Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Squashbuckler, Aug 13, 2003.

  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    U.G. Krishnamurti

    There is no mind anywhere!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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.

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

    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..?

    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?

    Ok, it supplied evidence (which is what you were asking for), I never said it was factual.'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.

    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.

    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.

    Debunk, waste time, what's the 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. You seem to not be able to argue without insulting.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. VitalOne Banned Banned


    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.

    I didn't answer the questions? You should be the one learning to read as I clearly stated in my previous post (

    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).

    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?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Congratulations! You have just wasted another paragraph.

    Your mind is too weak to be able to admit when you're wrong, my mind isn't

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . So it's a good thing that I can admit when I'm wrong.
  8. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    "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.
  9. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

    What's there to correct?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    No, you actually said:
    It seems like when you try to make your point you do it with insults, twisting arguments, and taking everything literally.

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

    You changed that after.

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

    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.

    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 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.

    Ok...sorry that you got all overly excited over an extra paragraph.
  10. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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?

    Objectively, atoms make up the brain, and at least effect the mind.
  11. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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.
  12. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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.

    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.

    Then at the end you try to get out of it:
    By "taking it back". Also, no one directly asked you to post your views, so were you wrong in doing so?

    Contradiction 3:
    Then you go on to say...

    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".
  13. Chalaco Registered Senior Member


    Enough concrete evidence to get on TV; not enough to convince me.

    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.

    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.

    You were wrong yet again. It was a boy, not "a former adult man".

    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.

    I never asked you for evidence, retard.


    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'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).

    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. Your diction isn't exactly sublime neither. You're illiterate.


    But reincarnation IS likely??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.


    And I wonder why

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Similar, maybe; but not identical.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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)

    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.


    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.

    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 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.


    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.

    Sort of like how you can't go a post without bollocks and contradiction.
  14. Chalaco Registered Senior Member


    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...

    Reading just ain't your thing, is it.

    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.

    You said this...

    Nice answer, very thorough

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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...".



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
  15. Chalaco Registered Senior Member


    What'd I tell you about wasting paragraphs and time? :bugeye: It's subjective.

    More like you're wrong because your mind is weak.
  16. Chalaco Registered Senior Member


    There you go again. I put, "well dummy" and your retort begins with, "well dummy". Well done.

    Which is why 'IdleOne' is a very apt nom de plume.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nice touch adding the internet colloquialism by the way; acronyms and abreviations are a nice touch, shows you're down with the internet lingo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 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!

    Of course you don't, you're stupid, remember? Now, allow me to retort. Do you regard that as true beyond doubt?

    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).

    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.

    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.


    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 one said you argued about it, simpleton. You first said, " 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    Actually, you DIDN'T make it clear it was background information, and regardless of what information it was, it was not pertinent nor requested.

    I just don't like it when people feel the need to bring up redundant crap. And yes, it was redundant.
  17. Chalaco Registered Senior Member



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There's empirical evidence that leans to the possibility/suggests that your mind will cease to exist after getting hit by a truck, sparky.

    Said mind, not brain.
  18. Chalaco Registered Senior Member


    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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Chalaco Registered Senior Member



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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).


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    EVERY feeling can be, and is, directly related to desire, you dope. There was no excuse for the redundance, stop searching.

    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 don't digress; you do, there's a difference.

    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.

    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).
  20. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Ok. So you're the type that only believes something if some higher class of scientists believe it?

    Really? I found a writer using "complete, utter" - I also found it on U.S. Senator John McCain's site - Now, it's obvious that you're wrong.

    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?

    That's why I said "Ok, it was a boy".

    Yes (to the first sentence), and No (to the third sentence), I was simply answering your question. Old people really are grumpy.

    True, but you clearly stated:
    By challenging my statement, you were basically asking me to provide evidence to back my claims up.

    I was claiming that it was credible, but not completely factual. I was claiming that it was evidence. Another victory for me!

    Like I said, These are possible, but unlikely.

    Well, if he can write in other languages (correctly), then it's safe to assume that he can read in the others too.

    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.

    So you basically admitted that you were wrong (without saying it, like I said you would).


    You use traces of the person's thoughts leftover.

    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).

    Like I said you basically said, "there is no way to prove reincarnation because there hasn't been indisputable proof of reincarnation".

    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:

    Easy, use traces of the former conscious mind (eg...things written by that person), and compare them to traces of the conscious mind.

    I'm not struggling (I'm actually quite relaxed). I already said that it was disputable, so what are you arguing about?

    Again, I see no big difference (it is subjective, though).

    A lot of people don't know if they are repressing anger or not.'re saying that insulting me gives you pleasure....this still points toward some type of psychological disorder.

    I could say the same about you.
  21. VitalOne Banned Banned

    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.

    Stated above.


    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".").

    Strawmanning, and you will never admit when you're wrong, will you? Also, I answered with more:

    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.

    He clearly did challenge my claim. And please, if Squashbuckler has to say something, he will.
  22. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Exactly, so that was my subjective opinion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, it takes a stronger mind to admit when they are wrong. Anyone can admit that they're right.
  23. VitalOne Banned Banned

    I did it on purpose, dummy.

    English Please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . You knowing that it was internet lingo, shows that you're also down with internet lingo (or you did some quick research).

    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?

    Desire is directly related to being desireless. The feeling is directly related to desire.

    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).

    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".

    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.

    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.

    I do it on purpose to mock you (obviously). I already answered the question.

    No, I don't.

    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.

    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."

    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.

    You didn't say which statement you were talking about (not being thorough with answers). "I'm getting tired of inferring the obvious."

    I already answered this

    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."

    No one can trust their conclusion, so believing me would be like believing any other person.


    I'm getting tired of this. I meant you waste time wanting call me "Idle".

    Well if it wasn't directly related, anyone could easily conclude that it was background information since it is indirectly related.

    Like this redundant statement.

Share This Page