You should read the great divorce by CS Lewis. He would not disagree with you. Except for the heaven actually existing part. By the way. Your thoughts on heaven and hell are very inconsistent. You should probably fix that.
Ech says:
"You still think there’s heaven that lots of people go to.
What you haven’t figured out is that everyone has their own individual heaven, like an individual thumbprint. Because of that ignorance on your part, you’re not trying to think outside all the boxes."
U don’t ‘go there’ but once u are ‘there’ you know the meaning of it.
That seems like a tautology, and it probably is, but if it was a square bet , would u opt to take it, never the less?<<<<<
I agree the best fantasies have to have an internal logic.
If everything is up for grabs it all descends into meaninglessness.
Pascal. His wager is often misunderstood. But now I suddenly wanna go do something else with my life rather than dive into that.
Tell me how they’re inconsistent. Let’s have a real discussion.
Well you either say stuff like everyone is going to heaven or has their own version of heaven, or that it doesn’t exist, or that everyone is going to hell or it doesn’t exist, or that certain people are trying to get everybody/some to (not) go to heaven, or that certain people are trying to get everyone/some to (not) go to hell. I’m not saying you said every single one of those things but you do say at least a combination of some of them which is very inconsistent.
And you have sociopath an empath blurred as well.
And I’m pretty sure you never answered my question about all or nothing thinking in the thread where I asked you about consent and whether it is all or nothing.
It seems you’re trying hard to define/distinguish things, but you’re going overboard with all or nothing thinking.
No. That’s not what I say at all.
Hyper empaths are always in hell. If you’re not a hypocrite, you at least have the luxury of not hating yourself.
That’s about as close to heaven as it gets. If you also stop projecting, that’s a bonus heaven…
Even though you’re still in hell.
All of us are in hell.
It’s very entertaining, at the very least.
I’m giving up the drama queen thing. I don’t find it entertaining at all.
How about the drama Jack? tahaaaa jk
Sculptor wrote:
“ I do not live in the USA.
I’m older than you probably.
JC is one of the US’s most respected Presidents in the world at large, but not in the US.
His domestic speeches did not travel.
When did he give the speech?”
americanrhetoric.com/speech … idence.htm
Jimmy Carter was the only president who wasn’t mobbed up in recent times … he also went against OPEC. So they raised the price of oil to hurt the US.
Not only that… Iran had US prisoners that he tried to get released, but because they were OPEC as well… they refused. Carter wasn’t re elected: because of foreign interference … instead, Reagan was.
To show his fealty to OPEC, the first thing Reagan did in office was to remove jimmy carters solar panels off the White House. (No president has put solar panels on the White House since) And then Iran gave the prisoners to Reagan.
After office Carter worked for decades as a construction worker for habitat for humanity.
It’s a really sad story from my perspective about how corrupt the world truly is.
You have to read the whole text and not just the snippet of the video.
So in this speech, Carter noted that the long gas lines are the least of our energy problems.
I’m here to tell everyone that our energy problems are the least of our spiritual problems.
Like he said… I’m just a manager.
I feel the same way … a steward, a caretaker. Not “the decider”. I listen to the people as it’s a government for and by the people just like he did.
I just happen to be an existence manager, Carter was a president of the United States.
Do not do to me what happened to Carter, the stakes are much higher.
umm. You seem to have a free hand interpreting history.
How do you know that? When people say “It’s a good day today” all they are saying is “It’s a good day today for me”. They aren’t saying “It’s a good day today for everyone”. The fact there is a kitten out there having a bad day doesn’t invalidate their claim. Moreover, when they say it’s a good day for them, they aren’t saying it’s a perfect day for them. They are merely saying it’s a better day than some other day they have in mind. So in all likelihood, they are not saying anything that is false. Yet, for someone completely bizarre reason, you think that makes them sociopaths.
That’s the thing you don’t get Magnus …
Let’s say your mom dies. You’re not having a good day. Is your mom the only person you care about in existence?
Out of sight, out of mind?
What could you do about her death?
Nothing.
I can’t do anything about the suffering of a kitten half way around the world. But I still feel it.
You’re missing the point.
This is what you said.
Let us recall that you define the word “sociopath” to mean “someone who does not feel pain when other living beings in the universe feel pain and who is like that because of nurture rather than nature”. You define the word “psychopath” the same way with only one difference: psychopathy is innate.
Thus, when someone says “It’s a good day today” (meaning they feel no pain on that day) even though there are kittens out there suffering on that same exact day, it follows that they fit one of the above definitions.
That’s all fun and games until we realize that in order for such a person to feel bad about themselves, they must be doing something wrong i.e. they must be irrational. And because psychopaths and sociopaths aren’t defined by you as irrational, you have to empirically prove that they are. And that’s precisely what you attempted in the above quote.
Your argument is that these people are irrational because they don’t acknowledge that existence isn’t good. The problem is you never bothered to explain what it means for the existence to be good. And you also never bothered to explain how you came to the conclusion that these people think that existence is good. How do you know that? All we know is that they felt no pain on certain day.
Magnus wrote:
“ Your argument is that these people are irrational because they don’t acknowledge that existence isn’t good. The problem is you never bothered to explain what it means for the existence to be good. And you also never bothered to explain how you came to the conclusion that these people think that existence is good. How do you know that? All we know is that they felt no pain on certain day.”
Ecmandu replies:
Good is easy to define. It’s when all beings in existence get everything they want forever at the expense of no other being.
That’s a GOOD day.
If you’re having a GOOD day and the above is not the case, you are revealing (tipping your hand) that you’re on the spectrum of sociopathy.
Cool, that’s your definition. But how do you know that’s also how other people define that word? In fact, I’d say that noone does. You’re pretty much alone in this regard.
When someone says “It’s a good day today” they are generally saying that the day is better than some other day they have in mind. They are not necessarily saying that everyone got everything they wanted on that day. In fact, noone ever means that (except for you.)