Celebrity Deathmatch Lifegazer vs. buddha

[Dancing David]

Okay, Lifegazer put up your mitts and show yourself. You said you would denounce the buddha, and while his advice to me would be to pretend that you were once my mother, I am not a buddha.

Put up, dude, go ahead, show us all how you have a greater philosphy than the buddha.


Question One: Why do you need eyes to see?

Statement One: It is a mistake to say that something is better than something, or worse than something or equal to something.



The buddha wishes you the freedom to find you path, but this lowly mortal wants to see you debate the buddha! If you had read any history or philosphy you would realise the depth of your challenge. The buddha's philosophy has survived for two and a half millenium, can you last a year in the ring?

DING!

[c4ts]

Go Planet X! Crush the weaklings! Save us almighty Bob!

[Yahweh]

I vote for Buddha!

[Buddha steps into the ring]

Announcer: And weighing in at 285 lbs, at a height of 5'6, let's hear it for the Buddha man! *Crowd Cheers* He says his motto is "'If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha', go ahead and try you sons of bitches!". *Crowd Cheers* And his opponent...

[Lifegazer steps into the ring]


(Feel free to continue...)

[c4ts]

Just then, a great silver flying saucer from Planet X crashes through the ceiling and lands in the middle of the arena. A staircase slowly unfolds from the saucer. Pillory staggers out, drunk as a lemur and ready for a fight.

Go Planet X!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Okay, Lifegazer put up your mitts and show yourself. You said you would denounce the buddha, and while his advice to me would be to pretend that you were once my mother, I am not a buddha.

The buddha had a fair modicum of wisdom. Give him his dues. But he fell well short of The Truth. Well short.
That's why I said he was over-rated. That's why you're better off listening to me.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The buddha had a fair modicum of wisdom. Give him his dues. But he fell well short of The Truth. Well short.
That's why I said he was over-rated. That's why you're better off listening to me.

Glad to see you showed up for the match, thought that the buddha would win by default. The buddha only claimed to have seen the truth of human suffering, I don't recall a claim for The Truth(TM).

BTW, the question and the statement are still waiting for your response. have you got one?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Glad to see you showed up for the match, thought that the buddha would win by default.

I'm a bit busy elsewhere at the moment. And this looks as though it could be one of those farce-threads with little rational discussion.

The buddha only claimed to have seen the truth of human suffering, I don't recall a claim for The Truth(TM).

Then the buddha loses out. For I do make that claim.

BTW, the question and the statement are still waiting for your response. have you got one?
You need eyes (in a body) to see yourself as a body, wouldn't you say?

The statement is false. Happiness is better than unhappiness. And peace is better than war. At least, it is to an entity who must experience one or the other.

[geni]

Originally posted by lifegazer
And peace is better than war.

And what about those who enjoy war?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by geni


And what about those who enjoy war?
Then even for such lunatics, there is a preference.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm a bit busy elsewhere at the moment. And this looks as though it could be one of those farce-threads with little rational discussion.

eye:mote, mote:eye

Perhaps if you bring rationality there will rationality.
Sounds like the golden waffle again.


Then the buddha loses out. For I do make that claim.

You have to prove your claim for it to appear to be so.


You need eyes (in a body) to see yourself as a body, wouldn't you say?
That is you rclaim, so what are the sights that the ye brings to the mind?
If there was a seer behind the eye would not it see better if the eye was plucked out?

Crucial point. if you dodge it then you don't get to 'win'

The statement is false. Happiness is better than unhappiness. And peace is better than war. At least, it is to an entity who must experience one or the other.

The statement is false

HMMM

let us think for a moment shalll we,
-if happiness comes from another's suffering , is it happiness or suffering?
-if happiness leads to the person missing the happiness and suffering over that loss, is it happiness or is it suffering?

Peace is better than war:
-what about an unjust peace
-was Neville chamberlin right to abandon Checkoslovakia to the Germans, if peace leads to war , is it peace
-if there is peace becazuse you tie me and gag me and beat mer senseless, is it peace?


I suppose you will just walk away from this discussion Lifegazer because I am not going to taunt or bait you, just debate with you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer


Then the buddha loses out.
.


The Budda found peace. my friend. You have found nothing but torment, and it isn't getting any easier, is it? ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The buddha had a fair modicum of wisdom. Give him his dues. But he fell well short of The Truth. Well short.
That's why I said he was over-rated. That's why you're better off listening to me.

So your whole proof that you are better than buddha, is that you claim to have the truth, and he did not. I would say it takes a much wiser man to know that he does not have all the answers.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

And peace is better than war.


I would say that many disagree. I can think of many situations of "peace" that I would rather rise up and start a war against my opressors rather than continue to live in "peace"

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


The Budda found peace. my friend. You have found nothing but torment, and it isn't getting any easier, is it? ;)
Planting the seeds of unity is hard but satisfying toil. If the buddha found personal peace in a crumbling world, then the buddha is a selfish son of a...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


I would say that many disagree. I can think of many situations of "peace" that I would rather rise up and start a war against my opressors rather than continue to live in "peace"
Fair comment. I would kick a few butts myself if the cause was worthwhile. Hence your sore behind.

The issue is not whether war is sometimes justified. The issue is whether we have preferences. [Take note David]

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Fair comment. I would kick a few butts myself if the cause was worthwhile. Hence your sore behind.


wow, my butt is so sore from all those points I make that you ignore. (I suppose you must have a different definition of butt kicking)


The issue is not whether war is sometimes justified. The issue is whether we have preferences. [Take note David]

Seems to be a popular theme, "oh, I'm wrong? well then that wasn't the issue"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Planting the seeds of unity is hard but satisfying toil. If the buddha found personal peace in a crumbling world, then the buddha is a selfish son of a...

buddha is a selfish SOB? thats one for the quotes file. If you can't see that buddha's non-agressive path towards peace and englightenment has far more chance of succeeding than your arrogance and name calling, then you are even more self righteous than I thought.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Planting the seeds of unity is hard but satisfying toil. If the buddha found personal peace in a crumbling world, then the buddha is a selfish son of a...

Ah, PonDHopper, you have shown the depth of your lack of knowledge.

The mythical portion of the story says that when the buddhs trealized the nature of suffering he was tempted by Mara to leave the world and enter nirvans, but the buddha chose instead to stay in the world and spread his message, the fist thing he did was go to hos old aesetic camp and speak there, theis is the Sutta given at the Deer park in Benarsi, he then continues to spread his teaching....

His path is available to all who would weish to test it, and to his credit, the system still exists. He did not claim to have found a personal peace he claimed to have found a means of ending human suffering.

he was often ridiculed in his own time as well, but your statement reflects upon you , not the buddha, perhaps some reading might help.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Planting the seeds of unity is hard but satisfying toil.


If by that you mean acting like a complete jerk all over the net, getting banned from all over everywhere and having pointless arguments with people who think you are a complete tosser is "hard toil" then I think your problem is your life has been a bit too easy so far.


If the buddha found personal peace in a crumbling world, then the buddha is a selfish son of a...


The wisdom of Lifegazer!

Do you think the world is ready for this brilliant philosopher who stands before us?

Thank God you have come to save us in our hour of need.

Now, what next?

What shall we actually do to save the world, Lifegazer?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do you think the world is ready for this brilliant philosopher who stands before us?

It's in the balance. 50/50 armageddon or unity.

Thank God you have come to save us in our hour of need.

Yep. You may call me Sir.

Now, what next?

Get the beer in.

What shall we actually do to save the world, Lifegazer?
As an employee of mine, I order you to tell the Scots that the border with England is kaput. I'll head for Cardiff. And I'll see if I can get Uppy to give Georgie Bush a call.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
wow, my butt is so sore from all those points I make that you ignore. (I suppose you must have a different definition of butt kicking)

Great avatar kid. LOL

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's in the balance. 50/50 armageddon or unity.

Yes, but it's all just in The Mind so it doesn't matter. The Mind can just go on to its next little fantasy since existence is eternal.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Great avatar kid. LOL

No votes yet then, Lifegazer?

Aren't you even going to vote for yourself? :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


Yes, but it's all just in The Mind so it doesn't matter. The Mind can just go on to its next little fantasy since existence is eternal.
It matters. The purpose of 'this' was for God to choose the state of being [God].

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


No votes yet then, Lifegazer?

Aren't you even going to vote for yourself? :D
I never lie to myself Geoff. I know the truth but I also know that I am despised for knowing it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I never lie to myself Geoff. I know the truth but I also know that I am despised for knowing it.

You are despised because you are an arrogant wanker.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It matters. The purpose of 'this' was for God to choose the state of being [God].

But God's already everything since you admit that 2 things can't be in the same place at the same time and God is omnipresent. Since God is already everything there is nothing (i.e no thing) left for God to become so my previous point stands.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Wudang


But God's already everything since you admit that 2 things can't be in the same place at the same time and God is omnipresent. Since God is already everything there is nothing (i.e no thing) left for God to become so my previous point stands.

Wudang! Wow! somebody around here with a basic grasp of logic and metaphysics!

God is already perfect/everything therefore there is nothing left for God to become!

Spot on.

[lifegazer]

The fullness of God embraces the whole. It's what the whole can become that is important to God.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The fullness of God embraces the whole. It's what the whole can become that is important to God.


What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One. The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth. Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.
Even you, brother Geoffrey.

There is only God.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One.


EVERY RELIGION THERE HAS EVER BEEN HAS ARGUED THIS, YOU IDIOT! I HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE CLAIM THAT ALL IS ONE. I HAVE CHALLENGED ***YOUR*** RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR GOD AND ***YOUR*** MORAL HYPOCRISY.

Now, for the umpteenth time.....


....What/who gave YOU, TOSSPOT OF THE CENTURY, the right to speak for God!!!!???

[lifegazer]

Answered in the 'order' thread.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The fullness of God embraces the whole. It's what the whole can become that is important to God.

The wholeness cannot become anything because God is already everything. Since God is ordered cannot change without breaking his order and becoming something else which cannot happen because god is already perfect.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Wudang


The wholeness cannot become anything because God is already everything. Since God is ordered cannot change without breaking his order and becoming something else which cannot happen because god is already perfect.

God is already perfect, the world is already perfect. YES!

What we see is what we are. If we aim for perfection, then the world looks perfect to us. If we are a complete tosser with an ego the size of a Boeing 747 then the world looks like an ocean of pain.

