user1991

Oh but you do care. You're trying to beat me now. Look how you label what i'm saying as "not original" and "unusual" - as if that makes any difference. Look at how you see yourself as above this, "not caring", actually you're just happy in your little comfy fantasy world, that you don't even realise is FAKE because you've never bothered to look. Admit it, have you? So what you're really saying, is you've heard these ideas a thousand times before, and just slotted them into your little armory of ideas to use in little knowledge battles to gain smart-points, without ever actually considering if they're refer to something true and REAL. What does it say of you, as a man, that you've heard these ideas BEFORE, they've even been expressed in the same way, yet you've never actually considered if they are true? Just used them for whatever game you happened to be playing at the time. Go on, fight back, prove it to me and prove it to yourself. Or run away, and everyone will know you were too scared to actually look at the truth of this, in the REAL WORLD. Or say you don't care, and do both. Answer this. Do you exist? If so, why?

No, you've decided to beat me. By drawing a picture of me in your mind, giving me a bunch of characteristics, and defining your own position in regards to that. Pathetic. Did you even stop, for a second, to see if what I'm saying is ACTUALLY true? No, you don't care. You care about how you appear on this website. This is a truth beyond any of the words I could possibly write in a post. I'm trying to get you to look, simply CONSIDER, for a second, if this is true. If you cared at all about reality, would you not do this first, then decide when you've really dug down into the heart of it? Or would you judge, instantly, without even acknowleding any of the content? Like you're doing RIGHT NOW.

Do you feel better now? Seriously. Do you exist?

Actual truth? Bold claim you may say. Not really, just a subtle recognition, that is true regardless of whether you think so or not. Over the years people have looked for something greater, they still do in fact. Who knows why, there are so many reasons. A yearning for answers, a yearning for truth. Or maybe to fulfill an obligation to family/society. Or, in my own experience, perhaps to appear wise or gain acceptance from the wise. The mere concept of "truth" has been wrapped up in so much [cabbage]. Really, in absolute drivel. So that now people think it unattainable, and give up, or ridicule, or "intellectually understand" but don't know experientially, or think they need to meditate for 40 years. They never consider that there is just SIMPLE TRUTH that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE RIGHT NOW. Let me tell you something. You were born, a baby into the world. Part of the world, from the world. FROM the world, the world was never given to you. Somewhere along the way the brain/mind, interacting with its environment - established CAUSE and EFFECT. You need to think about what this actually means - it is why we humans are capable of devising complex systems, and establishing characteristics of objects and the relationships between things. So when you use logic, to work something out, you may ask why does that make sense? Why does it feel "right" - and you'll find, well it just does. This is because, that is what the mind does. That is how it evolved. And "you" are no different. The mind, in a need for a label, labelled itself. And every label after that is founded with this initial assumption. Right now, in your day to day life, this is true. The label of "you", whilst it feels like it is "you" and like it has always been "you", is not real. It is real, only in the sense that a label was made. But it is only a label, just a thought. It refers to NOTHING. There is no controller of thought, you're not CAUSING the thought, just the thought existing IN reality. Consider right now, what is causing your life? As thoughts arise, what is happening? Where are "you" in this process? No doubt, pretty much none of you are likely to HONESTLY engage with this right now. You're too caught up in the lie itself, to realise that you may possibly be wrong, and that reality may actually be really, real. I'll try and give you some perspective on this. You will answer in one of three ways. 1. Evasion. You'll avoid what is said here, never even stop your constant self indulgent fantasy for a SECOND to consider that this may be true, or that such a thing as TRUTH is actually real. 2. To beat me. You'll try to argue this away, playing around with concepts and images in your head until it slots together, "feels right" or makes sense, then forget about it. 3. Merging. You'll agree, acknowledge, or even BELIEVE what I've said here to be true. It makes sense to you, "feels right". Evasion, competition, mating. Sound familiar? Basic evolution. Ideas are no different to organisms, they are still subject to the same laws of nature. Your idea wants to feed, reproduce, ultimately survive. And it has been doing so ever since you first had the thought. So you'll fight me, run away, or agree (by creating another idea to represent this stuff). This is ALL BECAUSE of way way back, as a little kid, your brain labelled a "me". And ever since then, this is all it has been doing, fighting, evading, or merging with other ideas. Everything you've ever done, has been resting on this ONE false assumption. Think about it. This random feeling you call "you". What actually is it? We are literally living in the evolution of ideas. Ideas now control the world. Wars are fought between ideas, arguments, debates, EVERYTHING. We are hosts for these things, these strange forms of life. You were born, blank. And right now, you feel like "you". This feeling, you feel you've always been. Sorry, but it aint real. That feeling, is only real, in the sense that it is a FEELING IN REALITY. Do you exist? Is it true? If so, why?

