Not just this debate is a waste of time. Every debate is a waste of time. In fact every debate creates further division in the world. Debating is big part of why human beings have still not yet unified. Debates create more conflict than any harmony.
So, you think that scientific and philosophical debates are a waste of time.
Noted.
You caught pretty much the whole pattern, including the epistemic asymmetry - you gotta prove stuff a hellava lot more than he does in discussions with him.
Some responses and quotes that confirm what youâve noticed:
I asked him: Are you infallible when it comes to knowing what is True and Real?
Anew1: Yes, and this is just because of the formula I have and the process I use.
My bold on the Yes.
Some other quotes that may shed light on what he is doing:
While discovering these I also came across a formula that, to me, shows what will lead us all into living in peace and harmony together.
I may be a very simple person but seeing and understanding all of âlifeâsâ so called problems, and answers is really rather easy. I can see and understand why every person is the way they are and why they do the things they do.
As long as we are open, and thus not believing nor disbelieving (in) anything, then we are being truly intelligent enough to learn more and absolutely anything, including how easy it really is for all of us to being living in true peace and harmony together.
He claims to neither believe nor disbelieve anything.
All of you here are in a cult, but since none of you even recognise which cult that is, you do not even realise that you are in a cult.
You believing that you are not in a cult means that you donât even recognise which cult you are in. This justifies my assertion. That you donât even notice that you are in a cult, also justifies my assertion.
One of the hardest things, I think, for human beings to do is show that what is right when others do not and will not believe (in) them.
3 Likes
Thanks for the input. It confirms my observations and conclusions about this guy.
I was going to explain to him the importance of debates in science and philosophy, but I figured that it would have been a waste of time.
Come on, you really did not just work this out, did you?
You believing that you are not in a cult means that you donât even recognise which cult you are in. This justifies my assertion. That you donât even notice that you are in a cult, also justifies my assertion.
One of the hardest things, I think, for human beings to do is show that what is right when others do not and will not believe (in) them.
Thank you once more for sharing my writings here so that others can see them and get a better picture.
This sounds intriguing. So, what are your observations and conclusions âabout meâ, exactly, which you have already confirmed?
In your remark
My response is this:
I am not going to spend time giving you examples of past debates and their significance, just to end up with âWho cares?â, as you did with the different axioms in Euclidean and projective geometry. Examples work with people who want to learn something new. You do not belong to that category, since:
Last time, in âInterrogating Islamâ, I had a productive debate/Q&A with @TheIllustriousMrCat
We both learned something about the positions of the other that we were not aware of. Yes, certain arguments have been given in the past by others, but noone is able to know every available argument on a topic. I do not debate to change philosophical orientation, I debate to listen the arguments of the other side and prepare better responses for my position.
Youâre welcome. Itâs win win.
1 Like
What is your formula?
Was it the âCOSMOSISâ philosophical system l instantly debunked a few weeks back?
Are you doing this âyou only assume my positionsâ thing in every thread on the forum?
For a second i thought it was only me but apparently sophistry and demagogy is your main game theme.
1 Like
Age never reveals the formula so you wonât get an answer. We theorized though that it may have something to do with listening to the Voices.
Thanks! And actually, some of my answers, l was not even aware of until then, and it was a struggle finding them through deep thought. Without these challenges we would not find new things.
1 Like
Well, l hope he adds my voice to the list 
Apologies, Iâve been under the weather.
The debate is here : Atheist Materialism Interrogated: Why Choose Life?
Best of luck.
1 Like
Though I suppose we could try, why not.
GOD or âanew1â, please EXPLAIN to us, how EXACTLY the HOW formula (HONESTY, OPENNESS and a WILLINGNESS to CHANGE for the BETTER) and the PROCESS you USE, lets us KNOW what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE?
You will have to engage in the process, you donât get to read the last chapter as text. Thatâs my bet.
1 Like
In the neo-buddhist, psychosynthesis process of questioning all assumptions over no small amount of time, the illusions are stripped away, leaving behind only what is true. No longer identifying with âyourâ mammal body, but rather feeling yourself this dollop of consciousness of the universe experiencing itself. Like the Borg, but good.
But then we have to question that too. Maybe thatâs the mammalian self-awareness spinning in a closed loop, not quite the entire universe experiencing itself.
Well, again, I doubt heâs going to explain your coming experiences and the set of truths. And actually, thatâs reasonable. These things need to be experienced. And ironically his method may in fact work, in a certain sense. But itâs not a path I want to follow. Ken Wilbur has written, also (this is a new issue) where people can become incredible meditators, but never deal with certain kinds of interpersonal expertise or awareness and other types of lacking procedural knowledge. That pattern I had seen a number of times, but I found it interesting the way he broke it down.So, while enlightened in a sense, they still have serious problems that they cannot really see and which need other approaches to get at.
Anyway, whether he is right or wrong in his interpretation of this state, doesnât really matter to me because itâs an old path in new form and not one for me.
Some key terms: weak central coherence, Alexithymia, asymmetric expectations of proof.
Iâve been thinking that one of the main problems is that in a sense he has come to teach and people here are either seeking to disagree or discuss.
So, he enters a thread like this one, tries to get everyone to challenge all of their assumptions. And if they justify anything, he will find assumptions in that. Heâs already started the process of trying to dismantle assumptions without realizing itâs like walking on a tennis court to teach people French mid-match. What heâs doing looks a bit like what they are doing, so the overriding problem doesnât get noticed.
Noticed or not these are entirely different processes. From his end I am sure he thinks he comes bearing gifts and means well, so any resistance or irritation can only be the fault of the humans and not âhim.â But, youâd think someone coming bearing the potential for peace and harmony would have noticed that he creates even less of that than people who come to fight. Note: I am not assuming at all he knows a good way to teach French, but I think itâs useful to know he is not coming to play tennis.
These following three assertions (the first in two forms) do not sit well together.
He is infallible about what is True and Real/He has a formula that guarantees heâs right
He neither believes nor disbelieves anything
He will change his mind if shown heâs wrong - thatâs why he doesnât believe anything.
It just doesnât hold.
But that weak central coherence doesnât give him the types of overview that allow for noticing what he actually brings (what happens) and these contradictions. Nor does he seem to know the epistemic burden he expects others to carry that he doesnât have to.
If you think he is wrong he has an open mind so convince him he is wrong - giving you a million new things to justify AND he bears no responsibility for his assertions. You have to show him wrong.
You make an assertion andâŚ.you gotta demonstrate that.