on the spot. It doesn't say whether he gave Chauhan an old putative piece of writing of his or something he wrote for him on the spot. I don't think I have to spell that one out for you. If you wish to consider all possible scenarios, consider those ones too. If you insist on dismissing them, then you're not being objective and your opinion is no longer pertinent (not that it ever was).

Like I said, These are possible, but unlikely.

Someone could've taught the boy the ALPHABETS of multiple languages (because it doesn't say he could read and write, retard).

from your article: "but yet when I told him to write the English and Punjabi alphabet, he wrote them correctly"

That's the SECOND time you've misread the article you gave, and the umpteenth time you've misread my point[s]. Your diction isn't exactly sublime neither. You're illiterate.

Well, if he can write in other languages (correctly), then it's safe to assume that he can read in the others too.

But reincarnation IS likely?? :rolleyes:

The scenarios and possibilities I made reference to have happened and have been proven to have happened; reincarnation cannot say the same.

And it doesn't matter, if there's evidence for both and neither scenario has yet to be PROVEN, then you must consider everything, if not you aren?t being an objective judge.

It's like how the Big Bang theory is likely because other data corresponds with it. Or how the theory of evolution is likely because there's a lot of evidence to support it. As I said, it is possible that it is a hoax.

And I wonder why :rolleyes:

So you basically admitted that you were wrong (without saying it, like I said you would).

Similar, maybe; but not identical.

Yes.

I'm laughing, yet again, at your poor excuse for a rebuttal..... oh and good luck comparing the mind of a DEAD BOY to one who is alive. I believe in you, you can do it.

You use traces of the person's thoughts leftover.

What exactly does "of a lots of theories" mean to say? Stupid. Here's the word for the day: axiom. I would suggest thinking before you post and doing more research before you speak on science.

Typo, I meant "lot" not "lots". You have made typos as well, but I was kind of not to point them out (I'd rather concentrate on the real argument).

My last sentence was, "There's no scientific way to prove re-incarnation, because there hasn't been actual, indisputable proof of it". Which is to say, when actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation appears, then science will contrive a scientific way to prove reincarnation. Which is to say that there's no way to prove reincarnation YET, because if actual, indisputable proof were to appear then, obviously, there would be a way. Deduce the obvious conclusion next time, I'm getting tired of this.

Like I said you basically said, "there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation".

Funny, because you just contradicted yourself. Check, "Well, reincarnation says that the mind travels from one body to another". So how can "the mind travel from one body to another" if "they can both have conscious minds"??? The mind travelling means it's just one mind, but now you're saying that it's two minds because they "both have conscious minds". Well, which one is it, is it the one mind travelling or is it that they both can have conscious minds? And what's this I hear about conscious minds? Only ONE OF THEM HAS A CONSCIOUS MIND. The one that's alive. Here's the definition for "conscious"...

con·scious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knshs)
adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet

Give it up, dummy. Only one has a conscious mind because the other is DEAD!

Why do you even keep posting, it's obvious you're struggling at this point.

Struggling? I don't think so. It's obvious that I meant their former conscious mind compared to the the living conscious mind (which are the same minds).

I even said:

I meant the former conscious mind compared to the living conscious mind. Like you said, the whole idea of reincarnation is that it's the same mind. So they'd be comparing the traces of the former mind to the living mind.

Stupid, how can you compare a former conscious mind (which means it is no longer conscious) to one that is living. Have fun trying to figure that one out.

Easy, use traces of the former conscious mind (eg...things written by that person), and compare them to traces of the conscious mind.

Hmmm..... n0.

You have no idea what you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be struggling, searching for anything to use at this point. You can't compare the mind of a dead boy to one who is alive and expect to come out with actual, indisputable proof of reincarnation. Only one of them is alive, remember. All the "evidence" could simply mean something totally different than reincarnation. Any OBJECTIVE judge could see this. Your thought process is very linear, try thinking outside the box sometimes.

I'm not struggling (I'm actually quite relaxed). I already said that it was disputable, so what are you arguing about?

I done told you before that what's considered wasting time is relative and subjective, not to mention different to everybody. You're a barrel of laughs, I laugh at you, then chide you subsequently. Making you look stupid is not wasting my time.