:)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


God is already perfect, the world is already perfect. YES!

What we see is what we are. If we aim for perfection, then the world looks perfect to us. If we are a complete tosser with an ego the size of a Boeing 747 then the world looks like an ocean of pain.

:)

Uh, this is the debate with the buddha, and so at this point I would like to say,, aim for perfection and you will definitly suffer!

Only a person without eyes and without compassion would say that there is no suffering, 13 million children die each year from preventable causes. Then there are just the usual aches and pains, I refer to yout shouting in the stands about some sort of tosspot.

If you are shouting, what is your shouting about, suffering?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Uh, this is the debate with the buddha, and so at this point I would like to say,, aim for perfection and you will definitly suffer!


Suffering is unavoidable, whether you aim for perfection or not. I believe it is true that as your own ego becomes less important to you, the suffering becomes less.

All life is suffering. I am a Schopenhaurian.


Only a person without eyes and without compassion would say that there is no suffering, 13 million children die each year from preventable causes. Then there are just the usual aches and pains, I refer to yout shouting in the stands about some sort of tosspot.

If you are shouting, what is your shouting about, suffering?

No. I am shouting at lifegazer about hypocrisy, not suffering. I am shouting at lifegazer because he is blaming everybody else for his problems instead of concentrating on the real problem, which is his own enormous ego. If lifegazer just listened for a while, and learned a bit instead of trying to lecture everyone else, if he was capable of realising he does not already have all the answers, then many of his problems would evaporate.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It matters. The purpose of 'this' was for God to choose the state of being [God].

That would contridict god being perfect. If god is perfect, god is already in the perfect state of being.

Not only that, but if this experiment "fails" then god failed, so what are you worried about lifegazer?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One. The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth. Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.
Even you, brother Geoffrey.

There is only God.

As the mouthpiece of the buddha(hey which end does he put his lips and which end gets shoved into the trumpet), I will try to continue the thread.

The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth.

There are truths and then there are truisms, what is true in one situation is not always true in another. I respect your truth, I disagree with you because it is not a truth that makes sense to me. Just as my truth will not make sense to you. Maybe people disagree with you for the same reasons that you disagree with them.


Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.


Whoa there, camel man! There are plenty like you who question the nature of human existance, there are even those who agree totaly with your POV. Agreeing to monism is not going to make divison disappear.

That is why the Statement One, is so true, each thing in the world is unique, similar, interdependant, cojoined and linked, but totaly unique. I know you scoff at the buddha Life gazer, which is musch your loss. He was a human who thought long hard and deep, he also ppactised a lot to learn.

It was his observation that things are unique, that there is similarity but uniqueness. each finds it's own path to the truth.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Suffering is unavoidable, whether you aim for perfection or not. I believe it is true that as your own ego becomes less important to you, the suffering becomes less.

All life is suffering. I am a Schopenhaurian.



No. I am shouting at lifegazer about hypocrisy, not suffering. I am shouting at lifegazer because he is blaming everybody else for his problems instead of concentrating on the real problem, which is his own enormous ego. If lifegazer just listened for a while, and learned a bit instead of trying to lecture everyone else, if he was capable of realising he does not already have all the answers, then many of his problems would evaporate.

Truely Geoff? How do you percieve this hypocrisy and why does it matter to you? Suffering, maybe? How do you perfcieve the blaming, real problem, enormous ego, and lecture. If they did not cause you to interact with them then you would not experience suffering. Certainly you would not be shouting if you really didn't care.
Why should you respond to LG at all?

I apologise for pointing this out but you are yelling from the stands while LG wrestles the buddha.

[Schizobunny]

Bob were counting on you! Don't let us down now.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Truely Geoff? How do you percieve this hypocrisy and why does it matter to you?


Tuly, David. It matters to me because in the not-so-distant past I made some similar mistakes to those of lifegazer. I was never quite as bad as lifegazer, but in him I see a reflection of my former self.


Suffering, maybe? How do you perfcieve the blaming, real problem, enormous ego, and lecture. If they did not cause you to interact with them then you would not experience suffering.


I am not suffering because of Lifegazer. He is providing me with amusement. :)


Certainly you would not be shouting if you really didn't care.
Why should you respond to LG at all?


Again, it is partly because of my own history, especially right here at the JREF. I am challenging lifegazer because I wanted to correct some mistakes I made previously. I think I've done it now.

I too forgot to think about my own morality when lecturing others on Unity.


I apologise for pointing this out but you are yelling from the stands while LG wrestles the buddha.

Sorry. Am I distracting from the main show? :D

[Some Friggin Guy]

I feel I must ask a question of the posters in this thread.

Lifegazer claims to have found the truth. If that is the case, then he must understand that the truth is a personal matter, as my truth is as different from his, as his is from anyone else's.

If part of his truth is to preach his belief to others, claiming they are blind or cowards, he must understand part of my truth is to ignore him publically and laugh at him privately.

He has claimed that happiness is better than unhappiness and peace better than war. (I would use the term conflict rather than war.)

Since any happiness found in life is, in fact, an illusion brought on by a momentary lessening in one's suffering, then happiness cannot be better than unhappiness.

Since peace is an illusion stemming from a momentary rest from conflict, peace cannot be better than war.

Since I claim no allegience to, belief in, nor desire to find his god, I am not his brother.

And finally, since I have dedicated my life to easing the suffering of other through my own toil and sacrifice, I have found peace of mind (different from the peace described above). Since that peace of mind has been gained through the assitance of others, I cannot be a selfish SOB.

Editted because I realized I said I was going to ask a question, but never did. Therefore, what is everyone having for dinner tonight?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I feel I must ask a question of the posters in this thread.

Lifegazer claims to have found the truth. If that is the case, then he must understand that the truth is a personal matter, as my truth is as different from his, as his is from anyone else's.



You'd think so. But you'd be wrong. Yes, it is a fundamental fact of life, known by every person who has ever studied philosophy, that the truth MUST remain personal. This is one of the most important reasons why Lifegazer is having such difficulty understanding why he is having such problems. He does not believe he needs to read about philosophy. So he has deluded himself into believing that HIS truth is everybody-elses truth and he is utterly incapable of understanding that this can NEVER be.

Lifegazers problem is that he thinks he understands philosophy but in fact any person who has actually studied it AT ALL realises very quickly that Lifegazer understands very little indeed. His "big idea" that he thinks he is the first to have thought of has been spoken of continually. It isn't his idea at all - it is as old as the hills. The rest of his "philosophy" involves spurious poorly-thought-out "reasoning" mixed up with what he wants to be true about God and pseudo-scientific fantasy-physics. Everything other than his "big idea" is inconsistent, illogical and driven by a need to believe in the Jehovas Witness "Paradise" plus a need to blame everybody-else for his problems instead of himself. And the "big idea" itself is not only not his, but he doesn't actually understand it properly. Things like epistemology and the limits of knowledge or the communicability of "truth" might as well be Swahili for Lifegazer - he hasn't even realised the importance of these questions, let alone having any idea about the answers.

[Disbeliever]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I see nobody else in this forum arguing that there is only God and that We are One. The reason why everybody disagrees with me is because only I am speaking for that truth. Everybody else believes that they have an existence of their own and are separate to everyone else.
Even you, brother Geoffrey.

There is only God.

"Doubt everything. Find your own light."

-Last words of Gotama Buddha, in Theravada tradition

I think you've clearly skipped step one and gone straight to step two here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
"Doubt everything. Find your own light."

-Last words of Gotama Buddha, in Theravada tradition

Awful reasoning, since doubting everything leads to finding nothing, obviously.

Lifegazer 1 ... Buddha 0

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I feel I must ask a question of the posters in this thread.

Lifegazer claims to have found the truth. If that is the case, then he must understand that the truth is a personal matter, as my truth is as different from his, as his is from anyone else's.

How many realities do you think that there are, frig face?

If part of his truth is to preach his belief to others, claiming they are blind or cowards, he must understand part of my truth is to ignore him publically and laugh at him privately.

Then perish with the rest.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


That would contridict god being perfect. If god is perfect, god is already in the perfect state of being.

Not only that, but if this experiment "fails" then god failed, so what are you worried about lifegazer?
I'm worried about eternal hell... for God.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How many realities do you think that there are....


Only one. How many human egos are the same?

[lifegazer]

Geoff's posts are the usual mixture of irrelevancies. No time for them anymore.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk
"How many realities do you think that there are..."

Only one.

A man of sense. Thankyou. Truth is clearly not a personal matter. It's a universal matter.

How many human egos are the same?
A singular God exhibits endless diversity [of being] through countless distinct egos. Man possesses nothing, since there is no man except as perceived by God itself, in ignorance of Divine identity, lost within the dream.
No human egos are the same, but they all possess the same identity, essentially.

[Disbeliever]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Awful reasoning, since doubting everything leads to finding nothing, obviously.

Lifegazer 1 ... Buddha 0

Uh. No. Obviously not.

You will find what proves to be true, despite your doubts. Duh.

[lifegazer]

The buddha claimed to have received enlightenment.
Linking each individual ego, there resides The Self.
If the buddha had done what he had claimed, then he would have spoken as Self. Which of course, he never did.

That's why I say that the buddha fell short of The truth.

[Disbeliever]

^ I hope that wasn't in response to my post. If it was, it didn't make sense.

[lifegazer]

No. There was no point in responding to you. You're one of Geoff's sockpuppets.

[Disbeliever]

The same could be said of you and the One Everlasting Divine God, minus whatever other titles you'd like to give him.

[Disbeliever]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. There was no point in responding to you.

You know, because we're not having a philisophical discussion here, so I can just ignore whatever you say. :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The buddha claimed to have received enlightenment.
I suggest "attained" rather than "received".



Linking each individual ego, there resides The Self.
If the buddha had done what he had claimed, then he would have spoken as Self. Which of course, he never did.

That's why I say that the buddha fell short of The truth.

I don't believe you see the significance of ego-death, in that why would an egoless entity become a teacher, or proclaim Truth, or ?? ?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk
"The buddha claimed to have received enlightenment."

I suggest "attained" rather than "received".

As man, the buddha receives enlightenment. As God, he attains it.
Did the buddha know who he was, in truth? Because as man, he receives everything.

I don't believe you see the significance of ego-death, in that why would an egoless entity become a teacher, or proclaim Truth, or ?? ?
I am struggling to comprehend your meaning. Please clarify.