Got any examples? If you'd read the last page you'd know that there is some trick to it Seeing intentions and reading peoples' thoughts/feelings. Utilising types of energy; aggression, sexuality, etc so that they have affect. Manipulation, giving people what they REALLY want as to gain power in a situation (which is usually congruence between their bodily emotion/logical reasoning thought signal that encapsulates their sense of calculating self (I say signal because if you learn to see it this way, as constant noise, you will understand how to remove your focus from within it to outside it). Typically, most people act in accordance with this; their learned behaviours in the past based off emotions that arose which the mind considers when the mental images of those occaisons arise, off which future projections are based - and the way in which this manifests as their personality. Whether this be cross referencing with their morals, their self image, etc. Not condoning manipulation in general, but it is definitely a tool that can be used to do the right thing, if you believe in such. And yes, this example may well be fake. I just wouldn't really be that surprised if it were true. Oh my. Haha :rolleyes: It's okay, I was expecting to get some of that. What can I say, you asked :P

Got any examples? If you'd read the last page you'd know that there is some trick to it Seeing intentions and reading peoples' thoughts/feelings. Utilising types of energy; aggression, sexuality, etc so that they have affect. Manipulation, giving people what they REALLY want as to gain power in a situation (which is usually congruence between their bodily emotion/logical reasoning thought signal that encapsulates their sense of calculating self (I say signal because if you learn to see it this way, as constant noise, you will understand how to remove your focus from within it to outside it). Typically, most people act in accordance with this; their learned behaviours in the past based off emotions that arose which the mind considers when the mental images of those occaisons arise, off which future projections are based - and the way in which this manifests as their personality. Whether this be cross referencing with their morals, their self image, etc. Not condoning manipulation in general, but it is definitely a tool that can be used to do the right thing, if you believe in such. And yes, this example may well be fake. I just wouldn't really be that surprised if it were true.

You would be surprised what can be gained from meditation. Everything around you, including what you may call "you", whether this be mental processes/images coupled with internal dialogue, or a deeper more transient awareness, is vibrating at a certain frequency as it is manifested, the flowing force behind which, in certain ways, can conceivably be used this way. I have no idea how he does this particular exercise, if indeed it is true, but I do know that such things are possible. Such things, beyond what most would even imagine could be true, are possible. How many hours of the day are you really aware? How true are your mental images in relation to reality? If you see that they are nothing but crude representations of past and future ideas, summed up alongside a feeling in the body that makes you believe them to be true, you may focus on the present. On what is actually REAL. The majority of humans are on autopilot, stimuli enter, they act based on events in the past and future, and it barely reaches their awareness. Thus the standards held of what is possible and impossible in this world, can not be given much credence when seen in this light. Life, is actually more like a dream. Jesus, I've turned into a preacher. But for any of you that saw something in what I said, carry on the way you're going, sincerely, without judgment. ;)

1. Find a partner with whom I have an amazing connection 2. At some point, have <5% body fat 3. Take shrooms and see Cirque du soleil 4. Have a child 5. Enlightenment? Aiming a bit high I think..