And for the record, here's what 'debunk' means...

de·bunk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

I see a BIG difference.

Again, I see no big difference (it is subjective, though).

I know what repressed anger is and I know the effects of it, save your speech for someone else. Insulting you is funny; your posts are so asinine they're funny. And I think I'd know if I'm repressing any anger, pseudo-psychologist.

A lot of people don't know if they are repressing anger or not. Hmm...you're saying that insulting me gives you pleasure....this still points toward some type of psychological disorder.

Sort of like how you can't go a post without bollocks and contradiction.
I could say the same about you.

VitalOne

02-06-04, 09:32 PM

Any idiot could see that I was not pointing out contradiction. I'm being serious now, you have no right to be this stupid. Try to brush up your skills on reading comprehension. Do you even know what contradiction means? Think back to that post, what in the world had you thinking I was trying to point out contradiction. There is just simply no excuse for all this. You're inept. Jut because I bring up contradictions (and not almost everytime) when I bring up quotes sometimes does not mean you should just ASSUME that everytime I bring up quotes that that's what I'm doing.

Speaking of which, I didn't bring up any quotes in that post. I made up a scenario to illustrate how inane it would be to use that cop-out.

You sound like a dictator, who wants to control everyones' actions (or at least mine). I thought you were trying to point out a contradiction because all you did was give your scenario, next to my quote, letting the example speak for itself.

In fact, how did you get me trying to point out a contradiction from this...

Stated above.

Reading just ain't your thing, is it.

No.

I asked you why brought up that desire garbage, for the last time learn to read. I told you in when I retorted to not bring up desire. I don't give a good god damn if it's "background" information, it's not pertinent. You just wanted to seem smart by reciting some stupid buddhist book. I even said, "desire crap", why would you think I meant the feeling/experience when I said 'desire crap'. Since when does 'desire crap' mean the 'feeling/experience' you had originally idiotically brough up? I don't care if it's background information. All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".

Desire was somethng you and squashbuckler were arguing about, I never had any part in such foolishness. The feeling of being "selfless" (which is not possible, mind you) would have sufficed and can be explained without that desire crap. And you know it can. Quit arguing, you've been caught, move on.

The experience is directly related to desire (desireless feeling). Uhm..I don't have any Buddhist books. Sorry for supplying background information, gosh. Again, why are you so pressed on controlling my actions ("All you had to do was explain what you meant by being "selfless".").

Nice answer, very thorough :rolleyes:

Strawmanning, and you will never admit when you're wrong, will you? Also, I answered with more:

And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.

How about I meant you didn't provide THOROUGH answers; which is what answers SHOULD be anyways. Thought that went without saying, nudnick. You were just like because, "we have to...".

Sad.

Stop strawmanning. If your first statement is true, then why didn't you just "thoroughly" say so? Your second statement is your opinion. Also, my answer explains it clearly, it is forced on us, it's just like asking why do anything if we're just going to die.

Please :rolleyes:

Squashbuckler done told me he didn't imply that, you're searching. Quit now while you're behind, you're struggling at this point, it's almost vile.
He clearly did challenge my claim. And please, if Squashbuckler has to say something, he will.

VitalOne

02-06-04, 09:35 PM

What'd I tell you about wasting paragraphs and time? :bugeye: It's subjective.

Exactly, so that was my subjective opinion :rolleyes:

More like you're wrong because your mind is weak.
No, it takes a stronger mind to admit when they are wrong. Anyone can admit that they're right.

VitalOne

02-06-04, 10:11 PM

There you go again. I put, "well dummy" and your retort begins with, "well dummy". Well done.

I did it on purpose, dummy.

Which is why 'IdleOne' is a very apt nom de plume. :D

Nice touch adding the internet colloquialism by the way; acronyms and abreviations are a nice touch, shows you're down with the internet lingo.

English Please :D. You knowing that it was internet lingo, shows that you're also down with internet lingo (or you did some quick research).

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You've been caught, yet again, with your ankle in your mouth. Only cop-out you know is to say you just said agreed because you were too idle to explain what you meant? No wonder 'IdleOne' is the pseudonym I have bestowed upon you; you're worthless.

