LOL
LOL
LOL
If absolutely anyone can find where I have said those words absolutely anywhere on the internet, then I would love for you to share the link.
What these two keep revealing here are their pre-existing biases, which they keep “confirming”. They are ‘seeing’ what they want to see, and, ‘hearing’ what they want to hear.
Just about absolutely everything these two are presuming ‘about me’ could not be further from the actual Truth.
I don’t think people can be perfect with holding away signs that something is going on that they are missing - about themselves and about the other people, about the interaction. Online it is easy to pose as not angry, confident and sure, because we can’t see body language and hear the voice. But he is responsible for not being curious about what would be anomalies in his theory of himself and others, and what just happened in a couple of posts.
It’s not a wonderful state, all there is to it is that the ego-mechanism is cracked. That’s all there is to it. After that, most people feel better and a few people feel worse.
I didn’t mean wonderful as in joyous. I meant that it was a real achievement.
Usually. Though some people get nondual state from psychoses or near-death experiences or psychedelics etc.
Okay
ken » Sat May 20, 2017 2:41 pm
You are right in that human beings do assume, before they have the facts, which appears to be exactly what you are doing here.
I, for one, NEVER assume. I remain open always and that is how I learned, discovered, and found out why human beings are here.
Anyway, though you may usually claim that you PREFER to never assume, in practice you come across as a God who acts like it never assumes.
MATERIALISM SELF-CONTRADICTS FROM THE OUTSET, BY THE MERE ACT OF PHILOSOPHISING:
I never saw you write this but anyway, l already anticipated it as a possible way out for my opponent (rather than the rage response he instead elicited) as follows:
That said, the contradiction is not the fault of my spiritualist POV - it is an irony innate to Materialism. It faceplants itself from the outset.
THE FUNDAMENTAL RED LINE BETWEEN MATERIALISM & SPIRITUALITY IS WHAT UNITES THEM - NUMBERS DON’T EXIST! NUMBERS EXIST! ¯_(ツ)_/¯ THEY ARE BOTH UNFALSIFIABLE BUT MATERIALISM MUST NOT DO FAITH!
OK I have updated my views accordingly to an extent. However, there’s one red line:
You say numbers don’t exist as concrete objects. Of course this would be a Reductio ad Absurdam, except l can push the boat out and try to understand how you might have a point (in my own personal rules: a key requirement for anybody to debate anybody is that they try to see how the opponent could be right, plus one must also ENJOY being proven wrong).
So, l think you have just shown where the red line is:
21:17 If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did.
The bottom line, the red line, has already been outlined in the formal debate:
Our mutual positions were unfalsifiable, and thus a matter of faith. However, the Materialist should not pivot anything on faith, the entire point of Materialism was to find hard answers.
Consciousness
Purpose
maybe other terms - see the Formal Debate.
They have zero basis in Materialism. Sure, Materialism is a spectrum of views, but they are called Materialism because they pivot on the primacy of matter.
CLOSING COMMENTS:
I have deleted my password but had to recover it to log back in again to distribute a few final replies. I’m going away again, as time is money, sowwee.
Thank you. This is good stuff.
No, that was my opponent, l am on the Spiritual side.
Cringe. See above and please be embarrassed.
@greenfuse Sorry but you are too angry and you have nothing to teach me. I have learned nothing from you. I hate to say this but you are insulting my intellect quite a bit, thanks to God l have a modicum of grey matter yet you speak to me as if there were none. Your task as an opponent is to educate me in good faith. Instead your arguments are unknown, l honestly don’t know what you are saying to me, l just feel intense gamma ray bursts from you.
I, still, would love a link shared.
Do you find something particular wrong or upsetting about this?
If yes, then will you explain why exactly?
You make way more assumptions than I do, but the hipocrisy isn’t upsetting me. I would have to take you seriously for that, which I can’t.
Those who believe that there is only material cannot do anything. They are controlled 100% by prior events. If one cannot choose, then they cannot do.
Embarrassment is felt because yes, I forgot you were on the perceived “other side”.
But, your attempt to find a true or honest “materialist” just so you can “fight against an opponent” is, still, doomed to fail before it could even begin.
Ikr but the point should be made, from time to time, that Materialism cannot even think about Materialism lol
Once again, this one makes a claim, but when I ask it to prove its claim true, it will inevitably fail absolutely to do so.
Will you prove your claim here?
If no, then why not?
Well, as @ghatzige explained, Epicureanism per Lucretius believes in sway, a randomness factor in the universe.
The spiritual could say that “sway” is handwaving for God
The materialist could say God is handwaving for quantum mechanics and all that is downstream of the quantum world.
Both positions are unfalsifiable.
You are still missing the facts here.
Btw, both materialists (matter-over-mind people) and idealists (mind-over-matter people) subscribe to a duality that never existed. Mind and matter are the same.
Numbers are just abstractions, abstractions are thoughts in the head. Those thoughts are real, made of stuff. Numbers aren’t Platonic objects, and numbers aren’t pure illusion.
Show me where you asked me to prove that claim.
If you want to claim this, this could be inferred as you already have obtained the irrefutable proof for this claim. So, if you have the proof, then will you provide it for us?
If no, then why not?
But, if you do not have the proof for your claim here, then why make the claim in the first place?
Now, what will be seen is that “atla” will not answer these questions asked for clarity sake. If “atla” replies, then what will be seen further attempts at deflection, deception, and/or detraction.
What do you mean by, ‘that claim’, exactly?
And, where ‘the claim’ is is in your response that my response was directly in relation to, obviously.
So show me where you asked me to prove it.