I wonder what it would be like to have the perception/consciousness of an animal. But recently, I can't stop thinking about my cheating ex girlfriend. Get over it I know, I'm trying, but some stuff just hits you too deep.

Erm, it's not torture. It produces the feeling of torture, which sucks for the person being tortured,but really if the government is doing it it's for a damn good reason, and besides, there's no risk. Still, good to see this guy actually went and did it instead of just being an armchair politician. Wait.. wait.. Possibly the most worrying thing I've ever heard.

Nice twist of words you used there. You should have surprised me and not engaged in logical fallacies in your first response - save them for later. I didn't say god the being wasn't complex - I said the fact that he was the one who created the universe was less complex than the fact that he didn't. If I see a logical fallacy I'm going to point it out, not save it up for later so I can win some random internet argument Duh. He's the only one which the attributes can be attached to. That isn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that the concepts of the Universe existing eternally and God, a consciousness existing eternally are not equal in terms of complexity, and therefore if you assume the more complex one you are being irrational. You saying "he's the only one which the attributes can be attached to" implies that it is impossible for the Universe or anything else to have those attributes. Really, that's a bold claim. The issue here is not semantics, but rather you choosing something more complex than the original thing being described, in order to describe that thing. It requires more to believe in God than to believe the Universe has quality of having existed forever. Wild assumptions are made by both theists and atheists alike. Why would you fathom the fact that everything is a complete accident and that we weren't meant to be here? Of course you can pretend like you have logic on your side, but that's not the case - what you speak of derives from pessimism not Occam's Razor. If thinking your life was an accident satisfies you then I don't see how it isn't justifiable to think my life wasn't an accident in order to satisfy me. I wasn't saying that "everything is a complete accident." I see absolutely no reason to suggest that there is any objective system of value to be found anywhere at any time. It isn't pessimistic, because in order for there to be "pessimism" there has to be an objective system of value. You're saying that we think everything is an accident, therefore meaningless, and you're also saying that at heart we're all closet pessimists (something which value is necessary for)? It isn't a question of satisfaction either. Simply put, you're trying to divert the previous argument onto other topics and play the "atheist pessimist" card. Cause and effect isn't relevant to god. If we can assume he made everything we can assume he made cause and effect and time so questions like that are meaningless. You are missing the point. You are arguing that the Universe can't possibly be eternal etc, and in order to explain its existence there has to be a God with these properties. You are creating a God, a consciousness with these properties, in order to explain the apparent lack of these qualities in the Universe. Why would you not throw away the assumption that the Universe doesn't have these properties instead of arguing for the necessity of God? The first one is obviously less complex. Your statement at the end doesn't even make any relevant sense, you're simply pulling rhetoric out of nowhere with multiple concepts like "cause and effect" and "meaning" to draw attention away from the fact that your argument is ridiculously empty in practically every way possible. Also, beings with a consciousness are far greater designers than nature. Sure, nature is beautiful but when you compare even the most beautiful photograph with the most beautiful painting then it puts things into perspective. Beings with a consciousness can create beauty and manipulate nature into seeming even more beautiful. Nature does it by complete accident. I see the world as something too miraculous to be a creation of nature alone. Beauty is entirely subjective, thus is your entire system of measurement here. You are using a common trick; you are saying, by the use of two phrases tied to each other in a short space of time (greater designers) - (more beautiful), that one necessarily follows the other. Now technically, ones' opinion of what being a "greater designer" entails will always include being "more beautiful," this isn't the contention I am making. What I am saying is that the measurement of beauty here is completely random and meaningful only to the individual. Now please, read my argument. Your idea that the Universe (the most complex physical thing) requires a God in order to explain it because the Universe cannot have the property of having existed forever, is more complex and requires more assumptions than the idea that the Universe has that quality in the first place. Now of course, we aren't claiming to know this. The veracity of any of these claims is irrelevant, because all we need to apply is logic. Logic concerns itself not with the truth of the argument. Your claim requires more assumptions than the other claim. That is all there is to it.