Face it, you agreed with me and when you're caught in a web of calumny, you cower. Why the hell would you even agree if you don't agree, just leaves you open to slander. You're, quite possibly, one of the worst debators I've ever come across..... who knows, you may just agree with me on that, only to take it back in a later post saying you posted that "because I didn't feel like explaining which parts I agreed to". Dumbass

Just as you were caught "with your ankle in your mouth" quoting me about the experience stuff. It was an accident, just as you accidently included an entire 2nd paragraph, I accidently included "altruism is specious". You're the one who constantly takes back their statements, and I'm the worst debator?

Correction, I said I didn't ask for the desire crap which was more than half of your post (reading classes start next week; sign up).

Desire is directly related to being desireless. The feeling is directly related to desire.

Altruism is now no longer specious, you say? Hmmm....have a read
01-31-04, 11:29 PM
02-02-04, 02:52 PM .

And now you no longer agree? You sure know how to run around in circles, boy.

Sheesh, I already cleared that part up (and you say I can't read). Just as you take back your statements (more than I have, BTW).

Actually, you did...02-03-04, 12:52 AM

If you didn't mean ALL people then you should have made that lucid, birdbrain. You're just lookign for an excuse not to look like a hypocrite.

It's quite obvious that I didn't say ALL people (again, and I can't read?). If I don't say all people, then you don't assume all people (this is just too obvious). That's like me saying "People brush their teeth" and you interpreting it as "ALL People brush their teeth".

But why do you perform altruistic activities, because you obtain more pleasure from helping others than you would from serving your own interests. Ergo, you too are acting in a selfish manner. And also, you may feel guilty if you don't engage in altruism, you may feel like you're notbeing "moral", as they would have you believe. It can be said that happiness is a sense that everything is "right" happiness cannot exist with pain, fear, or guilt. You may fear that you're not "serving your fellow man" (as ridiculous as that notion is), you may feel guilty as a result of this, it may pain you emotionally. Altruists are happy when performing altruism, I think that's obvious. And if they're not, it may be because of a complexity they have that does not allow them to engage in other activities that without feeling pain, fear, or guilt.

Psychological Hedonism - people always act to maximize their own pleasure and avoid any pain, even if they fail to admit it.

You don't necessarily obtain more pleasure out of it. No, you don't even think about expecting anything out of helping others, or feeling guilty. It's like doing without thinking about doing.

She was concerned only with herself, if she wasn't she wouldn't have gone to help all the indigent people she helped. She would've just stayed where ever she was and maybe got someone else to do it. You can't not be selfish. My oxford says selfishness is to be 'concerned chiefly or only with one's own interests or pleasure'. I've already shown you how this works with her, move on. I defy you to debunk my stance, don't just say it isn't, give me an example. Come with substance.

Oh and by the way, you contradicted yourself earlier and now you seem to think that denying it will make it go away. You run around in more circles than dogs on speed, you're worthless.

There really is no way to prove that she was or wasn't chiefly concerned with herself. But it is obvious that she was chiefly concerned about others. I didn't contradict myself earlier.

There you go again, repeating my first sentence in your rebuttal (a term of endearment if I ever knew one).

It's not a matter of differeing definitions, it's a matter of different denotations. The connotations I used was for the second denotation. So, we were both using two different connotations thinking we were using the same one. Now, I've rephrased my question to fit the denotation I implied, so as to make my question more lucid. Go ahead and answer the damn flippin' question!

I do it on purpose to mock you (obviously). I already answered the question.

Of course you don't, you're stupid, remember? Now, allow me to retort. Do you regard that as true beyond doubt?

No, I don't.

Oh, so you're going to ignore all that just because he "was an ancient philosopher"? Don't be stupid. What I cited debunked your "can't trust the senses" theory, and how reality is not subjective (reading classes are almost full, hurry and sign up).

That doesn't debunk how reality isn't subjective at all, it's just his belief that reality is external. You ignore the "desire crap" because you said no one ever asked for it. Well, no one never asked you to bring up Epicurus, yet you did, so you were wrong in doing so.

Then why did you say, " How did you prove that reality isn't subjective (or exists only in the mind)?". You put "or" as if the two mean something totally different from each other. Give it up, you've been caught, yet again.

No, I didn't, I put or as in a similar meaning. "Give it up, you've been caught, yet again."