[Disbeliever]

Maybe I should elaborate....

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm a bit busy elsewhere at the moment. And this looks as though it could be one of those farce-threads with little rational discussion.

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. There was no point in responding to you. You're one of Geoff's sockpuppets.

So much for "rational discussion". You always bring your suffering upon yourself, as the Buddha might say...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As man, the buddha receives enlightenment. As God, he attains it.
Did the buddha know who he was, in truth? Because as man, he receives everything.

I am struggling to comprehend your meaning. Please clarify.

When the Buddha was man, where was the God? When the Buddha was God, where was the man?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Awful reasoning, since doubting everything leads to finding nothing, obviously.

Lifegazer 1 ... Buddha 0

Doubting everything leads to finding the truth. Only the truth can stand up to constant scrutiny and doubt.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm worried about eternal hell... for God.


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Before you continue, explain how an omnipotent god can find himself in a state of eternal suffering.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. There was no point in responding to you. You're one of Geoff's sockpuppets.

Wow, his is a clinical case. There is no mistaking the parania. Perhaps we should invite a physcology class to observe his rantings so they can see what a textbook case looks like.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Awful reasoning, since doubting everything leads to finding nothing, obviously.

Lifegazer 1 ... Buddha 0

Doubting everything leads to finding nothing. That statement would bear some explanation, it is not obvious to my little light.

In the case where a person has a definite mistaken truth, say the one handed down by others, doubting could lead that person to find that the handed down system is false. Therefore in one case at least doubt is useful.

In the case where the person takes established truth on faith alone, do they really inderstand that truth, doubting it and examining it can lead to that person having knowledge of the truth rather than faith. So another case where doubt could be useful.

In the case where a person has a partial truth, there doubt could lead to them understanding and knowing which is the partial truth and which is mistaken truth. This person could be lead to a more complete truth through doubt.

In the case where there is an established paradigm, and the person comes to doubt it from a dicovery of truth, should that person not doubt the established paradigm which conflicts with thier internal truth. More useful doubt.(And I believe your own stated position).

So there are at least four cases where a person can benefit from doubt.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A man of sense. Thankyou. Truth is clearly not a personal matter. It's a universal matter.

Yes that is true, but how do you know that my truth and your truth are not equal. The same arguments that you use to assigne universality to truth are the same arguments that I use to assign universality to truth. Yet we each have a different perspective or piece of the truth.
So how to decide which is the universal truth?


A singular God exhibits endless diversity [of being] through countless distinct egos. Man possesses nothing, since there is no man except as perceived by God itself, in ignorance of Divine identity, lost within the dream.
No human egos are the same, but they all possess the same identity, essentially.

You are very close to discovering the buddha's truth, which may not be a truth for you. man possesses nothing is very close because the buddha taught that there is no self, there is an illusion of self. Perhaps you two look at the same truth, perhaps not. Your arguments are similar.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The buddha claimed to have received enlightenment.
Linking each individual ego, there resides The Self.
If the buddha had done what he had claimed, then he would have spoken as Self. Which of course, he never did.

That's why I say that the buddha fell short of The truth.

The buddha claimed that he 'found' enlightenment, after many years of following different paths.

And the buddha founs a truth that there is no self, no atman, no substantial identity to a human other than the purely human values assigned to it. (Another perspective similar to monism.)

How do you know that the buddha did not speak as Self? can you speak for the Self?

How can you tell the 'truth', what test can we each apply to find it. Hmm?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


When the Buddha was man, where was the God? When the Buddha was God, where was the man?

Same:same

Why would god see an artificial boundary?(There are parts of monism that I find attractive)

Is god to live in a dog?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


...an artificial boundary...
Where does a string/quark/??? end, and when it ends, what is there?

The ultimate conundrum: if P and not-P are true, logic fails. (Which as I understand it is one answer to the Bell-Aspect results; IIRC, another would be "reality is non-local").

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Where does a string/quark/??? end, and when it ends, what is there?

The ultimate conundrum: if P and not-P are true, logic fails. (Which as I understand it is one answer to the Bell-Aspect results; IIRC, another would be "reality is non-local").

When the string quark ends there is still the vacum energy, in the Guth inflation, there is the something that the universe comes from.

Why would god(P) and buddha(not P) be a true statement, if god is everything then it would be god(P) and buddha(P), would it not?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


When the string quark ends there is still the vacum energy, in the Guth inflation, there is the something that the universe comes from.
And are you suggesting monism, or dualism?


Why would god(P) and buddha(not P) be a true statement, if god is everything then it would be god(P) and buddha(P), would it not?
The point is P= any proposition, and not-P it's negation.

I.E. Both God=True and not-God=True are correct.

Or as others have said; mu.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by hammegk


When the Buddha was man, where was the God? When the Buddha was God, where was the man?

What school of Buddhism are you thinking of? The ones that consider the buddha as partaking of the nature of a god are generally corrupted by external influences. When a false dharma arises ....etc Or as we say in the west, bulls*t baffles brilliance.

[hammegk]

The false dichotomy is what I pointed out. Which school would disagree?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


When the Buddha was man, where was the God? When the Buddha was God, where was the man?
There is God. There is no man. But clearly, there is a perception of being man.
Hence, the distinction you seek to be explained is that between God and what God perceives.
So, what you're really asking here, if you think about it, is "where is God as he perceives what he perceives?". Which, in this light, is shown to be an absurd question. Agreed?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Doubting everything leads to finding the truth. Only the truth can stand up to constant scrutiny and doubt.
But doubting everything means that you cannot not doubt the thing that is the truth. I.e., if there is a truth, you must doubt it. Which means you can never find the truth, for whilst there is doubt, there is always an ongoing search for something else.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But doubting everything means that you cannot not doubt the thing that is the truth. I.e., if there is a truth, you must doubt it. Which means you can never find the truth, for whilst there is doubt, there is always an ongoing search for something else.

What is wrong about searching for something else. I doubt everything I hold true, and everyday examine evidence that might destroy my truths. While this means that sometimes I discover I was wrong (gasp) it also means that I can be more confident in what I do hold true.

An ongoing search for something else is key.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
"A man of sense. Thankyou. Truth is clearly not a personal matter. It's a universal matter."

Yes that is true, but how do you know that my truth and your truth are not equal.

Because my truth is indivisible, making all things One; thus making all things equal unto God. My truth is truly universal unto all things.
Your truth cannot equal that because your truth retains divisions of the whole.

man possesses nothing is very close because the buddha taught that there is no self, there is an illusion of self.

The buddha was wrong.
Who has the illusion?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill

An ongoing search for something else is key.
This search is forever ongoing to him that doubts everything.
The truth is simple Russ.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This search is forever ongoing to him that doubts everything.
The truth is simple Russ.

Aye, and he who accepts something as truth completely will never find any truths for he holds onto a lie.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
How do you know that the buddha did not speak as Self?

The buddha didn't believe in a true self. How then, could he speak as It?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Aye, and he who accepts something as truth completely will never find any truths for he holds onto a lie.
Are all things a lie? Nay, something must be true. Therefore, your statement is not absolute Russ.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is God. There is no man. But clearly, there is a perception of being man.
Hence, the distinction you seek to be explained is that between God and what God perceives.
So, what you're really asking here, if you think about it, is "where is God as he perceives what he perceives?". Which, in this light, is shown to be an absurd question. Agreed?
Err, no. Perhaps you need to "think about it". :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk

Err, no. Perhaps you need to "think about it". :)
Perhaps I do. Then again, perhaps you do.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Perhaps I do. Then again, perhaps you do.

And that is Truth. :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are all things a lie? Nay, something must be true. Therefore, your statement is not absolute Russ.

I did not say all things are a lie, did I? I said someone who does not actively seek out to challenge his notion of "truth" holds onto a lie.

1) Man is imperfect
2) Man makes mistakes
3) Mistakes can include mistaking lie for truth
4) This has been played out over the millenia
5) You are only a man

Since men are imperfect, they can only get closer to truth by questioning *all* of their results.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


And that is Truth. :D
The truth is that I gave reason... you gave none.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


I did not say all things are a lie, did I? I said someone who does not actively seek out to challenge his notion of "truth" holds onto a lie.

1) Man is imperfect
2) Man makes mistakes
3) Mistakes can include mistaking lie for truth
4) This has been played out over the millenia
5) You are only a man

Since men are imperfect, they can only get closer to truth by questioning *all* of their results.
You're doing a David, Russ. You're dancing all over the place and stepping on everyones toes (clumsy oaf) to avoid the simple fact that doubting everything = not being sure of anything = never finding the truth.
Sit back down grass-hopper, and eat your popcorn.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're doing a David, Russ. You're dancing all over the place and stepping on everyones toes (clumsy oaf) to avoid the simple fact that doubting everything = not being sure of anything = never finding the truth.
Sit back down grass-hopper, and eat your popcorn.

Its a reality of being imperfect. As an imperfect man, you can NEVER be sure you have found the truth. You always must doubt. The mistake you have made is not doubting.


proud card carrying member of the 2003 "doing a david" JREF team.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Its a reality of being imperfect. As an imperfect man, you can NEVER be sure you have found the truth. You always must doubt. The mistake you have made is not doubting.


proud card carrying member of the 2003 "doing a david" JREF team.
It's impossible to refute monistic idealism. Really, it is. And at the same time, it makes perfect sense of everything. This week, I have an idea for a thread which might give you a broader understanding of my philosophy as a whole. Stay tuned and buy more stocks of popcorn.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The truth is that I gave reason... you gave none.

Of what use would ego-driven reason be to god?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk


Of what use would ego-driven reason be to god?
Unity awaits. No time to lose.
If my reason doth falter, then tell the readers why.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's impossible to refute monistic idealism. Really, it is. And at the same time, it makes perfect sense of everything.


There are a very large number of ideas besides monistic idealism that are impossible to refute, and make perfect sense of everything. And yet, at most one of the is true (if any) because they conflict with each other. How is your idea any better?



This week, I have an idea for a thread which might give you a broader understanding of my philosophy as a whole.


Not necessary, as we all already understand your philosophy. Where we have a problem, is that you claim you have proof. Your proof has been disputed time and time again, and you have not responded to any of these posts, except to simply state that you are right, and all others are wrong.


Stay tuned and buy more stocks of popcorn.