[hide=] That my friend, is propaganda at its finest. Learn the facts, not biases. The fact is, is that CO2 is a proven compound that traps UV radiation, and thus heat in the earth. If you look at graphs since the Industrial Revolution of CO2 emissions and look at Earths average temperature, you will find that the graphs are similar. This is not to say that CO2 is the cause, but it is a very good chance, this is all environmental scientists know. Even if it is just a hype, the fact is is that the current carbon footprint we're leaving behind is very substantial could cause problems in the far future if it doesn't cause problems in the immediate future (which it most likely will). If we stopped emitting CO2 totally today, it would still take 200 years for the average earth temperature to go back to what it was before the Industrial Revolution. In fairness, there is a lot of corruption in the clean energy business. If we are so focused on saving the planet why do we subsidize ethanol(raising fuel prices) but dont focus on truly clean energy such as wind and solar? To an extent the answer is that politicians are granting money to their friends in the ethanol industry; the post you responded to wasnt well written but it wasnt entirely wrong. The truth is that profits allowed by capitalism blinds politicians and corporations of the future. [/hide] Capitalism or not, people will abuse the system for their own gain. Acting as if getting rid of capitalism is some ultimate move that will solve all these issues of greed and short term political thinking is just dishonest. Capitalism plays a part, but there are other factors at work here that would still remain even if we weren't living in capitalist countries.

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up?

What?

So in order to explain the Universe, the most complex physical thing, you're going to argue for the necessity of an even more complex consciousness that has existed eternally? Don't try and claim that God is less complex. God created the Universe apparently, he can't possibly be less complex. The attributes which you say the Universe cannot, or does not have, you give to God. If you're going to be making wild assumptions, why would you not just assume that the Universe has always existed? Why would you fathom a complex consciousness, with a load of other stuff to go with it, in order to explain something when you could come up with an infinite number of explanations that are less complex and more likely? There is also an infinite regression. You can't just say "God did it!", because who did God? Where did God come from? You're willing to say that God just exists, but you say this is impossible for the Universe?

Which is more complex, a Universe that has existed forever, or a consciousness that is everywhere at once, all knowing, all powerful, that has existed forever AND created everything?

If god made everything then isn't the answer already quite clear? Who made God?

Technically speaking, there is neither. We create what is good and evil in our minds (as does god). Lack of evil is good and lack of good is evil. The two words are dependent on each other. Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

Or, in other words, we are selfish creatures. Many times, it makes us feel happy to help others and better our society. In fact, many of us bend our lives around trying to capture that form of happiness. So yes, we are selfish in our selflessness. And selfless in our selfishness. All you're basically saying is that simply because we help others, even if we do it for selfish reasons, that doesn't matter because we're helping others. Or, we are never truly capable of selflessness, and as a species we will forever be plagued by selfishness, at the core of every aspect of our reasoning and of our morality. Anyone can spin it to sound positive or negative. This still doesn't demonstrate how happiness is the "point" to life.