I put, "First off, I wasn't the one making claims about reality being subjective, so no one would need to listen to me. I did, however, debunk your pseudo-theory". What I meant, was that when someone says something that is fraudulent, no one needs to listen to them. I know 'reality is subjective' to be fraudulent, so that's what I meant. People need to listen to me when I back things up, not when I go off on some specious metaphysics. Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage.
I back things up, you don't and you constantly change your mind. "Try deducing the obvious conclusion on your own next time, I've done it so many times for you, I think, by now, you can manage."

So let me get this straight, I shouldn't take everything literally? I shouldn't take it in candour, should I take it in jest? This isn't comedy central, this is sciforums, get serious. If you're not going to post things that should be taken literally, then post them on your wall. I swear you're just so painfully dumb.

No, you shouldn't take everything literally. You should take it as it's obvious meaning. For instance, if I say "keep your eye on the clock" it does not mean to literally put your eye on a clock, but to look at the clock.

No one said you argued about it, simpleton. You first said, "Ok....man you argue about every little worthless statement. Won't waste my time with this pointless one". I stated in my rebuttal, "I think you just did". Which is to say you wasted your time by giving your own "worthless statement". No one said you argued. I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious. Henceforth, prior to replying to my posts, read them three times, carefully and slowly.

You didn't say which statement you were talking about (not being thorough with answers). "I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious."

I didn't change anything, really. We were both using correct denotations, just not the same one. In that regard, we were both wrong. So, to avoid letting you use that scapegoat, I changed my question to specifically meet the connotation/denotation I meant. I'll ask again...

Do you regard as true beyond doubt that nothing can be regarded as true beyond doubt? If you answer with no, then you are not making a claim. How myopic can you be? You answer no, then you're not making a claim. You answer yes, and you are contradicting yourself.

I already answered this question...no.

If I use a pencil to show you a math equation, don't argue against the pencil, question the math problem. If you're going to point out the fact that no one can know for sure what the weather will be like, you're ignoring my point entirely. Which was, what's the point of paying mind to someone who will tell you something as being this or that, and then when asked if he/she regards this to be true beyond, he/she replies with, 'no'. It's inane. You're just nit-picking, going after the uncertainty that is obvious about the weather. Pay attention.

I argued against the math problem, or the actual example. Many scientist don't think their statements are true beyond a doubt, but people listen to them. "Pay attention."

AH HA! Por fin! You admit to your own folly. Now, tell me, IdleOne, if you can't trust your own conclusion, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, trust it, or you, as well? By now, you should be getting the point, if not, you're hopeless and a lost cause.

No one can trust their conclusion, so believing me would be like believing any other person.

.

I actually save time as it saves me one less letter to type in. And you admitting to your own obstinacy just makes it more overt that you're not being an objective judge/debator.

I'm getting tired of this. I meant you waste time wanting call me "Idle".

Actually, you DIDN'T make it clear it was background information, and regardless of what information it was, it was not pertinent nor requested.

Well if it wasn't directly related, anyone could easily conclude that it was background information since it is indirectly related.

I just don't like it when people feel the need to bring up redundant crap. And yes, it was redundant.
[/QUOTE]
Like this redundant statement.

VitalOne

02-06-04, 10:15 PM

There's empirical evidence that leans to the possibility/suggests that your mind will cease to exist after getting hit by a truck, sparky.

Making it as possible as reincarnation. :D

Said mind, not brain.
And I said it affects the mind. Objectively the brain is the only thing close to being the mind.

VitalOne

02-06-04, 10:18 PM

The man just called you "lost". Wrote why he feels you're lost. And you welcome him back by saying you're "glad" he's back? :eek:

And I can't be friendly because...? But I understand, you want to control my actions (even something like that).

Newsflash, Squashbuckler knows you're a charlatan (as do I).

Look at this sap trying to play it off as if he's still got some dignity left in him. :rolleyes:
Who were you talking about? And if it wasn't me, why did you quote Squashbuckler and say "Look at this sap".

VitalOne

02-06-04, 10:40 PM

Please :rolleyes: I've already stated that I fear death and already recanted my previous stance on the issue

Here's a thought, try looking up the words present in my posts if you don't understand them. I've posted before that I RECANT my previous stance on death, here's a memory refresher...