I'll keep my share in materialism thank you very much.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The buddha didn't believe in a true self. How then, could he speak as It?

Because it is not known to humankind what that 'IT' might be. If the true self is to act freely of false notions, then perhaps a person engaged in life free of false notions, would be living the life of 'the Self'.

If all that stands between self (personal) and Self is a world of false notions then it maybe that ridding oneself of the 'self' would be useful.

LifeGazer: How can you prove that the Self could speak and state that it is that Self. This is a really crucial question. Your defintion of god and ultimates self should hopefully be free of anthropomorphism, we as mere particles of the non-existant great mind can not know what the great mind would be like.

By recognition of Self that Self looses the freedom of boundlessness and becomes self. It should not be constrained by the notions of a mere human mind.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No. There was no point in responding to you. You're one of Geoff's sockpuppets.

Oh boy! :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer


If my reason doth falter, then tell the readers why.

Speech? We can only infer your Conduct, etc.

Although Purpose could use mindfulness & meditation imo.

[UndercoverElephant]

DancingDavid


Your defintion of god and ultimates self should hopefully be free of anthropomorphism


Nope. According to Lifegazer God has an ego, emotions and desires.

Lifegazer has created God in lifegazers image. Makes you long for Franko to come back, doesn't it? ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hammegk
Speech? We can only infer your Conduct, etc.

Don't be a fool. The value of my persona, as perceived by yourself, says nothing of the value of the reason I use.

Although Purpose could use mindfulness & meditation imo.
Again, I do not know what you mean. But it appears you do not wish to reason with me. Never mind.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Don't be a fool. The value of my persona, as perceived by yourself, says nothing of the value of the reason I use.
Who is not a fool?


Again, I do not know what you mean. But it appears you do not wish to reason with me. Never mind.
I understand your lesson. :)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Makes you long for Franko to come back, doesn't it? ;) No.

lifegazer, at least, does not hijack threads.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Nope. According to Lifegazer God has an ego, emotions and desires.

Can God not think? Can God not feel? Can God have no desires?
Is God a zombie?
Of course God has personal attributes of identity. And guess what, personal identity is the equivalent of "ego".
God has an ego.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer



The buddha was wrong.
Who has the illusion?

Greetings again lifegazer I hope you are well and happy.

First allow me to again ask you this simple Question, in the past you have refused to answer it but if you do and can answer it then you will prove the Buddha wrong and you right.

After that I will seek to help you and perhaps others learn just what the Buddha did say about this topic.

The question:

Show to me, demonstrate to me just one thing that is self.

Just one thing that is in and of itself, self.

Just one thing that is in and of itself self meaning it is not comprised of, shaped by, influenced by, created by anything else.

Just one thing that is unchanging and always just what it is, self.

Just one thing and the facts to prove it is nothing but just self.

Remember if it contains any parts that are not it, it can not be self, if it is created by another it can not be self, if it is shaped, influenced, taught etc by something out side of it, it is not self. If it chances it is not self.

Self can be nothing other then just self.

I look forward to your answer.

Now may I also help you learn about just what the Buddha did say about this subject. I offer to you this article written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and titled No-self or Not-self? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html

No-self or Not-self?

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings -- you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness -- one's own or that of others -- impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging -- the residual sense of self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

[lifegazer]

Glad to see you back. I shall give your post some consideration.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Can God not think? Can God not feel? Can God have no desires?
[b]Is God a zombie?


God does not have desires, Lifegazer. Desires are things human beings have, put there by evolution, explained by physics. What possible use would God have for desires? They are manifestations of imperfectness. A perfect Being requires nothing.


God has an ego.


Yes, we know you believe that, Lifegazer. Unfortunately you can't possibly back it up with anything other than frustrated foot-stamping. It's a completely illogical suggestion based on your own personal need for an anthropomorphised God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
God does not have desires, Lifegazer.

Explain to this forum how anything could happen if God didn't want it to happen?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Can God not think? Can God not feel? Can God have no desires?
Is God a zombie?
Of course God has personal attributes of identity. And guess what, personal identity is the equivalent of "ego".
God has an ego.

Can God not think?

No. An all knowing perfect being can not “think”. What does an all knowing being think about that it does not already know?


Let us look at the word or concept, Think

To Think is to Imagine, reflect, consider, suppose, assume. All of these have one base requirement that being a lack of knowledge either complete or partial.

If I know everything in the past, the present and the future there is nothing I do not know there is nothing I have to think about as all knowledge is already known.

No a God could not think.

May I ask do you mean this God has a brain? As in something that is compound made up of non God elements like cells etc? Things/ elements that are always rising and falling being born and dying and falling into decay?

Can God not feel?


How do you mean feel? Physically from touch? No The body is compound comprised of completely non body elements always changing. If he has a body who created it? He could not create his own body.

Do you mean emotions? Feeling mad or angry or happy etc? No, such things indicate desires, cravings what can al all powerful all knowing being crave?

How could he “become” angry or happy ? That means something happened that he did not know about before hand. Thus not all knowing or all powerful.

Can God have no desires?

No as indicated above. Such would mean this being is not all powerful, such a being could not have desires it could not desire anything as that would require needs and thought things un known before the desire arouse and the inability to instantly self satisfy.


Is God a zombie?

I can not say as I see no proof there is such a being and I have asked many times as have others for you to offer proof, you have not so one can not judge what is not known or proven as fact. I can not say big foot has a birth mark in the shape of my face under it’s fur and on it’s right shoulder.

Of course God has personal attributes of identity.


facts please?


And guess what, personal identity is the equivalent of "ego".God has an ego.

facts please.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Glad to see you back. I shall give your post some consideration.

Thank you for both.

Be well

[Pahansiri]

Hello my old friend Geoff.

I hope you are well and happy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Hello my old friend Geoff.

I hope you are well and happy.

Hi Pahansiri

Yes, life has been very kind to me recently. I hope you are also doing well.

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Explain to this forum how anything could happen if God didn't want it to happen?

You want me to explain to you the origin of the Universe?

No. This is the wrong place for me to enter into unprovable metaphysics, and you are not capable of understanding the answer anyway. :)

However, the answers given to you by Pahansiri about God having no ego are the same answers I gave you on philosophy forums, and since this thread is your head-on with the Buddha you should try answering them. ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You want me to explain to you the origin of the Universe?

No. God is that origin. My question to you is how the creation came about without God's will, which equates to God's desire.
You claim that God has no desire. So what could force God to create a universe he didn't desire to create?

No. This is the wrong place for me to enter into unprovable metaphysics, and you are not capable of understanding the answer anyway. :)

I don't believe you are capable of rising to the challenge. In fact, I am sure you cannot.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
First allow me to again ask you this simple Question, in the past you have refused to answer it but if you do and can answer it then you will prove the Buddha wrong and you right.
The question:

Show to me, demonstrate to me just one thing that is self.

Just one thing that is in and of itself, self.

Crazy question.
Name the Self? God.
What is God? Well clearly, the boundlessness of God prevents me giving you a finite answer. God is the creator of things; the set of things reside within God; but God is not a thing. That is why there is no answer to your question.

Just one thing that is unchanging and always just what it is, self.

God is the essence of things moving in relation to each other = God is the essence of things, changing = God is the essence of time (as defined by man).
But again, as with things, God is not time, but is the essence of it. God is unchanging.

Now may I also help you learn about just what the Buddha did say about this subject.

I may reply to that separately. It's a long piece.

[Zero]

Hmmmm...I have to say, this is an interesting matchup: Buddha has been dead for centuries, while Lifegazer's philosophy is stillborn. Who will win?:D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Crazy question.
No crazy questions, only crazy answers.

What is God? Well clearly, the boundlessness of God prevents me giving you a finite answer. God is the creator of things; the set of things reside within God; but God is not a thing. That is why there is no answer to your question.

You just stated the reasons I gave for why God would not speak as a Self.



You know Lifegazer, it is suprising that you just dismissied Hammegk, he is the voice of experienced monism. the fact that you don't care to understand him is not a beneficial one. Perhaps you should try to understand hi.

[lifegazer]

"You just stated the reasons I gave for why God would not speak as a Self."

God is singular but boundless... non-finite. There is nothing irrational about that. The same thing applies to imagination, yet that speaks incessantly.

... it was hammie who dismissed me. Said I had an ego. So does God. Will he dismiss 'him' too?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Crazy question.
Name the Self? God.
What is God? Well clearly, the boundlessness of God prevents me giving you a finite answer. God is the creator of things; the set of things reside within God; but God is not a thing. That is why there is no answer to your question.

God is the essence of things moving in relation to each other = God is the essence of things, changing = God is the essence of time (as defined by man).
But again, as with things, God is not time, but is the essence of it. God is unchanging.

I may reply to that separately. It's a long piece.
I was hoping this time for better.

Crazy question.

Only to one who can not answer it or support his position and statements.

Name the Self? God.


You said the Buddha was wrong and there was a self a soul I asked you to give just one example of something that was self, facts to support it and you again offer nothing but an unproven belief.

Now as I have stated in the past I respect what you believe or your rights to believe as you will. You make statements of fact but offer no facts.

No please show me with facts to support it one thing that is in and of itself, self.

And also for this to be true Name the Self? God.

The burden is fully yours, prove God or your statement and belief are meaningless. If you can prove what you say is truth I will believe it.


What is God?

A belief and until proven nothing more.


Well clearly, the boundlessness of God prevents me giving you a finite answer.


Very nice dance do not you know this all makes you look foolish? I do not believe you are but you are acting as such.

You can give no answer, no facts because you have none, none exist.


God is the creator of things;


Facts, prove it.


the set of things reside within God; but God is not a thing.

All statements of belief and nothing more. I respect them as a belief but as a statement of fact it is of course baseless.



That is why there is no answer to your question.

No, there is no answer because you have no answers, no facts no proof no logical conclusion just a belief.




God is the essence of things moving in relation to each other = God is the essence of things, changing = God is the essence of time (as defined by man).
But again, as with things, God is not time, but is the essence of it. God is unchanging.


A statement of belief I respect them as a belief but as a statement of fact it is of course baseless.


I may reply to that separately. It's a long piece.


It is only 1004 words it is not what should be considered a long piece.



You have been defeated, be well.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You said the Buddha was wrong and there was a self a soul I asked you to give just one example of something that was self, facts to support it and you again offer nothing but an unproven belief.