a slippery slope towards autocracy. But is autocracy categorically bad? Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy. Better for who exactly? I don't want to sound like I'm making slippery slope arguments, but people cannot be trusted with so much power. At some point during the chain of dictators, there would be someone who would abuse their power for their own gain. It is inevitable. The majority of people are morons, so it may seem weird that I'm defending democracy. It's just, pragmatically speaking, a "well-moderated, limited dictatorship" isn't possible. Too many people would abuse their power for their own gain. I think that a democratic system is better than this, because people keep each other in check. The people watch the state, the state watches the people, the people watch each other, territory is lost and territory is gained. Of course, this sounds terrible. and it is. The sad reality is, those amongst us that are truly capable of introspection are vastly outnumbered by people who are simply stupid. I don't want to sound like an elitist, but I would be dishonest if I claimed that while I'm out in town or when I'm just interacting with others, most people don't seem quite stupid. They do, that's just how it is. I know that "intelligence" is measured by a series of variables, a lot of which aren't quantifiable, but if we take IQ as at least a general indicator of somebody's capacity for creativity, knowledge, self questioning, complexity of thought etc, when we consider that the average IQ is roughly 100, we can conclude that the majority of people aren't very intelligent. So naturally, from the get go, democracy isn't going to be all that fabulous. Others noticed this, and because of both this and various other reasons, most of which are to due with problems of the feasibility of a voting system in a country of millions, we have representative systems. We vote in an official on certain grounds, and we simply hope that they will do as they say. So, here we have a system in which we, the people, vote in a person on the basis of things they say they will do, then when they get in power, they are free to do as they wish as a "representative of the people." We keep them under moderation and decide who gets into power, but what they do is up to them and the rest of the representatives respectively. Yet even in this system, we have corruption, abuse of power. Even in a system in which there are courts in which these people will have to answer to the people who voted them in, with possible consequences that include lengthy prison sentences, we still have these problems. And why? Because we're humans. Let's take this to the next step. A "well moderated, limited dictatorship." So in this proposed system, those in charge do as they wish. The "moderated" and "limited" imply some sort of restraint on the part of those in charge, but we can see from modern society as well as societies in the past, people can't get enough power. The abuse in this system would be absolutely ridiculous. So technically, whilst a dictatorship of benevolent geniuses may be better for a lot of us, this isn't possible. It is pointless to even talk of it because it could never happen. With the current state of humanity, and the way most people are, certain systems aren't possible. Marxism, anarchism, totalitarianism etc aren't possible, without something going wrong and messing it all up. The only thing we can do to try and better our species to the point where we can actually have working anarchist systems and other things that actually make sense, is to educate. Unless there is some sort of transhumanism that happens in the future that makes everyone benevolent (again by what standard?) and intelligent enough to understand the workings of political/economic systems, we can only hope to educate.

Or, in other words, we are selfish creatures.

Democracy is bad because humans are generally idiots. Full on democracy is just unfeasible in countries with large populations. You can't have a vote on everything. Burkean representation, which is employed in every "democratic" system, nullifies the whole concept of democracy in the first place. Sure, we have a say as to who gets in power, but when it comes down to it, we don't really have that much to do with any specifics of it. Most people are idiots and are easily swayed by rhetoric and spin and consensus pressure. But on the other hand, resorting to dictatorship is worse because 1) the ends don't justify the means - freedom is freedom, 2) you can't guarantee they will be "benevolent" (again, in whose opinion? The judgment of whether something is "benevolent" or "malevolent" is entirely subjective if not democratically based), and 3) the corrupt human condition and the inevitable stupidity of the human race means that even if you had a benevolent dictator, there would have to be an endless amount of them consecutively otherwise we would either just undo everything they did or someone malevolent would take their place. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we will forever be plagued by corrupt authorities, populations of ignorant morons who don't really care about anything outside of their little bubble, and bureaucratic politicians who are out for their own, spinning their way into power. Unless we either evolve or the average intelligence increases miraculously, these problems are here to stay. Get used to it, be happy with what you have, and try to make the most of it.

In my opinion, there is no purpose to life. The way I see it, I'm here and I choose to live. That's really all there is to it. Forget all this "life is to find happiness" bs. It sounds nice, but its just arbitrary. So far I have seen no evidence of any sort of "higher truth" or some other vague phrase, but I have an open mind. I can't really justify not blowing my brains out, because after all nothing really means anything, I just simply choose not to. I prefer to live.

Because that 'religion' was invented for a joke to poke fun at religion and theists, enough people voted it as a religion in the census however no-one will take you seriously if you start talking about it. I think you miss the point

An embryo has no personhood. It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.