That takes care of that, consider this putative contradiction you speak of defenestrated (tossed out the window).

So basically I can't trust your statements because you may just recant them? Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Please :rolleyes:

EVERY feeling can be, and is, directly related to desire, you dope. There was no excuse for the redundance, stop searching.

But the feeling was exclusively related to desire, because it is the "desireles" feeling.

I took it back because I realized you were lying when you said he asked you to explain this putative "feeling/experience" you spoke of. You even admitted to lying...

I already cleared up why I said that. Do I need to do it again (that would be redundant)? He challenged my claim, and by challenging my claim, he indirectly asked me to prove my statement. Also, I said it was " completely wrong to say it the way I did".

I don't digress; you do, there's a difference.

Desire was directly related, again.

Yeah, I was citing Epicurus' stance on death, which I happened to share at the time. But then, here's the tricky part, you ready for this?............................ I RECANTED!. So there's no contradiction.

Hmmmm, considering I've since RECANTED that stance it doesn't make it a contradiction.

There's empirical evidence to the mind ending one the body passes away. I am an empiricist. Now, I don't know for sure, with certainty, and since I've recanted my Epicurian stance on death. And unlike you, or Epicurus, I shan't claim to know what happens to the mind once one passes away.

Where did you say that you recant your stance on what happens to the mind after death? All you seemed to have did was say two contradicting statements. There's empirical evidence to support a lot of things. When I did I claim to know what happens when you die?

Funny, I make a post about YOUR contradictions (which you have yet to prove as being otherwise) and, lo and behold (and that is the correct spelling), you make a post about my putative "contradictions". Well guess what, stooge? They weren't contradictions and you look even stupider (didn't think that was possible up until now).

You're trying to do what I do, but there's just one problem: even if you wore size thirty six you couldn't fit in these shoes.

You struck out on this one. Three times you tried pointing out stuff that just wasn't there. All you did was libel me, and even that doesn't phase me. Better luck next time.

Just in case you're wondering, the definition for recant is as follows...

re·cant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-knt)
v. re·cant·ed, re·cant·ing, re·cants
v. tr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).
I've proved all the contradictions as being otherwise.
:rolleyes:
Also, you actually look more stupid because it shows that you constantly recant your statements, showing that no one should believe what you say because you might just recant it later on.

viet2004

03-11-04, 03:37 AM

viet2004

03-11-04, 03:53 AM

These are the ideas that you reject?

Dude, you ever read the study The Church of Satan's philosphical system? I sounds very similar to Rand's ideas. Everything is very self centered. It's the most illogical system I have ever encountered. Check it out sometime.

"Love and respect only those who deserve it."
"If you do something unlawful, don't get caught. If you do get caught, you deserve it."
"Stupid people don't deserve love"

Of course these are just paraphrases from what I read. You should check it out for yourself to get the original writings, I may have misread some of it. But since I wish you the best for your life, I thought I'd let you know that there is/are doctrines besides Rand's that may suit you more. BTW, I ain't religious.

:D

viet2004

03-11-04, 03:56 AM

I used to love eastern philosophy. My best friends(and myself) used to practice zen buddhism. Please heed my advice, and read the one book that will save you, and change your life forever.
If you care about your well-being, youll read it, if you dont, then, you cannot be helped anyway.
My friend refuses to read it. He prefers to run from his fear and practice an irrational discipline: Buddhism.

READ THIS : " For the new intelectual" By AYN RAND.

READ ANYTHING BY AYN RAND.

Yeah, I read this in junior highschool and thought it was quite genius. But as long as I tried to follow it's principles, I encountered more suffering than before I read the damn thing. Oh, well, live and learn. Ayn is pretty intelligent, but she is not even close to being wise. I hope you can see the difference.

:D

viet2004

03-11-04, 04:28 AM

It is senseless to have a discussion with you if you refuse to believe that things can be known. "if you prick us do we not bleed?"

If you stand back and take a look at the flaws that i have mentioned, you will understand that elimination of the ego will ultimately lead to a lack of self-esteem, among other problems. If you care to learn WHY IT WILL, Im not going to waste my time typing it to you when you can simply go out and buy " honoring the self" by nathanial brandon.

doesnt it seem self evident why reducing attachment towards your life wont help you? The same with the elimination of desire? or being humble?
Is it not true that buddhism wants to bring you to the stage of an animal. where you no longer try to think, only try to keep an empty mind.
That stage is like an animal, but an animal without an ID!