Existence or being is self. Reality is Self.
And because of the omni-qualities exhibited by this Self, we label it 'God'. This God is singular, but is boundless... non-finite.

Now as I have stated in the past I respect what you believe or your rights to believe as you will. You make statements of fact but offer no facts.

Your question is dumb. You asked me to name one thing that the self is and I explained to you that the self was the essence of things, and was not a thing in itself. The self cannot be labelled as a finite thing is labelled.

No please show me with facts to support it one thing that is in and of itself, self.

No thing is what you think it is. Now there's irony for yer.

It is only 1004 words it is not what should be considered a long piece.

The first paragraph was enough for me. Sorry. If you want any specific points of it answering, I will answer it. But 1004 words of nonsense is 1003 words too many.

[hammegk]

For Pahansiri from not-Franko.

Originally posted by Pahansiri

You have been defeated, be well.

How does one defeat the formlessness of non-being, or of being for that matter?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
For Pahansiri from not-Franko.



How does one defeat the formlessness of non-being, or of being for that matter?

Greetings my friend hammegk.

I hope you have been well.

How does one defeat the formlessness of non-being, or of being for that matter?

What was defeated was his position was it not?

May I ask that you attempt to answer?

The question:

Show to me, demonstrate to me just one thing that is self.

Just one thing that is in and of itself, self.

Just one thing that is in and of itself self meaning it is not comprised of, shaped by, influenced by, created by anything else.

Just one thing that is unchanging and always just what it is, self.

Just one thing and the facts to prove it is nothing but just self.

Remember if it contains any parts that are not it, it can not be self, if it is created by another it can not be self, if it is shaped, influenced, taught etc by something out side of it, it is not self. If it chances it is not self.

Self can be nothing other then just self.

I look forward to your answer.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Existence or being is self. Reality is Self.
And because of the omni-qualities exhibited by this Self, we label it 'God'. This God is singular, but is boundless... non-finite.

Your question is dumb. You asked me to name one thing that the self is and I explained to you that the self was the essence of things, and was not a thing in itself. The self cannot be labelled as a finite thing is labelled.

No thing is what you think it is. Now there's irony for yer.

The first paragraph was enough for me. Sorry. If you want any specific points of it answering, I will answer it. But 1004 words of nonsense is 1003 words too many.

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You said the Buddha was wrong and there was a self a soul I asked you to give just one example of something that was self, facts to support it and you again offer nothing but an unproven belief.



Existence or being is self. Reality is Self.


May I ask you support this with facts? It is again a statement of belief but you offer no supporting facts or logical conclusion.

A being may exist and do as it is provable ( unlike God) but a being is Existence is the act the being is the thing.

You said there is a self, I will ask again, show me something that is in and of itself, self.



And because of the omni-qualities exhibited by this Self, we label it 'God'. This God is singular, but is boundless... non-finite.

There is no qualities exhibited by this Self i.e. God until you demonstrate them.

And because of the omni-qualities exhibited by this Self, we label it 'God'.

No you label what is known by what is un known and that is illogical.

Again show me self.

This God is singular, but is boundless... non-finite.


prove this, prove God.

quote:
Now as I have stated in the past I respect what you believe or your rights to believe as you will. You make statements of fact but offer no facts.

Your question is dumb.

Or is the one who can not answer and support his statements and beliefs what is dumb?

You said there is a self, I said show me self and you say that is dumb so that would make your statement there is a self dumb. You are killing your self here.


You asked me to name one thing that the self is and I explained to you that the self was the essence of things, and was not a thing in itself. The self cannot be labelled as a finite thing is labelled.

Self/ soul is as I demonstrated if it contains any parts that are not it, it can not be self, if it is created by another it can not be self, if it is shaped, influenced, taught etc by something out side of it, it is not self. If it chances it is not self.

Self can be nothing other then just self.


The “the essence of things” as you say is just that the essence of things it is not a being, not a self it is the essence of things. TLOP are not as our friend Franko says either God as they are not the same in all places and are dependent on many factors and by such not self and ever changing and not controlling but controlled.

I will ask again show me with facts something that is self, not a belief but facts.

I wrote quote:
No please show me with facts to support it one thing that is in and of itself, self.



No thing is what you think it is. Now there's irony for yer.


That is very true, and what I have been telling you all along there is nothing that is and of itself, self.


quote:
It is only 1004 words it is not what should be considered a long piece.

The first paragraph was enough for me. Sorry. If you want any specific points of it answering, I will answer it. But 1004 words of nonsense is 1003 words too many.

Yet another statement with no supporting facts or conclusion and by such meaningless.

[scribble]

Again, it is partly because of my own history, especially right here at the JREF. I am challenging lifegazer because I wanted to correct some mistakes I made previously. I think I've done it now.


Gotta' disagree, Geoff. But maybe I missed your posts about how insane you might have been.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"You just stated the reasons I gave for why God would not speak as a Self."

God is singular but boundless... non-finite. There is nothing irrational about that. The same thing applies to imagination, yet that speaks incessantly.

... it was hammie who dismissed me. Said I had an ego. So does God. Will he dismiss 'him' too?

Pretty entertaining to watch you spin that one, but the straw remains gold.

God through your definition is boundless/limitless, the funny thing is that ego is in it's essence a limit. Ego is the seperation of the 'self' from the whole, which is called the 'ego-boundary', to have an ego , there must be a boundary. ergo God can not have an ego.

a. god is boundless
b. ego is that which seperates the 'self' from the whole, ego imposes a boundary on 'self'
c. if god has ego then god is bounded, contradicts a.

Lifegazer see that logic, which statement is false or will you redifine ego.

Again, you are missing a prime opotunity to discuss monism if you just dismiss Hammegk.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

....God's will, which equates to God's desire.


I don't think so, no. I think desires are human weakness put there as evolutionary strengths and I think God's Will is GOD'S WILL.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
a. god is boundless
b. ego is that which seperates the 'self' from the whole, ego imposes a boundary on 'self'
c. if god has ego then god is bounded, contradicts a.

Ego is that which defines the self. But there is no law written in stone that the self cannot be whole. You have merely given your definition of self from a man's perspective. Can you prove that the self cannot be defined as whole? If not, then your list is meaningless.

Again, you are missing a prime opotunity to discuss monism if you just dismiss Hammegk.
If he doesn't want to speak to me then he doesn't want to speak to me. It's no skin off my back.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I don't think so, no. I think desires are human weakness put there as evolutionary strengths and I think God's Will is GOD'S WILL.
Why would God will something to happen if he had no desire for it to be so? Will & desire are Siamese twins. Desire leads will though.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Ego is that which defines the self. But there is no law written in stone that the self cannot be whole. You have merely given your definition of self from a man's perspective. Can you prove that the self cannot be defined as whole? If not, then your list is meaningless.

If he doesn't want to speak to me then he doesn't want to speak to me. It's no skin off my back.

Ah, define the whole as the Self, but then you have to redine what ego means which is the whole point about anthropomorphism. If you redine the words ego and self, then why not use other words that have a clearer meaning?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ah, define the whole as the Self,

That's been my philosophy from the start. God is all. God is self.

but then you have to redine what ego means which is the whole point about anthropomorphism.

Ego is perceived identity, essentially. But there's no law stating that you cannot perceive yourself as whole, as opposed to divided.
Given the nature of the ego to change its ideas about the self, it is easily demonstratable that the ego is a shifting phenomena anyway... forever changing its mind about itself, so that it is never the same from one day to the next. Only if the ego shifts towards wholeness can it find the bedrock of selfness, and brotherhood amongst its fellow man.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No. God is that origin. My question to you is how the creation came about without God's will, which equates to God's desire.
You claim that God has no desire. So what could force God to create a universe he didn't desire to create?


If god can control the universe, and can see the actions within the universe his is part of the universe (he's omnipresent, isn't he). Therefore, since god is part of the universe, saying that god created the universe explains nothing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


If god can control the universe, and can see the actions within the universe his is part of the universe (he's omnipresent, isn't he). Therefore, since god is part of the universe, saying that god created the universe explains nothing.
I do not understand this at all. Do you have a mouthful of popcorn?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I do not understand this at all. Do you have a mouthful of popcorn?

Ok, lets get the dictionary out:


All created things viewed as constituting one system or whole; the whole body of things, or of phenomena; the ? of the Greeks, the mundus of the Latins; the world; creation.

If the Mind controls our conciousness, and thus guides our actions, it is most definately part of all phenomena, correct?

Thus, the Mind is part of the universe. Yet you say the mind created the universe.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why would God will something to happen if he had no desire for it to be so? Will & desire are Siamese twins. Desire leads will though.


More statements pulled out of your arse, Lifegazer. Based upon nothing. Your questions are MEANINGLESS and your answers are even more so. You are in no position to speculate about what "God desires".

I already told you once that desires have a perfectly rational explanation as part of human psychology associated with evolution. That is why I think it is silly to believe that a perfect non-physical Being should have desires. In typical style you completely ignored the argument presented to you and responded with the blind illogical speculation you call "reason". You simply cannot base a "philosophy" on wild, unprovable statements like this. If you want to understand "Will" I suggest you have a very large amount of reading to do, because it is a subject about which a great deal has been written and very little is agreed on. As usual you are talking about a subject about which you know absolutely nothing at all.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's been my philosophy from the start. God is all. God is self.


That's right Lifegazer. Your philosophy starts from a completely unfounded assumption. It has no value.

[scribble]

As usual you are talking about a subject about which you know absolutely nothing at all.

Yeah! Take it from someone who knows!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"Why would God will something to happen if he had no desire for it to be so? Will & desire are Siamese twins. Desire leads will though."

More statements pulled out of your arse, Lifegazer. Based upon nothing. Your questions are MEANINGLESS and your answers are even more so. You are in no position to speculate about what "God desires".

You are hopeless Geoff. Deal with what I say.

I already told you once that desires have a perfectly rational explanation as part of human psychology associated with evolution.

This isn't dealing with what I say. It's replacing what I say with the materialist's position, paste style, so that you don't have to deal with what I say. You're not as bright as you like to portray, are you?

[UndercoverElephant]

You are hopeless Geoff. Deal with what I say.


I have asked yo a set of questions in the other thread, maybe TEN TIMES. You have not answered them. You are in NO POSITION to tell me to "deal with what you say".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already told you once that desires have a perfectly rational explanation as part of human psychology associated with evolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't dealing with what I say. It's replacing what I say with the materialist's position....


OK. Listen CAREFULLY.


1)

I have not mentioned "materialism". Evolution is not "materialism". The claim that desires are rooted in evolution is not "materialism". I am not a materialist. UNDERSTAND THAT BIT?

Even if you aren't a materialist, you must accept that materialism has NO PROBLEM AT ALL explaining the origin of desire. Desire for sex = evolution making you produce the next generation. Desrie for money/power = evolution driving you to get status in order to produce the next generation. Get the picture? Now, having concluded that desires are rooted in the brain and created by evolution, what possible reason is there to claim GOD has them? The answer is that YOU happen to have a psychological need to think of God as an anthropomorphised being with human desires, human ego and human emotions. This is why you come out with nonsense like "God was lonely" or "God wanted there to be a world". Surely even a f**kwit like you can see that you have NO CHANCE of EVER convincing a bunch of skeptics to believe in a God which possesses human characteristics. YOU might choose to believe it, but if you think you are EVER going to convince the skeptics on the strength of hand-waving and illogical assertions then you have got some nasty surprises coming. :)

2)

ALL THE TIME WHAT YOU DO IS AVOID OTHER PEOPLES QUESTIONS AND REPLACE THEM WITH "WHAT YOU SAY" AND COMPLETLEY FAIL TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF YOU. THEN YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING EVEN THOUGH THOSE OTHERS ARE NOT DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. HYPER-HYPOCRISY!


You're not as bright as you like to portray, are you?


I never claimed to be bright, Lifegazer. That is what YOU do. Not me.

Repeat after me :

1) Geoff is not a materialist.
2) Lifegazer hasn't answered any of Geoffs questions.

Again :

1) Geoff is not a materialist.
2) Lifegazer hasn't answered any of Geoffs questions.

And a third time, just to make sure....

1) Geoff is not a materialist.
2) Lifegazer hasn't answered any of Geoffs questions.

:)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have asked yo a set of questions in the other thread, maybe TEN TIMES. You have not answered them. You are in NO POSITION to tell me to "deal with what you say".

Even Upchurch, a hero for the skeptics around here, stated that your questions were insincere and out of context with my rational philosophy; so spare us the violins.

1)
I have not mentioned "materialism". Evolution is not "materialism". The claim that desires are rooted in evolution is not "materialism". I am not a materialist. UNDERSTAND THAT BIT?

When people say "evolution", what they usually mean to imply is that any specific phenomenon has been yielded by material processes, and nothing else. Is this your position or not?

Even if you aren't a materialist, you must accept that materialism has NO PROBLEM AT ALL explaining the origin of desire.

Oh I have a massive problem accepting that material processes yield the feeling of want. At what point of material interaction and motion can we make "a brick" want something?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Even Upchurch, a hero for the skeptics around here, stated that your questions were insincere and out of context with my rational philosophy; so spare us the violins.No. I said that I thought the example used is a bad one. His point about your lack of critical thinking skills is completely and demonstrably valid and your philosophy is hardly rational. I just think he choose a poor point to highlight this.

Had it been me, I would have used a couple of examples to highlight each of your consistant logical errors. First, I would point out data-picking in accepting "inner" experiences as absolute evidence while completely discarding "outer" experiences as unprovable rather than giving each equal weight when evaluating them. Second, I would point out numerous times where you use "definition creep" to first define God into existance (whatever existance is, that is 'God') and then shift the definition to fit what you think 'God' should be ('God', who exists as shown before, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.). Third, I would point out that your evaluative abilities are highly suspect as shown by the belief that you have to alienate people from you in order to unite them under your theology.

No. While I don't entirely agree with Geoff's method or example, I do agree with his sentiment. I'd even go further and say that you are either a simple troll or you've had a psychotic break with paranoid and messiah delusions. Personally, if I cared beyond correcting misrepresentations of my position, I'd be encouraging you to seek theropy from a qualified psychologist. There aren't many woo-woo's out there that I think have genuine psychological problems, but you pretty well fit the text book definition.

[UndercoverElephant]

The rat has come out of its hole.....ready with the cricket bat....BOOM! :)


Even Upchurch, a hero for the skeptics around here, stated that your questions were insincere and out of context with my rational philosophy; so spare us the violins.


I am not interested in one post by Upchurch. I asked YOU some questions. I want YOU to answer them, or admit you cannot. I have no interest in Upchurch. This thread is about YOU. Not Upchurch.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)
I have not mentioned "materialism". Evolution is not "materialism". The claim that desires are rooted in evolution is not "materialism". I am not a materialist. UNDERSTAND THAT BIT?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people say "evolution", what they usually mean to imply is that any specific phenomenon has been yielded by material processes, and nothing else. Is this your position or not?


Rubbish. Evolution has NOTHING to do with materialism. Evolution is EVOLUTION. I am not a materialist. But I DO believe there is irrefutable evidence that my physical body is the result of natural selection and common ancestry. That is my position. Do you understand it yet? Or are you too damned stupid even to understand this? :(


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if you aren't a materialist, you must accept that materialism has NO PROBLEM AT ALL explaining the origin of desire.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I have a massive problem accepting that material processes yield the feeling of want. At what point of material interaction and motion can we make "a brick" want something?


No, you have wandered off the point. I am not talking about the feeling of desire. I am talking about the cause of desire. I am talking about how human desires can be explained. Now, if you want to talk about ontology you will end up talking about zombies i.e. what is the difference between a zombie that behaves like it has desires and a human which behaves like it has desires and actually has an "internal state" associated with the behaviour, yes?

!!WAKE UP TIME FOR LIFEGAZER!!

THIS DISTINCTION MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT I AM ASKING YOU. I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT IS A ZOMBIE OR A NON-ZOMBIE. ALL I CARE ABOUT IS WHY A CREATURE WHICH IS A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION DESIRES TO EAT AND F*CK. AND MATERIALISM CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES?

THIS HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH ONTOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

[Pahansiri]

Lifegazer, or his actions, where he is in his life at this time ( all the result of causes and conditions) is exactly what the Buddha was talking about as written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in what I posted.

From No-self or Not-self?

Many books try to answer these questions,( self/soul or no self) but if you look at the Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings -- you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside.

One need only look at the statements of Lifegazer, he holds the only truth and everyone ever in the history of the world was wrong. Every living being is lost and he alone is the holder of truth.

His grasping to the need to be special at something, to be self causes him great suffering he becomes angry and rants his ( I believe) stomach churns when someone does not agree with him.

The question of self is like the question of a God or gods etc it is wholly irrelevant. If there comes today solid proof or self/soul or no self/soul what will change? Will suffering end will the ones who will die of hunger today all 24000 not?

If there comes today solid proof or God or no God what will change? Will suffering end will the ones who will die of hunger today all 24000 not? Will the children who will be kidnapped, beaten, raped and killed not be so?

All things can be great to discuss if it is a discussion, logical respectful, factual etc our friend as to my belief is not capable of this.

No.
Our friend Lifegazer, seeks this http://aa.1asphost.com/Vampiress/snowqn.gif to me it seems something must be missing in his life.


Just what I believe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Had it been me, I would have used a couple of examples to highlight each of your consistant logical errors. First, I would point out data-picking in accepting "inner" experiences as absolute evidence while completely discarding "outer" experiences as unprovable rather than giving each equal weight when evaluating them.

Awareness of sensation, reason and emotion, are the foundation of existence. Existence is known through the events/experiences occuring within awareness.
Now how can we apply "equal weight" to the notion of an external reality when there is neither direct experience or sound reason to show that one exists? Your reasoning is clearly exhibiting a bias, and/or is inept.

Second, I would point out numerous times where you use "definition creep" to first define God into existance (whatever existance is, that is 'God') and then shift the definition to fit what you think 'God' should be ('God', who exists as shown before, is omnipotent, omniscient, etc.).

I've presented a few arguments to show that God exists. You didn't even participate in most of them.

Third, I would point out that your evaluative abilities are highly suspect as shown by the belief that you have to alienate people from you in order to unite them under your theology.

I don't give a monkey's uncle what you think about me as a person. My anger and frustration at the average skeptic on this site is more than justified. You even started a flame-war for everyone to gang up on me. So don't lecture me on ethics you friggin hypocrite.

No. While I don't entirely agree with Geoff's method or example, I do agree with his sentiment. I'd even go further and say that you are either a simple troll or you've had a psychotic break with paranoid and messiah delusions. Personally, if I cared beyond correcting misrepresentations of my position, I'd be encouraging you to seek theropy from a qualified psychologist. There aren't many woo-woo's out there that I think have genuine psychological problems, but you pretty well fit the text book definition.
So I'm psychotic because:-
(1) I'm not a sheep who believes everything the establishment pumps into my mind.
(2) I have a philosophy which states that All is God.
(3) I have the balls to give nerds like you the finger.

I think you're pathetic. You're firing blanks upchurch. Go and get a real gun or fight with lesser mortals.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch

No. I said that I thought the example used is a bad one. His point about your lack of critical thinking skills is completely and demonstrably valid and your philosophy is hardly rational. I just think he choose a poor point to highlight this.


That is a matter of opinion. Personally I think that all the complicated stuff you have chosen to tackle him on just allows ample opportunity for him to duck and dive and dodge the issue. The reason I chose the questions I did was because they were so f*****g simple a 5-year-old could have understood them. But the Lifegazer cannot answer them. Why make it complicated when you can make it simple?

Why argue about relativity and metaphysics with a person who cannot accept a logic as simple as :

Lion must eat lamb or lion will starve.
Therefore either lamb or lion must suffer.

It is TWO LINES long and the concepts are available to any smart 5-year-old. You do not need to understand physics or philosophy. All you need to understand is LOGIC.

Lifegazer does not understand it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Our friend Lifegazer, seeks this http://aa.1asphost.com/Vampiress/snowqn.gif to me it seems something must be missing in his life.


Just what I believe.
That's cool. Though I require more subjects. LOL

Seriously, if this is what you believe of me then you do not know me or my philosophy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

So I'm psychotic because:-
(1) I'm not a sheep who believes everything the establishment pumps into my mind.
(2) I have a philosophy which states that All is God.
(3) I have the balls to give nerds like you the finger. No, I specifically said that you had psychotic delusions of grandur and paranoia.

Source (http://www.aacap.org/about/glossary/Psychos.htm)Psychotic disorders include severe mental disorders which are characterized by extreme impairment of a person's ability to think clearly, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.

{snip}

Delusion: A false, fixed, odd, or unusual belief firmly held by the patient. The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture. There are delusions of paranoia (others are plotting against them), grandiose delusions (exaggerated ideas of one's importance or identity), and somatic delusions (a healthy person believing that he/she has a terminal illness).(my underlined emphesis)

This guess has nothing to do with your beliefs. There are folks on this board with way weirder beliefs than what you have. I'm basing this guess on your behavior. You've falsly accused people of plotting against you to have you banned. You've claimed to be the only one ever to understand what God truly is and that every other belief system is dead wrong.

I may be wrong. I don't profess to be an expert in the subject, but it certainly seems to be a real possibility to me. Which is why I don't feel you are qualified to discuss the topic of reality and why I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue with you.

[Wudang]

It's been a few years since my psych degree but one thing I do recall is that, generally, whereas a neurotic may have some insight into his condition, psychotics very rarely do.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wudang
It's been a few years since my psych degree but... I really enjoyed my psych classes in highschool and college. Psychology is in my top 10 "Things I'd like to try if I lived my life over" list.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Psychotic disorders include severe mental disorders which are characterized by extreme impairment of a person's ability to think clearly

I can out-think you, that's for sure.

respond emotionally,

I have emotions. Do you? Why do you think I get ratty when a bozo continues to call me psychotic? Perhaps you fail to realise the consequences of perpetual personal abuse. Do you bully everyone?

communicate effectively

Your inability to understand my philosophy earmarks your level of intelligence.

understand reality

Let's discuss 'reality', shall we?

and behave appropriately.

Like starting a flame war, for example?

Delusion: A false, fixed, odd, or unusual belief firmly held by the patient.

Prove my belief is false!
That my belief is different to the establishment is irrelevant.

The belief is not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture.

Tough. I'm here to change that established nonsense.

There are delusions of paranoia (others are plotting against them)

Happens all the time squire. I've been banned twice already, remember. People who cannot defeat me on the field of reason resort to insult or complaint. That's the way it is.

grandiose delusions (exaggerated ideas of one's importance or identity),

My philsophy is that we are all God. You're as important as me.


This guess has nothing to do with your beliefs.

Read the definition you provided. It certainly does have something to do with my philosophy.

I'm basing this guess on your behavior.

My behaviour! LOLOL
Check Geoff out before you have a go at me. And what a hypocrite you are. You start flame wars and then complain when I return the medicine dished out to me. What a joker you are.

You've claimed to be the only one ever to understand what God truly is and that every other belief system is dead wrong.

That's not true. I believe Jesus knew what he was talking about, by reading his words without the bias imposed upon those words by christianity.

I may be wrong.

Then do not publicly denounce me as psychotic.

I don't profess to be an expert in the subject,

Really... well you sure as hell like to dish out expert prognosese.

but it certainly seems to be a real possibility to me.

Then again, there's always the possibility that I'm right and you're a complete idiot for ignoring me.

Which is why I don't feel you are qualified to discuss the topic of reality and why I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue with you.
That's your loss pal. I represent your final alarm call.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I represent your final alarm call. I've heard this from Franko, Jack Chick, and every other woo-woo out there. In that, at least, you are no different.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's cool. Though I require more subjects. LOL

Seriously, if this is what you believe of me then you do not know me or my philosophy.

That's cool. Though I require more subjects. LOL


One would mark the first.



Seriously, if this is what you believe of me then you do not know me or my philosophy.

This is true to a point I/ we do not really fully know you as that can not be done and or your philosophy as that does have some base belief but greatly changes sometime from post to post. That along with you refuse to offer any proof to support your beliefs , no facts no logical conclusions just statements of beliefs and you demanding you are the holder and only you of this TRUTH and all else are wrong.

This is of course symptoms of mental illness in many cases but I really do not feel you are ill just perhaps feeling powerless in real life and the net has offered you a safe haven to speak.

Just what I believe.

By the way have you found that thing that is in and of itself self yet?

Or proof or God?

May I ask ( not expecting an answer) if all is God and if God nothing exist but God and it is the creator and controller of all why is it you fight against God? It is clear no one believes as you do ( not that I know of) so it would seem either this God is very crazy like the man on the street talking to many voices or you are fighting “his” desires..

Do you really know what it is you believe?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've heard this from Franko, Jack Chick, and every other woo-woo out there. In that, at least, you are no different.
Apologise for denouncing me as psychotic. You don't have a clue what you're talking about:
"I may be wrong."

"I don't profess to be an expert in the subject,"

Yet you denounce me, publicly, as psychotic - thus hopefully defecting the readership of my philosophy - that you may avoid addressing that philosophy and deter others from reading it. You should get in the back row and keep shtoom lest you expose any more of your intellectual inadequacies or your ethical indifference.

Do not take me for a fool again.

[scribble]

I have asked yo a set of questions in the other thread, maybe TEN TIMES. You have not answered them. You are in NO POSITION to tell me to "deal with what you say".


I thought you were here for atonement, Geoff? Perhaps you should be exposed to a lot more lifegazer.

The irony of YOU getting upset at someone for providing UNFOUNDED assertations and MAINTAINING them in the face of overwhelming evidence and solid argument is KILLING me.

I haven't laughed so hard as watching you on these threads in a long time.

[UndercoverElephant]

Pahansiri


Do you really know what it is you believe?


No, he doesn't.

The one thing he is absolutely certain of is that God exists, and that God has an ego, emotions and desires, and that idealism is true. Everything else he believes is an attempt to reconcile idealism and the existence of a God-with-an-ego. The result is a mental car-crash, but Lifegazer is completely incapable of going back to his assumptions and looking there for the origin of his difficulties. For Lifegazer, the bottom line is that there is an anthropomorphic God which suffers as he suffers. He has not yet figured out that his suffering is HIS OWN.

:)

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by scribble

I thought you were here for atonement, Geoff? Perhaps you should be exposed to a lot more lifegazer.


You mean as punishment for driving everyone nuts before?

I am quite happy to stay here until Lifegazers head finally explodes.


The irony of YOU getting upset at someone for providing UNFOUNDED assertations and MAINTAINING them in the face of overwhelming evidence and solid argument is KILLING me.


It's a funny old world, isn't it scribble?! :)


I haven't laughed so hard as watching you on these threads in a long time.


Well, hey, we're laughing together then, are we not? Believe me, some of my posts may look like the posts of a person who is upset, but my days of getting upset that people did not see things my way are over. I look for what I can agree with with most people, rather than what to disagree with. Lifegazer is an exception to this rule because of the specific nature of his beliefs and behaviour.

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Apologise for denouncing me as psychotic.


Do you think he'll take his ball away if you don't apologise to him, Upchurch? :)


Yet you denounce me, publicly, as psychotic - thus hopefully defecting the readership of my philosophy - that you may avoid addressing that philosophy and deter others from reading it.


Do you actually believe that anybody here is reading your posts and taking you seriously?

You don't get it, nappy boy. That's why we think you are psychotic! You actually believe that there are people reading this who will take you seriously. You have LOST IT, mate. :rolleyes:

You should get in the back row and keep shtoom lest you expose any more of your intellectual inadequacies or your ethical indifference.

Do not take me for a fool again.

:dl:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do you think he'll take his ball away if you don't apologise to him, Upchurch? :)

It's clear that ethics play no part in your posts. In three years of surfin da web, I've never come across anyone as malicious or deceitful as yourself.

Do you actually believe that anybody here is reading your posts and taking you seriously?

Some have yes. It's clear you haven't though, which kinda devalues your cries that I have no philosophy. LOL

You don't get it, nappy boy. That's why we think you are psychotic! You actually believe that there are people reading this who will take you seriously. You have LOST IT, mate. :rolleyes:

Coming from you, that is a worrying thing to contemplate. Any chance of you upping the quality whatsoever? I think you're a disgrace. Really, I do.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Do you actually believe that anybody here is reading your posts and taking you seriously?Heck, I was taking him seriously until I realized his condition. The better question to ask is does he actually believe that anyone here is reading his posts and believing him?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You are hopeless Geoff. Deal with what I say.


Its not about "dealing" with what you say. Its about critically analyzing what you have to say, and then, and only then, dealing with it.


This isn't dealing with what I say. It's replacing what I say with the materialist's position, paste style, so that you don't have to deal with what I say. You're not as bright as you like to portray, are you?

you're right, it isn't "dealing" its analyzing it critically, something you should do with your own philosophy too.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Even Upchurch, a hero for the skeptics around here, stated that your questions were insincere and out of context with my rational philosophy; so spare us the violins.

When people say "evolution", what they usually mean to imply is that any specific phenomenon has been yielded by material processes, and nothing else. Is this your position or not?

Oh I have a massive problem accepting that material processes yield the feeling of want. At what point of material interaction and motion can we make "a brick" want something?

Now you are going to claim that evolution was driven by the Mind? Then why was it so slow? Why did it involve so much suffering. Why, when the natural explanations for evolution are so simple, must you invoke a Mind.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]Heck, I was taking him seriously until I realized his condition.

Interesting game.

The only winning move...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I have asked yo a set of questions in the other thread, maybe TEN TIMES. You have not answered them. You are in NO POSITION to tell me to "deal with what you say".


This was excatly the way he was in threads where he claimed proof, really annoying.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Now you are going to claim that evolution was driven by the Mind?

Of course I am, popcorn boy. God is the creator of time, remember?

Then why was it so slow?

Slow for who? God resides beyond time, being its creator.

Why did it involve so much suffering.

For whom? Only God exists. It's not as though he asked others to suffer.

Why, when the natural explanations for evolution are so simple,

Evolution has an origin Russ. To give a full explanation of evolution, you must explain universal origins. Let's see you do that.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Awareness of sensation, reason and emotion, are the foundation of existence.


Why assume this?


Existence is known through the events/experiences occuring within awareness.


And its just as equal to assume that these experiences come from an external reality, as it does from a vast illusion created by a supreme being.


Now how can we apply "equal weight" to the notion of an external reality when there is neither direct experience or sound reason to show that one exists? Your reasoning is clearly exhibiting a bias, and/or is inept.


And what about direct experience or sound reason to show that reality is a vast illusion. Or is that not important, since you are sent from god himself, and know that you are right.


I've presented a few arguments to show that God exists. You didn't even participate in most of them.


A lot of other posters did, your arguments fell flat on their face. Upchurch did not participate in most of them because he gave up on you attempting to reason


I don't give a monkey's uncle what you think about me as a person. My anger and frustration at the average skeptic on this site is more than justified. You even started a flame-war for everyone to gang up on me. So don't lecture me on ethics you friggin hypocrite.


oh no, they started a little flame war that you didn't even have to participate in. However, instead of keeping the flaming in the flame war section, where it belongs, you constantly insist on insulting people everywhere else, possibly in an attempt to make yourself feel superior.


So I'm psychotic because:-
(1) I'm not a sheep who believes everything the establishment pumps into my mind.


paranoia here. Believing that there is an "establishment" attempting to pump ideas into your mind.


(2) I have a philosophy which states that All is God.


It goes a lot further than that...


(3) I have the balls to give nerds like you the finger.


gasp, it sure takes a lot of balls to give someone the finger anonymously over the internet. Bravo, bravo.


I think you're pathetic. You're firing blanks upchurch. Go and get a real gun or fight with lesser mortals.

yahoo, lets insult somemore, It'll make us feel superior.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by scribble

Interesting game.

The only winning move... Yeah, yeah. I know.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No, I specifically said that you had psychotic delusions of grandur and paranoia.


Given his view of armageddon, I think its safe to throw somatic in there too.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill

Given his view of armageddon, I think its safe to throw somatic in there too. Really? How so?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Of course I am, popcorn boy. God is the creator of time, remember?


I thought there were these physical laws within the mind that everything followed (according to you), why would evolution violate these laws?


Slow for who? God resides beyond time, being its creator.


now you are assigning god to reside beyond time? Thats another huge assumption, that comes with a lot of consequences for your god that really rip to shreds a lot of the qualities you attribute.


For whom? Only God exists. It's not as though he asked others to suffer.


So, suffering doesn't actually matter? Oh, then you can take your philosophy and go home.


Evolution has an origin Russ. To give a full explanation of evolution, you must explain universal origins. Let's see you do that.

Evolution has an origin in chaos. Universal origins do not need to be explained to explain evolution. I think you got that one from the fundies you used to hang out with.

Your christian infulence on the Mind is pretty transparent. You keep talking about salvation, eternal life, eternal death. Why all the christian assumptions about the mind?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Really? How so?

he thinks that all of mankind is doomed. I think he has a real day to day fear of this.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I can out-think you, that's for sure.


I've seen no evidence of that thus far.


I have emotions. Do you? Why do you think I get ratty when a bozo continues to call me psychotic? Perhaps you fail to realise the consequences of perpetual personal abuse. Do you bully everyone?


The point is, that instead of responding to reasoned arguments with reason, you respond with emotion.


Your inability to understand my philosophy earmarks your level of intelligence.


Again, everyone here understands your philosophy, just because we understand it, doesn't mean we agree with it. Its because we understand it that we disagree with it.


Let's discuss 'reality', shall we?


Your view of reality has no merit whatsoever, and yet you cling to it as if it were the one and only truth.


Like starting a flame war, for example?


A flame war is there for just that. However, insulting people during a rational discussion every chance you get is a different thing entirely.


Prove my belief is false!
That my belief is different to the establishment is irrelevant.


Your beliefs are logically inconsistent.


Tough. I'm here to change that established nonsense.


You need to show that its nonsense first.


Happens all the time squire. I've been banned twice already, remember. People who cannot defeat me on the field of reason resort to insult or complaint. That's the way it is.


They cannot defeat you on the field of reason because you go and hide in the caves of emotion. These forums have no room for someone that won't stay on the fields of reason.


My philsophy is that we are all God. You're as important as me.


Weren't you just claiming that you act the way you do so that you will not be worshipped? I think thats a pretty good clue to your complex.


Read the definition you provided. It certainly does have something to do with my philosophy.


Its more how you present yourself and your argument, as well as the way you defend your argument.


My behaviour! LOLOL
Check Geoff out before you have a go at me. And what a hypocrite you are. You start flame wars and then complain when I return the medicine dished out to me. What a joker you are.


Geoff has no illusions of granduer. He presents reasoned arguments.


That's not true. I believe Jesus knew what he was talking about, by reading his words without the bias imposed upon those words by christianity.


Your beliefs certainly seem biased by christianity to me.


Then do not publicly denounce me as psychotic.


I don't think he is denouning you, he's just making an observation about your behavior. A fairly good one at that.


Really... well you sure as hell like to dish out expert prognosese.


Ya, at least he has reason behind his prognosese, unlike you who simply dish out daily insults at random.


Then again, there's always the possibility that I'm right and you're a complete idiot for ignoring me.


You can't be right when your ideas are logically inconsistent.


That's your loss pal. I represent your final alarm call.

There's that christian influence

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Apologise for denouncing me as psychotic. You don't have a clue what you're talking about:
"I may be wrong."

"I don't profess to be an expert in the subject,"


He made a prognosis. Cope.


Yet you denounce me, publicly, as psychotic - thus hopefully defecting the readership of my philosophy - that you may avoid addressing that philosophy and deter others from reading it.


Really, versus you insulting people everyday instead of addressing their points.


You should get in the back row and keep shtoom lest you expose any more of your intellectual inadequacies or your ethical indifference.


wow lifegazer, those words cut deep, they cut deep man. Personally, I would incorage Upchurch to dig a little more deeply to make his prognosis more defined.


Do not take me for a fool again.

Gasp! Watch out, he commands fire and brimstone.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer to RussDill

Of course I am, popcorn boy. God is the creator of time, remember?

Any supporting facts?

What is “time”? What was there before this God created “time”? Please provide facts.

Slow for who? God resides beyond time, being its creator.

Any supporting facts?

What is “beyond time,”? Any facts of this realm of existence?


If “God resides beyond time, being its creator” and realms of existence need be created who created where God resides? If the creator being needed to be out side of the real of existence to create it who created the realm God live sin?

Do you really know what you believe?

For whom? Only God exists. It's not as though he asked others to suffer.

Any supporting facts?


If “Only God exists” your saying
1- “It's not as though he asked others to suffer” is self contradicting as there is no others to ask.
2- You are asking “For whom? Only God exists” then who are you and who are you talking to?

Do you really stop and think about what you say?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's clear that ethics play no part in your posts. In three years of surfin da web, I've never come across anyone as malicious or deceitful as yourself.


Yes, LG, I'm a big bad nasty boy. Run home to Mummy. :)

If you can't take the heat, best get out of the kitchen, eh?

[UndercoverElephant]

Evolution has an origin Russ. To give a full explanation of evolution, you must explain universal origins. Let's see you do that.

Actually, nappy boy, you can't explain it either, and here's why.

Your answer is "God desired it and willed it."

I have repeatedly explained to you that DESIRE is a product of physical evolution. Animals that do not DESIRE sex do not reproduce. Animals that do not DESIRE food do not grow up. We understand the biochemistry and the neuroscience of desire. Desire has an evolutionary origin. Therefore claiming that the Universe came into being because of God's desire turns out to be non-sensical because God, being a non-physical and perfect Being who was not a product of evolution according to your own reasoning could not possibly have "desires".

To refute this you have to explain

a) How God could have desire before desire evolved as an evolutionary mechanism.

AND

b) Why a perfect Being would need anything at all.

You CANNOT answer these questions, and therefore you are in no position to demand anyone else to explain what you yourself are unable to explain.

[Dancing David]

I am just thrilled to see this thread derailed as everyone, Bubba Belly Bumps thier egos around, sigh.

I would have to say that there are those who seem to have as serious an ego problem as Lifegazer too!

This thread was meant to be an expression of how Lifegazer disagrees with the teachings of the buddha.

I refer you all to statement one in the OP, there seems to be a whole lot of judging going on here, which just makes the buddha's point, y'all think that the other person is stupid(worse than), y'all think that you have some superior view(better than). This has led to the appearance of suffering, thereby proving the buddha's point.

BUMP:
Statement Two: The eightfold path is a path that leads to freedom from suffering. The buddha always taught that it was a means to an end, and that at some point the practioner would be free. Ergo at that point the practioner could discard the dharma and go on thier merry way. He compared it to using a raft to cross a river, who would carry the raft once they got to the other side? In other words the teachings of the buddha are the means to the end, they are not the end in and of themselves.

How many other 'religions' give thier followers that freedom?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I would have to say that there are those who seem to have as serious an ego problem as Lifegazer too!


Sure we do. But we aren't simultaneously preaching about "Unity".


This thread was meant to be an expression of how Lifegazer disagrees with the teachings of the buddha.


And that is what is being discussed.


I refer you all to statement one in the OP, there seems to be a whole lot of judging going on here, which just makes the buddha's point


It does, yes.


, y'all think that the other person is stupid(worse than), y'all think that you have some superior view(better than). This has led to the appearance of suffering, thereby proving the buddha's point.


This is the primary cause of suffering. Human egos in collision. Desire for power. And the biggest colliding ego is the one preaching about unity.

QED.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Actually, nappy boy, you can't explain it either, and here's why.

Your answer is "God desired it and willed it."

I have repeatedly explained to you that DESIRE is a product of physical evolution. Animals that do not DESIRE sex do not reproduce. Animals that do not DESIRE food do not grow up. We understand the biochemistry and the neuroscience of desire. Desire has an evolutionary origin. Therefore claiming that the Universe came into being because of God's desire turns out to be non-sensical because God, being a non-physical and perfect Being who was not a product of evolution according to your own reasoning could not possibly have "desires".

To refute this you have to explain

a) How God could have desire before desire evolved as an evolutionary mechanism.

AND

b) Why a perfect Being would need anything at all.

You CANNOT answer these questions, and therefore you are in no position to demand anyone else to explain what you yourself are unable to explain.


Kalama Sutra


Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I really enjoyed my psych classes in highschool and college. Psychology is in my top 10 "Things I'd like to try if I lived my life over" list.
I started at uni with physics and astronomy then switched to psych because I found the questions it was asking very interesting. Then I graduated and tried to find a job ..... then I did a 1 year postgrad course in computing. I feel a new thread coming on...

[Dancing David]

Empty hall, the seats are unused, the crowd has gone home. Buddha rests in the ring, his mind at rest. Is his mind all there is?