How can you remove the ID? you cannot! IT is programmed in us all. The repression of desire will inevitably lead to a conflict between the ego and the superego. A buddhism super ego seems to be merely blocking off the desires of the ID.

So where does your happiness come from? the elimination of your desires? ??
Happiness is having nothing at all? that makes much sense.

Anyhow, Id rather have the whole world as buddhist as opposed to any other religion.

Man, I gotta tellya, I really, really (hmmm, used 2 reallys in one sentence...) like you. You are extremely entertaining! I DON'T MEAN THAT IN AN OFFENSIVE WAY AT ALL. I can't stop laughing, I'm new here so I haven't read all of your posts, but if they are all similar to what I've read so far, I won't have to go to any comedy clubs for an entire year! Whhewww!

You might wanna check or read more carefully about Buddhist doctrine before asserting that Buddhism teaches humans to not honor themselves. Not only does it teach you to honor yourself (the relative/conventional self), but it teaches that you should honor yourself by honoring others.

"Everywhere we go in the world, we find no one more important and valuable than ourself. Since everyman is so valuable to himself, let no one harm another..."

"See yourself in others, then what harm can you do?"

Joy and happiness, pleasure and enjoyment, there is nothing wrong with each of these things, it is only clinging to such things that cause you suffering. Why? because eventually, those things will change. Since all compounded things are impermanent, if you cling to such sensations/objects , it will cause you great suffering. Like wise, nothing is bad about having money or nice cars etc. It's the clinging to these things that will f-you up. Your car might get dented etc...

If you understand it as it actually is, when you are happy, you understand, "this is happiness" ...when you feel enjoyment, you understand "this is enjoyment" there is no problem. But when you feel enjoyment and fear its ceasing because of your attachment to the sensation, you are bound to suffer because it will eventually change.

viet2004

03-11-04, 04:34 AM

<<<I am crazy enough to believe in myself.>>>
Peace Out

Hey Moe, it's very good that you believe in yourself. The Buddha's last words were..."Monks, be an island unto yourselves, a lamp unto yourselves. All compounded things are impermanent, strive diligently for your liberation."

viet2004

03-11-04, 06:30 AM

Oh man, Chalaco, first let me complement you on your extremely agile mind! It is marvelous that you are so learned and intelligent. You're extremely articulate...so much so that I am very nervous of any typos in this post...

Now that the due complements are done, let's get down to business shall we?

<<< 1. Death is annihilation.
2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)
>>>

So it was said by you in regards to death. May I ask if you believe or accept scientific laws?
Such as..oh I don't know...how about -The law of conservation of mass and energy?

Based on no religious doctrine all, this makes your assumption that death=annihilation utterly
preposterous. So...proven science-not religious myth- has automatically voided your #1 and therefore #2 statement.
Ok, I better make sure we are on the same level here.
"Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states..."
Your body and brain is considered matter.
Your mind is considered energy based, since neuroelectricity is what makes it tick.

>>3. Death does not affect the living.

Sorry, wrong again dude. Death affects the living in every moment of their entire lives literally.
There is no time in which cells do not die and regenerate. Since that is so, each moment you are not the same person as the previous.

>>4. So, death is not bad for the living.

Well, here you used a subjective word "bad". Can't do that Mr. "Objectivist". As you so stated, in somewhat similar terms, what is painful for one person may be pleasurable for another...Ooops, so sorry Grasshopper!
So what is an "objective" word that we might be able to use? How about
suffering? Now that's what I call an absolute, what do you think ehh? Now wait! Let's see if we can argue about the word suffering..hmm. You were quite astute to point out that a masochist enjoys the sensation of pain, so that disqualifies pain as suffering doesn't it? So I guess suffering isn't neccessarily pain at all, although it could be to those who don't want to feel pain. So what the hell is suffering? It is whatever feels unpleasant to a person, be that physical or mental. that is why suffering is absolute and not subjective. If I like pain, then that pain is not suffering for me. Likewise, if I do not like the feeling of being loved, or having sex or being rich, then that is suffering for me, even though there are many others who would love such things.

>>5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.

Can't argue with you on that sir. Except for you used the word "bad" again.

>>6. The dead do not exist.

Have you read your own words? Or did you mistype your idea? "the dead" meaning a thing called
"the dead" so already, there exists something called "the dead"...then you typed.."do not exist". How can such a marvelous mind make such a grave error? This is on the order of George Bush's intelligence sir. If you equate existence with being alive, please say so. I suspect this is what you meant, but maybe I'm reading too much into the sentence....

>>7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead.

You're right about that one too.

>>8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead.

As for this statement, I think I have addressed these two during my analysis of your previous statements. Now on to the next analysis.

>>> Now, to all those infidels out there impugning objectivism, let me remind you of some of the fundamentals of Objectivism.
1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A; >>>

I agree that reality is what it is completely. It is independent of beliefs etc. A is A.

>>>2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;<<<

"Silly Rabbit, Trix is for kids!" Again sir, base upon no religious doctrine, this statement is utterly preposterous and misleading. When you hold an object and you think you are touching an object, in reality you are not at all. Why?
At the atomic level (which is real), there is always a small gap between your fingers and the object. This fact applies to all objects that seem to touch each other. Even if you crushed the two objects together, they would never touch on the atomic level. Why? Because atoms never touch each other, even atoms of the same element or object. They maintain their atomic structure via atomic forces of attraction and repulsion. Soooo....base on these facts, you sir and also every other human being on this planet have never actually touched anything at all. Never experienced an object directly in it's absolutely real form in real time! Which brings me to another obvious point, to supplement the touch issue. Not only have we never really touched any object in reality, but we never really experience the sensation in real time either since it takes time for the contact sensation to reach our brains and register etc...It seems then that what you consider real is not real at all, but only the sensation of the past. To think that you live in real time is fantasy.

>>>3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;<<<

Whoever wrote this obviously considers that it is possible to live in real time and possible to experience absolute reality. Which as we have seen is impossible. Therefore this statement is to be rejected because of its implication that "rational knowledge" allows us to experience reality.

>>>4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;<<<

Good Heavens!, Well, since we can't make "appropriate assessments" of the nature of reality because we can't experience it according to scientific fact, how can we make "appropriate assessments" about the complexities of human nature let alone a banana?

>>>5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;<<<

Yet another illogical statement. "Man's life?" what does that mean? A man or all mankind? or all womankind's life? In either case, neither man nor woman can survive alone let alone have well being. It is known that humans need contact with other humans or else they most like end up mentally dysfunctional. Furthermore, man is a part of "society" and society benefits man/woman. If you don't pay your taxes, you ain't gonna get police, sewage, education etc....As for God, that is irrelevent to me unless I need a deity for my mental stability.

>>>6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;<<<

I agree on this one. If you want to be alone, if you don't want help anyone but yourself, it's your prerogative. Just don't come crying if no one wants to help you when you need it.

>>>7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;<<<

In this case, I think that the principles of justice and respect for individual autonomy, and personal rights MAY replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships. To say that they MUST is just glaring example of how stupid and contradictory this entire statement is. First, it asserts the importance of "individual autonomy and personal rights.." then it says that it MUST replace the principle of sacrifice. Totally contradicting the concept of individual autonomy. So if I chose to sacrifice my autonomy in this type of society, then I go against it's statement...EVENTHOUGH I'm choosing to exercise my freedom to choose? The whole thing is circular, there is no getting around it. It defeats itself as a principle. If I were a Christian, I'd attribute this to an attempt of Satan to lead you followers away from God.

<<<8. That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;>>>

Hmmm, it seems this ones good doesn't it?

>>>9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;<<<

I ain't gonna start preaching, so I'll leave this one alone. Because I understand the natural instinct for self preservation. But you gotta ask yourself, "permissible by whom?" I guess a concurring majority of the world society in this case.

<<<10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights>>>

Very good, very good, well said sir. This is agreeable.

May I ask you how you feel about this post? Does it sound belittling? If so, I apologize, I was just making some jokes with the "Trix are for kids stuff" But if it does sound belittling to you and you don't enjoy that sensation, please think
twice before writing such self righteous tone, such an arrogant tone. Because in the end, you AND I are in the same boat....We are both ignorant. :confused: