Myths in the Making

[Iacchus]

Believe what you will, until you die that is, for then you can believe no more ... Or, can you? So, what's the point in looking for God, or invisible pink fairies or, any other of these other "mythological beings?" We need look no further than ourselves. We are all myths in the making! :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Believe what you will, until you die that is, for then you can believe no more ... Or, can you? So, what's the point in looking for God, or invisible pink fairies or, any other of these other "mythological beings?" We need look no further than ourselves. We are all myths in the making! :D
I prefer my myths to have coherent plots, thanks.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[ We need look no further than ourselves.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ATLAST, we agree...........

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ATLAST, we agree...........

I would agree with Marquis de Carabas something is mything

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I prefer my myths to have coherent plots, thanks. Yes, and where does the coherence go when you die? :con2:

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and where does the coherence go when you die? :con2:
Hoboken.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ATLAST, we agree........... As I said in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56070&perpage=40&pagenumber=4), I would be inclined to agree with you, however ... my "imagination" tells me this is not all there is.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and where does the coherence go when you die? :con2:

I'd be more worried about where your coherence has gone now... or are you telling us you are currently dead?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Hoboken. Where is that? New Jersey?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I'd be more worried about where your coherence has gone now... or are you telling us you are currently dead? The only thing that tells you anything is real is your imagination you jerk!

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing that tells you anything is real is your imagination you jerk!

Am I imagining you right now? No? I expect you'd claim you genuinely exists. And I certainly have better things to do with my imagination than waste it on conjuring up an Iacchus. So I say no too, there's a real life Iacchus out there. Does this mean therefore that nothing is telling us God is real, because Iacchus is not imaginary, therefore God isn't real?

Really Iacchus, you do stick your foot in your mouth with these half assed metaphors. You jerk.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Am I imagining you right now? No? I expect you'd claim you genuinely exists. And I certainly have better things to do with my imagination than waste it on conjuring up an Iacchus. So I say no too, there's a real life Iacchus out there. Does this mean therefore that nothing is telling us God is real, because Iacchus is not imaginary, therefore God isn't real?No, I am saying we are no more real than these "imaginary creatures" ... invisible pink fairies, Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny ... because when we die, it will be as if we were never here.

Really Iacchus, you do stick your foot in your mouth with these half assed metaphors. You jerk. Surely the only one you can speak for is yourself you jerk, because none of it's real. ;)

[Mercutio]

Could you explain why it is you felt this was important enough to start yet another thread about, Iacchus? Was this another instance of saying something you liked the sound of, and repeating it? It really doesn't matter if it means anything, so long as you like the way it sounds, eh?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As I said in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56070&perpage=40&pagenumber=4), I would be inclined to agree with you, however ... my "imagination" tells me this is not all there is.

my "imagination" at differing times in my life "tells" me many things, it is always changing, not the same as a child not the same near death, that is why"imagination" also is not self.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing that tells you anything is real is your imagination you jerk!

Really? Can you prove that? At 3 was your imagination telling you what was real?

The name calling is childish by the way.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Where is that? New Jersey?
Hell, beats me. Where do you imagine it to be?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I am saying we are no more real than these "imaginary creatures" ... invisible pink fairies, Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny ... because when we die, it will be as if we were never here.
"As if" we were never here is not the same as "we were never here."

Try this, just once, Iacchus: Instead of searching for interpretations of things that confirm your beliefs (say, by stretching an "as if" into a reality), try your best to disprove your belief. Think of all the possible ways of looking at the situation which would tend to suggest that we are, in fact, real. When you find out that there are arguments that do not support your beliefs, you might then want to reconsider those beliefs.

And even better, do that before you post; you won't say so many immediately dismissable things.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Could you explain why it is you felt this was important enough to start yet another thread about, Iacchus? Was this another instance of saying something you liked the sound of, and repeating it? It really doesn't matter if it means anything, so long as you like the way it sounds, eh? You bet. Why shouldn't I post it if I didn't think it sounded meaningful?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You bet. Why shouldn't I post it if I didn't think it sounded meaningful? Um...you already had posted it. This does not explain why you chose to do it again, in a brand new thread, rather than simply following the thread you had posted it in initially.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Hell, beats me. Where do you imagine it to be? Someplace where the sun don't shine? :D Actually, the only Hoboken I'm aware of -- imaginary or otherwise -- is in New Jersey. I stand to be corrected, however. ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Someplace where the sun don't shine? :D Actually, the only Hoboken I'm aware of -- imaginary or otherwise -- is in New Jersey. I stand to be corrected, however. ;)
Where will Hoboken go when you die, though?

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You bet. Why shouldn't I post it if I didn't think it sounded meaningful?

Because you say in your other thread that, and I quote:

Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head? Or, passing the kool-aid around?

And wouldn't you say that repeating half assed witticisms (minus the wit) is just a little bit like wanting to share with us a really kool (ahem) aid to spotting God?

And you... are... OUTTA HERE!

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I am saying we are no more real than these "imaginary creatures" ... invisible pink fairies, Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny ... because when we die, it will be as if we were never here.

Ever heard of bones?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Um...you already had posted it. This does not explain why you chose to do it again, in a brand new thread, rather than simply following the thread you had posted it in initially. Yes, but this was more of a revelation, and I deemed it significant enough to start a new thread. Besides, it wasn't wholly in line with the "Prime Mover" topic and, in order to expound upon it, I felt it would be better to start a new topic. I did consider the merits of not posting it in the other thread, however, and perhaps I shouldn't have? It was still a continuation of what I had started there.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Where will Hoboken go when you die, though? As I understand, there is a place which is very comparable to it, but only to those who deep down in their hearts, are native Hobokoans.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Ever heard of bones? Yes, and are bones capable of self awareness?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but this was more of a revelation, and I deemed it significant enough to start a new thread. Besides, it wasn't wholly in line with the "Prime Mover" topic and, in order to expound upon it, I felt it would be better to start a new topic. I did consider the merits of not posting it in the other thread, however, and perhaps I shouldn't have? It was still a continuation of what I had started there. Judging from the commentary thus far, how do you feel your judgment of its significance panned out?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
my "imagination" at differing times in my life "tells" me many things, it is always changing, not the same as a child not the same near death, that is why"imagination" also is not self. Ah, but the imagination is the experience which is written upon that which is impressionable ... the self.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and are bones capable of self awareness?

Ahh yes, the patented "I've been caught out in an inconsistency, so I suddenly ignore the comment which points this out" Iacchus style... But if you want to twirl, twirl, twirl your way over to the above silly argument instead, then...

Then yes Iacchus, bones are capable of self awareness. At least, they are if I happen to believe that they are, which I've suddenly decided they do, and right now I'm having an incredible imaginary conversation with one. And as you have no way of telling whether they do or not until we die, having stated recently that belief is all we can have on Earth, you can't state one way or another whether they do or do not possess any trait.

But we all know what you were actually trying to do is set up a straw man argument when no one was really saying bones are aware at all. It's just a sign of your own silliness that you set up Mr Straw so badly he still falls down and squishes your own arguments instead.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Judging from the commentary thus far, how do you feel your judgment of its significance panned out? I don't know? I guess I've been too busy responding to the posts. Thus far I would say the commentary is nothing unusual or, out of the ordinary. As far as getting anybody to accept what I say with open arms ... should I really expect that?

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As far as getting anybody to accept what I say with open arms ... should I really expect that? [/B]

If it genuinely is a "revelation", then yes you should. A "revelation" being;

rev·e·la·tion Audio pronunciation of "revelation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rv-lshn)
n.

1.
1. The act of revealing or disclosing.
2. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
2. Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth.

What you in fact gave us was a "repetition", not "revelation".

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't know? I guess I've been too busy responding to the posts. Thus far I would say the commentary is nothing unusual or, out of the ordinary. As far as getting anybody to accept what I say with open arms ... should I really expect that? I'd have said it was a success, if what you intended was to distract from the fact that in the other thread your lack of logic was painting you into a corner.

On the other hand, if your stated purpose was indeed why you opened this thread, it has been a miserable failure.

As far as getting anybody to accept what you say even grudgingly, there is one simple thing you could do. Provide evidence when you make claims. You have yet to do that in what, 2 years?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Ahh yes, the patented "I've been caught out in an inconsistency, so I suddenly ignore the comment which points this out" Iacchus style... But if you want to twirl, twirl, twirl your way over to the above silly argument instead, then...Then please tell us all what it is about bones that are self aware.

Then yes Iacchus, bones are capable of self awareness. At least, they are if I happen to believe that they are, which I've suddenly decided they do, and right now I'm having an incredible imaginary conversation with one. And as you have no way of telling whether they do or not until we die, having stated recently that belief is all we can have on Earth, you can't state one way or another whether they do or do not possess any trait.Belief is the medium, by which we interface with reality. Therefore, we shouldn't be so quick to discount what's in our imaginations, because it's all we've got.

But we all know what you were actually trying to do is set up a straw man argument when no one was really saying bones are aware at all. It's just a sign of your own silliness that you set up Mr Straw so badly he still falls down and squishes your own arguments instead. No, what I'm trying to do is tell you that you're just a figment of your own imagination, unless of course you're willing to admit that there's much more to the imagination than meets the eye. ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As I understand, there is a place which is very comparable to it, but only to those who deep down in their hearts, are native Hobokoans.
So, there is a place comparable to Hoboken where Hoboken will go when you die? How does that work?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I'd have said it was a success, if what you intended was to distract from the fact that in the other thread your lack of logic was painting you into a corner. No, the other argument had gotten rather stale, and this was much more interesting.

On the other hand, if your stated purpose was indeed why you opened this thread, it has been a miserable failure.And of course, this must be what "the evidence" is telling you. Correct?

As far as getting anybody to accept what you say even grudgingly, there is one simple thing you could do. Provide evidence when you make claims. You have yet to do that in what, 2 years? What evidence is that? That we stop believing that we exist when we die?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
So, there is a place comparable to Hoboken where Hoboken will go when you die? How does that work? It has everything to do with like minds, or spirits, congregating in the same place. So this in fact is the heaven -- or hell -- which rules over Hoboken, New Jersey.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, but the imagination is the experience which is written upon that which is impressionable ... the self.

There is no self, What is self can be nothing-other then just self, it would be never changing and always just self. It can not be comprised nor shaped of anything other then just “self� or it would not be self. There is NOTHING that is in and of itself, self..

Unless you can show me something that is “self� I asked you this many times but got no response.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It has everything to do with like minds, or spirits, congregating in the same place. So this in fact is the heaven -- or hell -- which rules over Hoboken, New Jersey.
Even were this true (or intelligible) why should your death have any bearing on the fate of Hoboken?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Even were this true (or intelligible) why should your death have any bearing on the fate of Hoboken? It probably wouldn't ... or, very little. Unless of course I moved to Hoboken and spent my remaining years there. So, at least in that respect I will have something in common with the Hobokoans. Really, it all depends on how much I become "indoctrinated" into Hobokoan culture.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
There is no self, What is self can be nothing-other then just self, it would be never changing and always just self. It can not be comprised nor shaped of anything other then just “self� or it would not be self. There is NOTHING that is in and of itself, self..

Unless you can show me something that is “self� I asked you this many times but got no response. Then to whom am I speaking? ;)

[Ausmerican]

i·mag·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mj-nshn)
n.

The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.
The mental image so formed.
The ability or tendency to form such images.
The ability to confront and deal with reality by using the creative power of the mind; resourcefulness: handled the problems with great imagination.
A traditional or widely held belief or opinion.
Archaic.
An unrealistic idea or notion; a fancy.
A plan or scheme.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i·magi·nation·al adj.
Synonyms: imagination, fancy, fantasy
These nouns refer to the power of the mind to form images, especially of what is not present to the senses. Imagination is the most broadly applicable: “In the world of words, the imagination is one of the forces of nature� (Wallace Stevens). Fancy especially suggests mental invention that is whimsical, capricious, or playful and that is characteristically well removed from reality: “All power of fancy over reason is a degree of insanity� (Samuel Johnson). Fantasy is applied principally to elaborate or extravagant fancy as a product of the imagination given free rein: “The poet is in command of his fantasy, while it is exactly the mark of the neurotic that he is possessed by his fantasy� (Lionel Trilling).

[Ausmerican]

A childs imagination tells him he is superman or batman, a teenagers imagination allows him to believe he's banging Britney Spears every night when he's alone in bed. An adults imagination is responsible for great works of fantasy and fiction and to blame for most of the woo an adult believes. And this is what you trust as a source of whats real?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then to whom am I speaking? ;)

I have explained many times, are you not listening?;)

[Max560]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I'd have said it was a success, if what you intended was to distract from the fact that in the other thread your lack of logic was painting you into a corner.

It's a remarkable pattern: Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .......


As far as getting anybody to accept what you say even grudgingly, there is one simple thing you could do. Provide evidence when you make claims. You have yet to do that in what, 2 years? [/B]

I find that watching Iacchus and his ilk operate is similar to watching that pivotal scene in The Matrix, where Neo meets Morpheus, who offers to show Neo what the Matrix is.

But instead of giving him the red pill, he just gives him a cinnamon tic tac, and nothing happens.

Also, there is less kicking.

[Ryokan]

I like pie. Do you like pie?

[Chaos Trigger]

You have the type that is denying their observations because of fundamentalism, the type that does not dare to think because of fundamentalism. That is where sciences bumps into religion.

You have the type that cedes some beliefs like the earth is flat or there is no evolution, as soon as they see that there are pictures of a globe, and the mutating AIDS virus in our present time. They still might have a belief, but it is on a retreat, because those people don't lie to themselves.

And if there might be another dimension where this all happens, again that's belief unless you have proof that it does exist, or that a possible other dimension doesn't contain God either. Then they suppose another dimension. It doesn't really matter if someone believes for his hopes of survival or continuity, it does matter if it imposes upon others and impedes development of civilization.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560
It's a remarkable pattern: Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .......I can see that we have another true believer here. :rolleyes:

I find that watching Iacchus and his ilk operate is similar to watching that pivotal scene in The Matrix, where Neo meets Morpheus, who offers to show Neo what the Matrix is.

But instead of giving him the red pill, he just gives him a cinnamon tic tac, and nothing happens.

Also, there is less kicking. Yeah, and it's too bad we're not just watching a movie. The movie is your life by the way which, is wholly fictional if there's nothing more to it than what we experience in this temporal fleeting world.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ausmerican
The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses. Well certainly this so-called life of yours cannot be perceived as real, nor present to the senses when you're dead. So does that mean you just believed it was real? Hey, you might as well get used to it, because you were never here ... Or, were you? You see in order for reality to be experienced as real, that quality must be maintained, and is not maintained by anything other than what we perceive through our minds. Call that your imagination if you will.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I can see that we have another true believer here. :rolleyes:
Iacchus, I am certain that you could make Max560 retract that statement, simply by providing evidence that it is wrong. One need not be a "true believer" to recognise a pattern in your posting. People here are very good at examining evidence.

On the other hand, to create that pattern, it probably helps to be a "true believer".

You make yourself look foolish, Iacchus, when you accuse them of the things you yourself do.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well certainly this so-called life of yours cannot be perceived as real, nor present to the senses when you're dead. So does that mean you just believed it was real?
No. Do you have any evidence that suggests your interpretation is correct? Why does the fact that one dies mean that one's life was not real? Please explain how you reach that conclusion.
Hey, you might as well get used to it, because you were never here ... Or, were you?Again, this is quite a claim. Do you have any evidence to back this up?
You see in order for reality to be experienced as real, that quality must be maintained, and is not maintained by anything other than what we perceive through our minds. Call that your imagination if you will. No. There is no reason to assume that something, in order to be real, must be maintained. Why do you make that assumption? What evidence do you base this belief on?

Will you provide these details? Will you answer questions as others have? Or will you paint yourself into another corner and then start yet another thread?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Chaos Trigger
You have the type that is denying their observations because of fundamentalism, the type that does not dare to think because of fundamentalism. That is where sciences bumps into religion.

You have the type that cedes some beliefs like the earth is flat or there is no evolution, as soon as they see that there are pictures of a globe, and the mutating AIDS virus in our present time. They still might have a belief, but it is on a retreat, because those people don't lie to themselves.Ah, but where is the physical reality without the mental reality to describe it? What is truth, without the mental image to coincide? What exactly are we interfacing with, if it wasn't already contained in our minds?

And if there might be another dimension where this all happens, again that's belief unless you have proof that it does exist, or that a possible other dimension doesn't contain God either. Then they suppose another dimension. It doesn't really matter if someone believes for his hopes of survival or continuity, it does matter if it imposes upon others and impedes development of civilization. It all depends on whether you're interested in the truth or not too. If in fact this other dimension does exist, why would you bar yourself from knowing it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
You make yourself look foolish, Iacchus, when you accuse them of the things you yourself do. He who laughs last, laughs the longest ... :D

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, but where is the physical reality without the mental reality to describe it? What is truth, without the mental image to coincide? What exactly are we interfacing with, if it wasn't already contained in our minds?


Exactly backwards. You're trying stuff the universe (reality) into a dust mote (the human mind) Try this:

Modified by jmercer
Ah, but where is the mental reality without the physical reality to be perceived? What is a mental image, without the truth to coincide with it? What exactly would we be interfacing with, if our minds weren't already contained within a physical reality?


The answer is simple - a hallucination.

Originally posted by Iacchus
It all depends on whether you're interested in the truth or not too. If in fact this other dimension does exist, why would you bar yourself from knowing it?

"If in fact this other dimension does exist" is the crucial issue. There is no evidence that it does. Linking that phrase with "whether you're interested in the truth or not" is erroneous, because the first truth to be established is "Is there evidence or not?"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ausmerican
A childs imagination tells him he is superman or batman, a teenagers imagination allows him to believe he's banging Britney Spears every night when he's alone in bed. An adults imagination is responsible for great works of fantasy and fiction and to blame for most of the woo an adult believes. And this is what you trust as a source of whats real? So, we all go through different stages of development. Does that make any of it less real? The only way it would seem real is if we had the imagination to back it up. The same goes for this puny little existence of ours, which only seems real, because there's nothing there to acknowledge it is real after all. Unless of course the experience of reality, which is all in our minds of course ;) supersedes death.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
He who laughs last, laughs the longest ... :D I used to laugh at your posts. Until it occurred to me that you actually were serious. And were not 15 years old.

Now, would you care to address any of the substantive portions of my previous post? This post, in particular, challenged you to dispute Max560's recognition of a pattern in your posting style. Are you going to deny it?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, we all go through different stages of development. Does that make any of it less real? The only way it would seem real is if we had the imagination to back it up. The same goes for this puny little existence of ours, which only seems real, because there's nothing there to acknowledge it is real after all. Unless of course the experience of reality, which is all in our minds of course ;) supersedes death. Strange...this is a re-assertion of exactly the same claim that was questioned above. With the exact same lack of any supporting logic or evidence. You need to learn some new tricks, Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
No. Do you have any evidence that suggests your interpretation is correct? Why does the fact that one dies mean that one's life was not real? Please explain how you reach that conclusion.Do you believe that you're real? Then how can you not believe you were real when you die? Obviously you must not have been real, because there is nothing (allegedly) there to believe that it was ... Or, was there? Where was the record of this alleged reality -- of you -- kept? And if you refer to a dead corpse, then you refer to a reality which doesn't persist. Where did this animating force go?

Again, this is quite a claim. Do you have any evidence to back this up?Why have people continued to make these claims for thousands of years? ... Because it's inherent with our nature?

No. There is no reason to assume that something, in order to be real, must be maintained. Why do you make that assumption? What evidence do you base this belief on?Well then, what holds reality together? The same thing that holds our perception of it together perhaps?

Will you provide these details? Will you answer questions as others have? Or will you paint yourself into another corner and then start yet another thread? I didn't start the "other thread" by the way, so I don't know what you mean by this? ... Unless of course you're referring to some of my other threads which, have been few and far between (as of late).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jmercer
The answer is simple - a hallucination. Welcome to your life! :D

"If in fact this other dimension does exist" is the crucial issue. There is no evidence that it does. Linking that phrase with "whether you're interested in the truth or not" is erroneous, because the first truth to be established is "Is there evidence or not?"No, the evidence is not to be found within your belief system.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I used to laugh at your posts. Until it occurred to me that you actually were serious. And were not 15 years old.What is there to take seriously, in a reality that doesn't persist? At least for those who are incapable of believing that they were ever here ...

Now, would you care to address any of the substantive portions of my previous post? This post, in particular, challenged you to dispute Max560's recognition of a pattern in your posting style. Are you going to deny it? The answer to that is quite easy. Max560 is subject to the beliefs of Max560.

[Pahansiri]

Hello Iacchus, have you found something that is 'self" yet?;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Hello Iacchus, have you found something that is 'self" yet?;) And why should I speak to someone who admits that he's not real?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus..Ah, but where is the physical reality without the mental reality to describe it? What is truth, without the mental image to coincide? What exactly are we interfacing with, if it wasn't already contained in our minds?

Is it your belief then I must assume that places at the bottom of the sea

A fish caught, a clam dug from the bottom of the bay does not exist until it is caught?? lol You are saying the processes and time leading up to the development of that fish, clam never happened, that is juts magically appeared when you first saw it?

If they were not there how could they be there to be observed?

Do you really believe that stars/planets not yet observed due to distance will not exist until we have better telescopes?

That trillions of years needed to form there bodies will just happen in a millisecond when we have a better telescopes.

Keep reciting this to yourself.

“ reality is an illusion Albert it a persistent one� Albert Einstein

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And why should I speak to someone who admits that he's not real?

I will take that as a no. to my question Hello Iacchus, have you found something that is 'self" yet? :con2: :dl:

[P.S.A.]

*yawns*

More confused, self-contradictory nonsense from Iacchus. What is it about bones that makes them self aware? You keep giving the answer Iacchus; it's imagination. You said so. Therefore if I imagine they are self conscious, then they are...

Wait... no, you claim that they aren't. Thus there is a physical reality which exists outside of, uninfluenced by imagination. Bones are not self aware even if I imagine them to be... And this directly goes against your own claims, because it leaves God's existance open to being independent of imagination too, to being a misunderstanding of reality...

So it's time to twirl, twirl, twirl away from that argument again back into pointless metaphors that don't work again... oh, and don't forget the smilies!

I actually understand Iacchus' arguments though; not the arguments themselves of course, because they are crap, but I understand why he's making them... he has a very immature mind, in the scientific sense; with puberty comes the development of the mind as well as the body... abstract, logical thought develops around then. But before then, the mind tends to be more imaginative, more dependent upon symbolic or emotional understanding... The teenage years, the transition between the two, tends to be the time where you get a mixture, where you tend to believe in things like love as a physical force, where you tend to develop unhealthily obsessions with attractive people, to the point that you believe that a little half smile when passing in the corridor means they love you too...

Remember those years? Foolish, weren't they? And this is where Iacchus' mind has stuck. Observe the following passage I hinted at earlier;

8
I once knew a young woman who was wild and free spirited, not unlike the beautiful Daphne. After moving in next door with her mother, a good friend of mine, I immediately began to have problems. In fact my whole world came crashing down! The year was 1985, with the number 85 corresponding to Daphne, as things got wild and out of hand. She had also moved back from Iowa the 29th state, while it all began on my 29th birthday, the number 29 corresponding to Daphne as well. And like Apollo, I didn't care for her unkempt manner: everything was in its place and she posed a direct threat.

9
Over the course of dealing with her I was at a total loss, and wholly devastated! Then one day it dawned on me who she really was, through dreams I had and things her mother had said. She was my very soul's image (anima), appearing like some big wonderful sun coming up in my mind—and she stood in its midst! It was a major revelation to me, as she became the whole embodiment of who I was. This is when Cupid struck me! While it was the beginning of the chain of events that led to the writing of this book, making it more fitting that Daphne be the first correspondent of the New Church.

10
I was then determined to have her, more than anything, and soon gave chase: I pursued her, I entreated her, I drew ever so close, only to have her slip through my grasp at the last moment (i.e., Apollo was found grasping the trunk of a laurel tree). It's unfortunate she misconstrued my intentions—as maligned—for it couldn't have been further from the truth. I managed to give her a good scare though, even as Apollo frightened Daphne. I mention this further in Karen (7) and Justine (8), as well as in chapter 11 (my seventh residence).

http://www.dionysus.org/x0402.html#1

He he he... And this is his Religion, loon-watchers! You should believe in God because he writes about wanting a woman, and he believes the stars themselves are aligning to bring them together... except oh no! And alas! But he gave her a fright, that'll show her!

So let's see...

Obsessional focus on the object of attractions? Yup

Incredible over reading of what minor, irrelevant details mean? Yup again

Egocentric over sensitivity to one's own worth and place in the universe? You betcha.

It's all there, all those mistakes we all made as a silly child and then grew out of... Iacchus is basically a teenage mind trapped in an old man's body. Which is why he can't debate honestly or logically; those parts of his mind have obviously never developed. He is, literally, thinking with his dick. And doesn't it feel heavenly to do so?

*laughs*

I only hope Lifegazer has paid attention to the kind of mind which has been most sympathetic to his ideas so far... If you'd been a sexy woman you might actually have a convert by now LG!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Is it your belief then I must assume that places at the bottom of the sea

A fish caught, a clam dug from the bottom of the bay does not exist until it is caught?? lol You are saying the processes and time leading up to the development of that fish, clam never happened, that is juts magically appeared when you first saw it? No, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying the fish caught in the sea, coincides with -- "the truth of" -- the fish caught in the mind. I'm saying you can't have "the one" reality without the other.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
*yawns* Well, I can see that I've managed to garner your attention, simply by putting you on ignore. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I will take that as a no. :con2: :dl: And who are "you" to say?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying the fish caught in the sea, coincides with -- "the truth of" -- the fish caught in the mind. I'm saying you can't have "the one" reality without the other.

Yes you can, if that fish or clam are never caught never seen the physical reality is they existed as did all the causes and conditions behind them.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And who are "you" to say?

and around and around we go, Define "you/I/self" ( iknow asking you this for the 10000000000000time is usless)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
and around and around we go, Define "you/I/self" ( iknow asking you this for the 10000000000000time is usless) The problem I have with you is that by denying your own reality -- of self -- you deny mine. And I find this to be very disrespectful.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Yes you can, if that fish or clam are never caught never seen the physical reality is they existed as did all the causes and conditions behind them. The only way we can identify something, is if it's within us to identify it. And that suggests two realities.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The problem I have with you is that by denying your own reality (of self), you deny mine. And I find this to be very disrespectful.


My friend you believe if someone does not believe as you do they are being disrespectful to you?

Such self-importance you have. Do you feel you are the center of the universe where as all other beings must believe as you do simply because of your self-importance.

I find it very ironic that you who have called many names and launched many personal attacks against me say you find my not believing as you do “disrespectful� to you when it is I who have said I respect what you believe and you personally.

Now as to my denying a “self� all you have to do is prove my belief wrong and I will believe in a different way, as I do not fear truth or being wrong.

So for the umpteenth time, please show me something that is and of itself, “self�.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only way we can identify something, is if it's within us to identify it. And that suggests two realities.

We are off to the hospital to visit the children there, at that hospital are children who will never “identify� or the capability to identify a clam or a fish, but these clams and fish and planets still exist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
My friend you believe if someone does not believe as you do they are being disrespectful to you? And, to "whom" are you speaking? If you wish to discount the fact that I exist, fine, but why should you expect any kind of answer in reply? What a complete waste of time that is!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that you're real? Then how can you not believe you were real when you die? Obviously you must not have been real, because there is nothing (allegedly) there to believe that it was ... Or, was there? Where was the record of this alleged reality -- of you -- kept? And if you refer to a dead corpse, then you refer to a reality which doesn't persist. Where did this animating force go?
This has been answered in previous threads of yours, many times. I'll give you the brief version: Read a biology book. Your search for an "animating force" is merely a byproduct of your ignorance about how bodies really work.

Why have people continued to make these claims for thousands of years? ... Because it's inherent with our nature?
People claimed a flat earth for thousands of years. That the earth was the center of the universe. That the sun revolved around the earth. That we were specially created. A claim that is thousands of years old, but contradicted by evidence, is merely a wrong thousand-year-old claim.

I asked you for evidence. You have presented none. Care to try again?

Well then, what holds reality together? The same thing that holds our perception of it together perhaps?
Our perception of it is held together by virtue of our physical perspective. It is your body which experiences your life. Nothing more need be proposed to hold it together. As for "holding reality together", the statement is vague. What makes you think it is "held together"? In what way do you mean that phrase?

Note, once again I asked you for evidence. You presented none, just two questions unrelated to the topic. Are you trying to distract? Do you have no notion at all of what would constitute evidence? Would you care to try again?

I didn't start the "other thread" by the way, so I don't know what you mean by this? ... Unless of course you're referring to some of my other threads which, have been few and far between (as of late). No, you did not start that thread. You started this one, after being painted into a corner on that one. And yes, it follows your older pattern. If you really don't know what I mean, you have serious comprehension problems.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Such self-importance you have. Do you feel you are the center of the universe where as all other beings must believe as you do simply because of your self-importance. If God didn't make me ego-centric, I wouldn't know that I exist contrary to God. So yes, it is very important that we have a self.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
This has been answered in previous threads of yours, many times. I'll give you the brief version: Read a biology book. Your search for an "animating force" is merely a byproduct of your ignorance about how bodies really work.There are lots of books in print.

People claimed a flat earth for thousands of years. That the earth was the center of the universe. That the sun revolved around the earth. That we were specially created. A claim that is thousands of years old, but contradicted by evidence, is merely a wrong thousand-year-old claim. What, is it just a matter of following "the trend" or what? What does this have to do with that which has yet to be "disproven?" Indeed, I know full well that you would like to toss such notions out but, it is merely a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part. ;)

I asked you for evidence. You have presented none. Care to try again?The evidence is purely what your mind perceives it as.

Our perception of it is held together by virtue of our physical perspective. It is your body which experiences your life. Nothing more need be proposed to hold it together. As for "holding reality together", the statement is vague. What makes you think it is "held together"? In what way do you mean that phrase?Does gum stick to the bottom of your shoe? No, it's our consciousness which experiences life.

Note, once again I asked you for evidence. You presented none, just two questions unrelated to the topic. Are you trying to distract? Do you have no notion at all of what would constitute evidence? Would you care to try again?Can the blind man discern that the elephant is gray? There is your evidence.

No, you did not start that thread. You started this one, after being painted into a corner on that one. And yes, it follows your older pattern. If you really don't know what I mean, you have serious comprehension problems. What else is there to comprehend, but what we see in the moment?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There are lots of books in print.
And at least one in electronic form...are they all to be treated as equal? Not at all. Your dismissal of books written by experts in the area of knowledge you claim to be interested in is very telling. If I was as interested in this alleged "animating force" as you were, I would be reading everything I could by the top experts in the field. They are not that difficult to identify, Iacchus. You instead turn away from the accumulated knowledge of decades of dedicated researchers, preferring dreams and numerology. What are we to make of this? Are you really interested, as you say you are? Are you being honest, with us? With yourself? You certainly do not act as if you are trying to find the answers to the big questions you are asking. Instead, it seems you use questions only to distract from your refusal to answer the questions of others.

What, is it just a matter of following "the trend" or what? What does this have to do with that which has yet to be "disproven?" Indeed, I know full well that you would like to toss such notions out but, it is merely a matter of "wishful thinking" on your part. ;)
Do you honestly see no difference between the critical process of science, and "following the trend"? I know you think it helps your case to paint science as a strawman, but it only makes you look more foolish. Science is a far more elegant tool than your understanding of it allows you to see.

The evidence is purely what your mind perceives it as.
Sorry, this is simply another assertion. Do you understand what we mean when we use the term "evidence"?

Does gum stick to the bottom of your shoe? No, it's our consciousness which experiences life.
By assertion, again. The gum metaphor, like most of your metaphors, is useless and does not advance your cause.

Can the blind man discern that the elephant is gray? There is your evidence.
No, that is not "evidence". Nor does it address my question. Are you trying to distract again?

What else is there to comprehend, but what we see in the moment? Ah..."the moment" has returned. What will be next--numerology?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and are bones capable of self awareness?

Your post stated that after we die, its like we never existed.
Here it is:

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I am saying we are no more real than these "imaginary creatures" ... invisible pink fairies, Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny ... because when we die, it will be as if we were never here.

Thus, if we leave physical evidence of our existence, it will not be as if we were never here. Therefore, we are more real thanthese "imaginary creatures" ... invisible pink fairies, Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny ....

It is irrelevant to your point if bones, humans, and "imaginary creatures" have or not self-counsioussnes and its nature (in case it exists). Your whole idea is flawed since real creatures can leave traces of their existence after their deaths.

It will be, for each individual once-living being as if it has never been here, but not for other living and yet to be born creatures, even if just for a few of them. Some will even feed from their corpses, others will be composed by the same atoms that composed the deceased´s body. Some will be descendents from the deceased. Some may read texts written by the deceased, use thing made by him/her, etc.

[KelvinG]

Is it just me, or does Iacchus make no sense? I want to understand his babble, but it's incoherent.

Is it because he is just so smart that everything he says goes over my head, or is he just a self absorbed wanker who spouts nonsense?

I'm highly doubtful of the former.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Is it just me, or does Iacchus make no sense? I want to understand his babble, but it's incoherent.

Is it because he is just so smart that everything he says goes over my head, or is he just a self absorbed wanker who spouts nonsense?

I'm highly doubtful of the former. What evidence would it take for you to be convinced of the former? Perhaps Iacchus could try to present it.

Failing that, I concur with your doubtful opinion.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
It is irrelevant to your point if bones, humans, and "imaginary creatures" have or not self-counsioussnes and its nature (in case it exists). Your whole idea is flawed since real creatures can leave traces of their existence after their deaths. And if there were no sentient (real) creatures to point this out to other non-existent sentient (real) creatures, then who gives a crap? Obviously the only thing that makes it real -- regardless of whether it "exists" or not -- is the fact that we're sentient. Therefore, it's only possible to believe that we're here, so long as were here ... and then, according to the tenets of materialism, there will be nothing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
What evidence would it take for you to be convinced of the former? Perhaps Iacchus could try to present it.

Failing that, I concur with your doubtful opinion. What, would you have me bring a person back from the dead, in his former body? How is such a thing possible?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, to "whom" are you speaking? If you wish to discount the fact that I exist, fine, but why should you expect any kind of answer in reply? What a complete waste of time that is!

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, to "whom" are you speaking?

I know you are not stupid, why are you acting like you are?



If you wish to discount the fact that I exist,

1- Fine? You said in your last post my believing there is no “self� was disrespectful to you, now you say it is fine?

2- I to again say I know you are not stupid, why are you acting like you are?

but why should you expect any kind of answer in reply? What a complete waste of time that is!

Would not it be far more mature and honest to just admit you can not show even one thing that is in and of itself “self�. Be honest, it is a wonderful feeling.

Also stop living gripped with fears, there is nothing to free from the truth that who you “believe� you are.

The person posting, the person called you ( your name) the stubborn and all your personality traits person is comprised of a body he shares with many other life forms, a body changing every second, never the same always being born and dying, who will know death and decay, so not self.

A personality that is shaped and influenced by mother, father, friends, events, fears and emotions not the same it was at birth, 5, 10 16, 25, 40 now and at death, ever changing and by such not self.

This personality will die with the brain and body. But the mind ( I BELIEVE) like all energy moves on to again change form.


The body and personality are like all things compound they are subject to impermanence.’

You so fear not being “you� for all time, you so fear it you are not fully living every second now. You come to a discussion board filled with people who do not simply follow anything blindly and expect them to blindly follow and believe you, they will not and you become angry, frustrated and so on.

You make a statement like The problem I have with you is that by denying your own reality -- of self -- you deny mine. And I find this to be very disrespectful.

You really believe that others not believing you means they are being disrespectful to you. Sad

You are causing your own suffering.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If God didn't make me ego-centric, I wouldn't know that I exist contrary to God. So yes, it is very important that we have a self.

silly and illogical statement
1- prove God
2- Prove God created anything

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
And at least one in electronic form...are they all to be treated as equal? Not at all. It's hard to say, it all depends on who reads them.

Your dismissal of books written by experts in the area of knowledge you claim to be interested in is very telling. If I was as interested in this alleged "animating force" as you were, I would be reading everything I could by the top experts in the field. They are not that difficult to identify, Iacchus. You instead turn away from the accumulated knowledge of decades of dedicated researchers, preferring dreams and numerology. What are we to make of this? Are you really interested, as you say you are? Are you being honest, with us? With yourself? You certainly do not act as if you are trying to find the answers to the big questions you are asking. Instead, it seems you use questions only to distract from your refusal to answer the questions of others.And why are the experts in any given field so often proven wrong? Because knowledge is not the key. It is not the actual "thing" that knowledge alludes to.

Do you honestly see no difference between the critical process of science, and "following the trend"?No, I think the question was directed towards you.

I know you think it helps your case to paint science as a strawman, but it only makes you look more foolish. Science is a far more elegant tool than your understanding of it allows you to see.And what we have here is a case of blind men and gray elephants.

Sorry, this is simply another assertion. Do you understand what we mean when we use the term "evidence"?Evidence means nothing outside of our ability to "experience" -- as opposed to just furnishing knowledge -- what that evidence means.

By assertion, again. The gum metaphor, like most of your metaphors, is useless and does not advance your cause.
Just merely to inform you that things do "stick" together. ;)

No, that is not "evidence". Nor does it address my question. Are you trying to distract again?I cannot present anything to you, other than what's in your mind to see. If it's not there, then you won't see it.

Ah..."the moment" has returned. What will be next--numerology? Aha, it's clearly plain to see ... but, only in the moment.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
silly and illogical statement
1- prove God
2- Prove God created anything Yes, but wouldn't you rather I prove to you that I exist first? First things first, right?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but wouldn't you rather I prove to you that I exist first? First things first, right?

Hmmmm stubborn or just not getting it, that is the question…:con2:

1- demonstrate to me one thing that is and of itself, “ self� nothing other then just self.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, would you have me bring a person back from the dead, in his former body? How is such a thing possible? I had asked KelvinG (not you) what sort of evidence might convince him that you knew what you were talking about. Are you suggesting that only something so extreme as re-animating a dead person would be enough to serve as evidence for your beliefs? If that is the case, why do you believe what you do? Have you seen the dead come back to life?

If it does not take that to convince you, why assume it would take that to convince KelvinG? Why not wait to see what you might be asked to provide as proof?

Or, perhaps, just admit that you have no proof. You have your beliefs, based on your dreams and numerology, and you realize that those do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Or rather, those would not stand up to critical scrutiny, if you had the intellectual honesty to submit them to it.

I don't expect that, of course. I expect you to attempt once again to distract, or change the topic, or evade somehow, anything but actually examine your precious beliefs.

I would love for you to prove me wrong.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Hmmmm stubborn or just not getting it, that is the question…:con2:According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

1- demonstrate to me one thing that is and of itself, “ self� nothing other then just self. Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's hard to say, it all depends on who reads them.
Is that what you really think? That is the only difference between your "book" and the peer-reviewed articles by experts in their fields? You think more of yourself than I would have guessed.

And why are the experts in any given field so often proven wrong? Because knowledge is not the key. It is not the actual "thing" that knowledge alludes to.
Why? It is called improving. When we subject our ideas to critical scrutiny, and discard that which does not work (um...this is, by the way, a far cry from being "proven wrong"), we continually improve on our understanding of the phenomena in question. Contrast that with your book...it has never once been critically examined, and so has never been "proven wrong". It is more than merely inaccurate--it is utterly worthless. It would topple over in a light breeze.

What is more...could you please demonstrate that the experts actually are "proven wrong"? You are notorious for your avoidance of the scientific literature--how is it you are able to make this claim so strongly?

As for the rest of your post...you say nothing of substance, and do not address any of the questions. Not worth responding to it...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I had asked KelvinG (not you) what sort of evidence might convince him that you knew what you were talking about. Are you suggesting that only something so extreme as re-animating a dead person would be enough to serve as evidence for your beliefs? If that is the case, why do you believe what you do? Have you seen the dead come back to life?Since you folks don't believe in spirits, I would have to furnish a live body in order for you to talk to one. In which case it's not possible.

If it does not take that to convince you, why assume it would take that to convince KelvinG? Why not wait to see what you might be asked to provide as proof?

Or, perhaps, just admit that you have no proof. You have your beliefs, based on your dreams and numerology, and you realize that those do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Or rather, those would not stand up to critical scrutiny, if you had the intellectual honesty to submit them to it.

I don't expect that, of course. I expect you to attempt once again to distract, or change the topic, or evade somehow, anything but actually examine your precious beliefs. If all you folks are looking for is proof of the physical, that's all you will find, is proof of the physical. This is the "blindfold" that you choose to wear.

I would love for you to prove me wrong. If you maintain an open outlook in life, there should be no difficulty in proving it upon your death. If, on the other hand, you are completely resistant to the idea and, wholly sensual in your view, there will be no way to prove any such thing after you die, and you will continue to believe that you still exist in the material world.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Is that what you really think? That is the only difference between your "book" and the peer-reviewed articles by experts in their fields? You think more of yourself than I would have guessed.How so?

Why? It is called improving. When we subject our ideas to critical scrutiny, and discard that which does not work (um...this is, by the way, a far cry from being "proven wrong"), we continually improve on our understanding of the phenomena in question. Contrast that with your book...it has never once been critically examined, and so has never been "proven wrong". It is more than merely inaccurate--it is utterly worthless. It would topple over in a light breeze. "And have you not heard, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." In other words prove it to those folks who have passed on.

What is more...could you please demonstrate that the experts actually are "proven wrong"? You are notorious for your avoidance of the scientific literature--how is it you are able to make this claim so strongly?How can they be proven right by something they haven't experienced yet?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.

According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

Define “I� ( for the billionth time)
Remember what I said, we do deal with a “physical reality� then recite 1000 times this “ reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one.- Albert Einstein

Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.

Wrong, self can be nothing other then JUST “self� and also unchanging for if it chances it was never self.


Willfulness/ pig-headedness often changes as you are now stubborn about things you were not stubborn about at 18 and 18 you were stubborn about things you would find silly now.

What is self is can not change, also your Willfulness/ pig-headedness is over a belief you have come to believe over the years due to external stimuli, events, other people etc even internal mind changing, so again NOT self.

;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
*delete*

hmmmm delete what? Was it proof of GOD, you did say the other day if it were not for having to go to work and all...:con2:

Perhaps it was something that is and of itself "self":p

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Since you folks don't believe in spirits,

Define “spirits�… and not http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/3274.jpg

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Define “I� ( for the billionth time)
Remember what I said, we do deal with a “physical reality� then recite 1000 times this “ reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one.- Albert Einstein Neither did Einstein believe in an afterlife. So? ...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Neither did Einstein believe in an afterlife. So? ...

Define "afterlife" define how or how Einstein did not believe in an "afterlife". Also please remember as a Buddhist I believe in no real death. Just a body I believe the mind is endlessNot created not destroyed .

Just what I believe.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Define "afterlife" define how or how Einstein did not believe in an "afterlife". Also please remember as a Buddhist I believe in no real death. Just a body I believe the mind is endlessNot created not destroyed .

Just what I believe. Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then? Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul? Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then? Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul? Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?

Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then?

I believe the body is little different then a suit, when it ages and dies the mind like energy ( I believe) simply moves on. We believe it is the ordinary state of mind the grasping, emotional, conditioned, obsessed mind. The mind that fears not being “I� “self� that move son. In Buddhism enlightenment means/fully awake. Awake to the true nature of mind the 'very subtle' here is a link that will help explain it better then I http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/Buddhism-beliefs.htm We believe when one sees though the cloud of the conditioned mind to the true nature of mind, an end of the cycle of rebirth and death and suffering. Nirvana is a “state of mind� not a physical place where I am for all time Mark Bertrand.

We believe when this state is attained there is no room for such worthless things as concepts, “self� cravings, attainment and so on, no needs no desires.

Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul?

Easy there is no “soul� a soul would be a self, a thing in and of itself “ Marks soul� it could be nothing but just Mark, no such thing exists.

Please define “soul�.

Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?

much like dreaming. Nothing real, all illusion.

May I ask can you see how this is done? You ask me things and I answer. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer, I feel bad for you for that. You are really missing out and your goal of your beliefs, thoughts etc and how you are look upon suffer, I believe you are far better then that.

Share with others, try to stop telling people what to believe and instead exchange ideas and beliefs. You simply ( I believe) stop making and taking this so personal, you believe we are harming and disrespecting you buy not believing what you do and tell us to. You are causing your own suffering.


Just what I believe.

[nabiscothejerd]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Where will Hoboken go when you die, though?

hey isn't hoboken the ken and ryu's fireball from street fighter

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I believe the body is little different then a suit, when it ages and dies the mind like energy ( I believe) simply moves on. We believe it is the ordinary state of mind the grasping, emotional, conditioned, obsessed mind. The mind that fears not being “I� “self� that move son. In Buddhism enlightenment means/fully awake. Awake to the true nature of mind the 'very subtle' here is a link that will help explain it better then I http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/Buddhism-beliefs.htm We believe when one sees though the cloud of the conditioned mind to the true nature of mind, an end of the cycle of rebirth and death and suffering. Nirvana is a “state of mind� not a physical place where I am for all time Mark Bertrand.

We believe when this state is attained there is no room for such worthless things as concepts, “self� cravings, attainment and so on, no needs no desires.You believe too much ...

Easy there is no “soul� a soul would be a self, a thing in and of itself “ Marks soul� it could be nothing but just Mark, no such thing exists.

Please define “soul�.Do you know what spandex is?

much like dreaming. Nothing real, all illusion.The soul is like the backdrop of the play.

May I ask can you see how this is done? You ask me things and I answer. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer, I feel bad for you for that. You are really missing out and your goal of your beliefs, thoughts etc and how you are look upon suffer, I believe you are far better then that.

Share with others, try to stop telling people what to believe and instead exchange ideas and beliefs. You simply ( I believe) stop making and taking this so personal, you believe we are harming and disrespecting you buy not believing what you do and tell us to. You are causing your own suffering.

Just what I believe. We all have to struggle with ourselves. I cannot relieve you of your struggle. You cannot relieve me of mine.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus You believe too much ...

Silly boy that would be you, remember you are here telling us what to believe, yet offering no facts we must just simply believe what you tells us.

Also remember you have said you do not answer questions, you only ask them.

Also remember you said that my not believing you is disrespectful to you.

Also remember you are the one who wrote a huge cyber book telling people what to believe.

Also remember you have said you are the founder and leader of “the NEW Church� and will be followed.

Also remember I am Buddhist and Buddhism teaches this

1 Kalama Sutta

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.)

and 2 ( amoung other things_

By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left
undone, by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself no one Purifies another.


3-His last recorded words were "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your own salvation with diligence."

4- Don’t confuse the finger point at the moon with the moon.

Do you know what spandex is?

So I ask you to define “soul� and you ask me if I know what you like the feel of under your pants??

The soul is like the backdrop of the play.

Very poetic now, define ‘soul� and prove we have one.

We all have to struggle with ourselves. I cannot relieve you of your struggle. You cannot relieve me of mine.

From time to time you say something logical.. Yet you believe you are here to ‘save� us and we need blindly follow you?

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I can see that I've managed to garner your attention, simply by putting you on ignore. ;)

Yes that's right... I psychically knew you'd put me on ignore, because you hadn't actually got around to telling me you'd done so, and you in return psychically knew what I'd written and could quote it, even though no one else had quoted it themselves before you did so...

Now a more honest statement would be "I'm putting you on ignore from now on", but honesty isn't your finest point, is it? Never mind the fact that it's your own religious book I was quoting from... Poor, poor old Iacchus. All he has is obsession and innuendo and fibbery to argue with; he daren't even defend his own religion!

[P.S.A.]

Also remember you said that my not believing you is disrespectful to you.

It's not that huge; Each "chapter" is merely a page of html approximate to the size of a JREF page... You can skim read it (notice Iacchus tried to use innuendo again that it was a great effort I'd made on his behalf, and then ran away from my pointing out any educated person leads to skim read quite early) in about 20 minutes, if you can bothered. A full read would probably take at most an hour, and only then because it's so incoherant you'd have to sit and work certain passages out.

No, Iacchus is not a deep thinker; He responds deeply to things, and he confuses that for deep understanding. Go ahead folks, read his "book"... It's almost entirely numerology, obsessions with people (women in particular) and six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Very poetic now, define ‘soul� and prove we have one. Use your imagination ... It's all you've got. ;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Use your imagination ... It's all you've got. ;)

If I am my imagination why I sit ever changing, “self/soul� can be nothing but just that one thing, never changing or effected by outside stimuli? Well shot down another one. :p

[Max560]

It's a remarkable pattern: Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .......

I can see that we have another true believer here.

This fails to qualify as an adequate response.

Mercutio wrote:

Now, would you care to address any of the substantive portions of my previous post? This post, in particular, challenged you to dispute Max560's recognition of a pattern in your posting style. Are you going to deny it?

Iacchus wrote:

The answer to that is quite easy. Max560 is subject to the beliefs of Max560.

This also fails to qualify as an adequate response. It also seems to be your go to line of response when you wish to avoid having to concede a point:

"That's just what you believe "

No, that's not how facts work. Facts are not contingent on belief in them. Facts are supported by evidence. Whether
or not you choose to acknowledge the evidence has no effect on the evidence itself. Look at the following example:

Belief: I don't believe that any harm can come from sticking my arm in this wood chipper."

Evidence: People have been harmed in wood chipper accidents. (http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=200670636)

Fact: You can cause serious harm by sticking one of your limbs in a wood chipper.

Note how the belief has no bearing on the evidence. Note how the opposite belief corresponds with the evidence.

When I say:

It's a remarkable pattern: Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .......

What I mean is that there is evidence that you (Iacchus) have a tendency to Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .....

I understand that that you might get upset when people kick your dogma. It probably makes you squirm when you can't cough up any evidence to suport your beliefs.

When you are confronted by this barrage of requests for supporting evidence for your beliefs, it seems as though you can go one of three routes:

One: Provide supporting evidence. Offer something more substantive than "I believe it intrinsically"

Two: If you are unable to manage option One, question your belief system, re evaluate your standards for believing something.

Three: When unable to manage option One, engage in avoidant behavior. Obfuscate. Misdirect. Finally, when push comes to shove, and you have been painted into a corner, and when no one is going for your red herrings, use your catch all, universal throw away line, "That's just what you believe "

Sadly, you have opted for choice number Three up to this date. You may be able to stave off the discomfort of confronting the frailty of your belief system by doing so, but this does nothing to actually strengthen your claims.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560
What I mean is that there is evidence that you (Iacchus) have a tendency to Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, ..... Well, with regards to the Prime Mover (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56070) thread, this is what I just posted recently in the Intelligent Design (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56366) thread ...

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, where did the order in the Universe originate? Were there already "ground rules" set in place -- and if there were, where did they come from? -- or, did it all of sudden "just happen?"So, whether you argue from the standpoint of the Prime Mover or, Intelligent Design, it simply cannot be refuted. And, if people continue to wish to argue about something they cannot possibly hope to win, it's not my problem.

Originally posted by Max560
Three: When unable to manage option One, engage in avoidant behavior. Obfuscate. Misdirect. Finally, when push comes to shove, and you have been painted into a corner, and when no one is going for your red herrings, use your catch all, universal throw away line, "That's just what you believe "
Yes, indeed, your imagination is all you've got. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If I am my imagination why I sit ever changing, “self/soul� can be nothing but just that one thing, never changing or effected by outside stimuli? Well shot down another one. :p Yes, the imagination is full of "wonders" now isn't it? ;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Believe what you will, until you die that is, for then you can believe no more ... Or, can you? So, what's the point in looking for God, or invisible pink fairies or, any other of these other "mythological beings?" We need look no further than ourselves. We are all myths in the making! :D

I have an experiment for you:

1. Lock yourself out of the house. Make sure all the doors are locked and shut, keep all the windows closed, seal every other possible entry.
2. Destroy your existing set of keys.
3. Without breaking in, calling a locksmith, or contacting someone with a duplicate set of keys, believeyourself back into the house.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the imagination is full of "wonders" now isn't it? ;)

Yes, the imagination is full of "wonders" now isn't it?

Yes but not “self�;) . I have imagined as a child I could fly or even now what it would be like now to fly. Does this mean I can?

NO!!!
:p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
I have an experiment for you:

1. Lock yourself out of the house. Make sure all the doors are locked and shut, keep all the windows closed, seal every other possible entry.
2. Destroy your existing set of keys.
3. Without breaking in, calling a locksmith, or contacting someone with a duplicate set of keys, believeyourself back into the house. Oh yes, I believe that so long as we are here, we are subject to the limitations of the "physical universe." I have never claimed otherwise. However, when we're dead and gone (according to the materialists), we are incapable of believing we were ever here. So, what does that tells us about a reality which doesn't persist? That we are clearly imaginary?

Also, how is it possible to acknowledge anything, if it wasn't first already in our minds in order to do so? Doesn't this tell us that there's a reality of the mind -- hence dimension -- as well? For example, where do you go in your dreams? And "who" is it that is experiencing them? If dreams are experiential, why shouldn't they be considered a reality as well? The fact is they are.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if there were no sentient (real) creatures to point this out to other non-existent sentient (real) creatures, then who gives a crap? Obviously the only thing that makes it real -- regardless of whether it "exists" or not -- is the fact that we're sentient. Therefore, it's only possible to believe that we're here, so long as were here ... and then, according to the tenets of materialism, there will be nothing.

Being sentient or not is irrelevant to the case in question. Real things exist independent of being sentient or not, and independent if a given creature, sentient or not, is aware of their existence.

And according to the "tenets of materialism" there will be nothing after death only in respect to the deceased´s POV.

The universe does not give a crap about our existence. Actually there are no evidences that it has any level of counsiousness, so it can´t even give a crap. Scavengers, however, will give a crap (composed by residua of ourselves) about our existence after it ceases.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, indeed, your imagination is all you've got. ;)

Non responsive throw away line. Fails to address the topic at hand.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Max560
Non responsive throw away line. Fails to address the topic at hand.

You've just described 99% of what Iacchus posts.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Being sentient or not is irrelevant to the case in question. Real things exist independent of being sentient or not, and independent if a given creature, sentient or not, is aware of their existence.Being sentient has everything to do with understanding this, in which case it's all in our minds ... in that respect.

And according to the "tenets of materialism" there will be nothing after death only in respect to the deceased´s POV.If you're speaking of the dead corpse which is left behind, you are sadly mistaken.

The universe does not give a crap about our existence. Actually there are no evidences that it has any level of counsiousness, so it can´t even give a crap. Scavengers, however, will give a crap (composed by residua of ourselves) about our existence after it ceases. The Universe doesn't give a crap? You're right, maybe it doesn't ... But, maybe God does?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560
Non responsive throw away line. Fails to address the topic at hand. It has everything to do with the original post though, in case you hadn't noticed. :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KelvinG
You've just described 99% of what Iacchus posts. My, your imagination is just as vivid as this other guy's. ;)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh yes, I believe that so long as we are here, we are subject to the limitations of the "physical universe." I have never claimed otherwise. However, when we're dead and gone (according to the materialists), we are incapable of believing we were ever here. So, what does that tells us about a reality which doesn't persist? That we are clearly imaginary?

Also, how is it possible to acknowledge anything, if it wasn't first already in our minds in order to do so? Doesn't this tell us that there's a reality of the mind -- hence dimension -- as well? For example, where do you go in your dreams? And "who" is it that is experiencing them? If dreams are experiential, why shouldn't they be considered a reality as well? The fact is they are.

So quit running your mouth and do it already. And take pictures.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Iacchus
My, your imagination is just as vivid as this other guy's. ;)

Most of the things you say are meaningless, my friend. They're vague and totally incoherent. Just because you put a smilie behind them doesn't make them profound.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh yes, I believe that so long as we are here, we are subject to the limitations of the "physical universe." I have never claimed otherwise. However, when we're dead and gone (according to the materialists), we are incapable of believing we were ever here. So, what does that tells us about a reality which doesn't persist? That we are clearly imaginary?

Your logic makes my brain bleed :(

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Your logic makes my brain bleed :(

"logic"???lol

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Most of the things you say are meaningless, my friend. They're vague and totally incoherent. Just because you put a smilie behind them doesn't make them profound. And what would you describe as meaningful then? A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far. Wow!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts
So quit running your mouth and do it already. And take pictures. Pictures of what? Ghosts? :con2:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Pictures of what? Ghosts? :con2:

Who was the guy/kid that said he could do that? I have not seen him in some time I hope he is OK.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what would you describe as meaningful then? A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far. Wow!

And what would you describe as meaningful then? A God which "magically" appears out of nowhere?

This is all your beloved god based belief has been able to tell us so far. Wow!;)

I believe the universe/universes have always been, I can prove the universe can you prove God?

:nope:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
And what would you describe as meaningful then? A God which "magically" appears out of nowhere?

This is all your beloved god based belief has been able to tell us so far. Wow!;)

I believe the universe/universes have always been, I can prove the universe can you prove God?

:nope: No, the magic is in that anything "appeared" at all. ;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, the magic is in that anything "appeared" at all. ;)

why?

You see it, you can touch it, not magic. We can look and learn what is to learn and come to know where and how it comes to be.

OR you can just sit with the cave men and and grunt " god do it grunt grunt"

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what would you describe as meaningful then? A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far. Wow! No, Iacchus, this is not what science tells us. This is what your limited perspective hears when science tries to tell you what it knows.

If you really cared, you would be reading. Lots. Biology, physics, psychology, history...come to think of it, I cannot think of a single area where you have demonstrated an understanding of science that would allow you to pass a high school exam. (note--this does not say that you do not understand, merely that you have not demonstrated that understanding here. You may be ignorant, you may be dishonest, or there may be another explanation you could provide evidence for.)

[Max560]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what would you describe as meaningful then? A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far. Wow!

Weak. See Mercutio's reply.

That being said, inserting some deity to fill in the gaps of your understanding of the universe reeks of intellectual laziness.

Or, perhaps this deity of yours helps soothe your existential angst?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

I believe the universe/universes have always been, I can prove the universe can you prove God?

:nope:

Well, I know in another thread Iacchus said he had his own personal proof of God's existence. I asked him to start a thread detailing this "proof", but he has not done so.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
No, Iacchus, this is not what science tells us. This is what your limited perspective hears when science tries to tell you what it knows.This was posted on the Intelligent Design (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56366) thread by the way ....

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, where did the order in the Universe originate? Were there already "ground rules" set in place -- and if there were, where did they come from? -- or, did it all of sudden "just happen?" Well, that sums it up rather nicely don't you think? ;)

If you really cared, you would be reading. Lots. Biology, physics, psychology, history...come to think of it, I cannot think of a single area where you have demonstrated an understanding of science that would allow you to pass a high school exam. (note--this does not say that you do not understand, merely that you have not demonstrated that understanding here. You may be ignorant, you may be dishonest, or there may be another explanation you could provide evidence for.) You're right, if I beleived there was nothing more than what Science tells us, I would be doing just that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560
That being said, inserting some deity to fill in the gaps of your understanding of the universe reeks of intellectual laziness. It certainly would be, on the part of the person who "does not" understand.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
why?

You see it, you can touch it, not magic. We can look and learn what is to learn and come to know where and how it comes to be.

OR you can just sit with the cave men and and grunt " god do it grunt grunt" There is nothing about our being here which is not "magic."

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There is nothing about our being here which is not "magic."

By any normal definition of the word magic, everything about our being here has so far proven to be non-magical at all. Where is the evidence of a "magical" being such as your god? (I know, you're not going to provide the evidence, just dodge the question with cheap rhetorics. After all, you've only been asked about evidence for a god several dozen times without ever providing it.)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There is nothing about our being here which is not "magic."

it is reality.


Magic mean=The unexplained, the supernatural, enchantment

mag·i·cal Audio pronunciation of magical ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mj-kl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or produced by magic.
2. Enchanting; bewitching: a magical performance of the ballet.

Magical would infer a “magician� is behind the “magic�, this seems not to be the case as one does not have to simply ( grunt grunt) believe in the most simple thought “ God / magician do it�. We can open our eyes and minds and discover the natural causes and conditions behind life.

Life is explainable if we just look. Life is not supernatural,, it is the most natural.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This was posted on the Intelligent Design (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56366) thread by the way ....
Well, that sums it up rather nicely don't you think? ;)
Well, yes, but not in the way I suspect you mean. It sums up that you have no idea about what you are speaking of. I say that in all seriousness; your questions show an immense ignorance of what science knows of cosmology. It is no wonder you do not trust science--your understanding of it is so puny and contorted, it bears virtually no resemblance to what is actually there.

You're right, if I beleived there was nothing more than what Science tells us, I would be doing just that. Um...how exactly do you make this claim? You have demonstrated no understanding whatsoever of science--by what logic do you claim you understand science's limitations? Your posts would be as different as night and day if your objections to science actually reflected an understanding of it. Scientists challenge one another's theories all the time--but from a position of understanding, not your position of willful ignorance. You pretend to ask question that challenge the cutting edge of science, when you demonstrate not even a basic understanding. When you are given answers to your questions, you do not even recognize it!

Again, if you actually cared, you would read. You would not dismiss before even reading what it is you claim to be dismissing. You do not, though. You have had sites and books and articles suggested to you (admittedly, such offers have dwindled over the months, as it has become obvious that you do not follow up on them), and you have steadfastly ignored them. Because (in part) you will not take this smallest step in helping yourself answer the questions you claim you are very interested in, you have absolutely zero credibility. It is not merely your nonsensical, evasive posts. It is your apparent utter lack of effort at seeking knowledge anywhere but in dreams and numerology (and do not suppose it is unnoticed that you refuse to examine the literature on those, which might--and does--expose your favorite means of gathering knowledge as meaningless).

You could, of course, turn all this around. Demonstrate your claimed interest. Listen. Read. Quit evading and answer questions.

Or remain a laughingstock.

Your call.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Or remain a laughingstock. Hey, the fact that you don't understand doesn't pain me. For it's not me that you mock. What pains me, is that I have to repeat myself over and over again. And that can get to be a real drag ... on? Hmm ... dragon? ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, the fact that you don't understand doesn't pain me. For it's not me that you mock. What pains me, is that I have to repeat myself over and over again. And that can get to be a real drag ... on? Hmm ... dragon? ;) So, not being understood is no problem, but having to repeat yourself, presumably because you are not understood, is.

Perhaps you need to try something radical, like actually reading what others have written and answering their questions, as they answer yours. Rather than repeating the same failed attempts, that is, since repeating yourself pains you.

And no, of course we do not mock you. We mock your ideas, your "logic", your willful ignorance, your hubris, your lies, your refusal to admit your lies... We cannot mock you, we can only mock the things you try to present to us here.

[nabiscothejerd]

Originally posted by Mercutio
So, not being understood is no problem, but having to repeat yourself, presumably because you are not understood, is.

Perhaps you need to try something radical, like actually reading what others have written and answering their questions, as they answer yours. Rather than repeating the same failed attempts, that is, since repeating yourself pains you.

And no, of course we do not mock you. We mock your ideas, your "logic", your willful ignorance, your hubris, your lies, your refusal to admit your lies... We cannot mock you, we can only mock the things you try to present to us here.

i do not think that he can do that and i will offer him more praise than he gives to religion if he can

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
So, not being understood is no problem, but having to repeat yourself, presumably because you are not understood, is.

Perhaps you need to try something radical, like actually reading what others have written and answering their questions, as they answer yours. Rather than repeating the same failed attempts, that is, since repeating yourself pains you.

And no, of course we do not mock you. We mock your ideas, your "logic", your willful ignorance, your hubris, your lies, your refusal to admit your lies... We cannot mock you, we can only mock the things you try to present to us here. I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by nabiscothejerd
i do not think that he can do that and i will offer him more praise than he gives to religion if he can Am not sure what you're saying here but, here's something I just posted at the new forum I just signed up with, regarding the nature of blasphemy ...

Well, with respect to blasphemy, I doubt very much that it insults God, in-as-much as it presents a false representation of who God is, and this is the real killer (why it's called blasphemy), because when presented to others and, in the wrong way, it can become very hurtful or, at the very least ineffective. This is why most of the blasphemy I'm aware of is committed within Christian Church ... so-called. Yet I personally have no problems with the Bible. It's a very revelatory book -- indeed. The problem I have is with what people do with the Bible. And yes, this can be construed as blasphemy, at least in my mind. Also, since the whole thing becomes a misrepresentation, as an appeal to people's ignorance, this is the only way it can be maintained.Hmm ... maybe some of "you" folks can better relate to this? The forum is called the Faithless Community (http://www.faithless.org/community/index.php?) by the way, and pertains primarily to Deism. This particular post was posted in the Introduction forum (http://www.faithless.org/community/index.php?showtopic=3355).

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here. No, you type them.

Let's look just at this thread, to start. Would you say that this:A universe which "magically" appears out of nowhere? This is all your beloved Science has been able to tell us so far. is the truth? It is not. So...is it a lie? Or mere ignorance? Or some other option you will explain to us?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Let's look just at this thread, to start. Would you say that this: is the truth? It is not. So...is it a lie? Or mere ignorance? Or some other option you will explain to us? Would you suggest that the Universe has always been here then? If not, then what was here before the Universe and how did "it" get here? It sounds like something "magical" happened to me? Unless of course you have a better explanation? Do you "honestly" believe something can come out of nothing?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you suggest that the Universe has always been here then? If not, then what was here before the Universe and how did "it" get here? It sounds like something "magical" happened to me? Unless of course you have a better explanation? Do you "honestly" believe something can come out of nothing? And this is what I mean by not admitting your lies.

Does Science make the claim that the Universe "magically" appeared out of nowhere? Yes or no? If yes, provide a citation for a proper scientific source.*

Assuming you clear that hurdle (which you will not), is that, as you claim, all that Science tells us? Yes or no? If yes, provide a citation for a proper scientific source.

You have presumed to speak for Science, and tell us all that Science has been able to tell us. Can you back up your claim? It is very straightforward now, Iacchus. I have put it in the form of two yes/no questions and two source citations. I could ask for considerably more, but this would be the absolute least you could provide in order to demonstrate that you are not lying.

Two yes or no answers, with sources. Anything less and you are a liar.


*when I say "proper scientific source", I mean a peer-reviewed journal article or book. I do not mean one of your dreams.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.
:eek:

WOW I want some action on this bet, I could make a million just from the times you said that I had said something, when asked to post my words to support your statment, did you ever do so?...:con2:

:nope:

[Max560]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I have not spoken a single lie since I've been here.

Red Herring Alert!

Just out of curiosity, since you have made this claim, what will you do when evidence to the contrary is presented?

1. Admit that this claim is false.

2. Fail to acknowledge all evidence presented which contradicts your claim. Then, when faced with insurmountable evidence which contradicts your claim, make some some other preposterous claim to start the whole cycle over.

Just wondering.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Max560
Red Herring Alert!

Just out of curiosity, since you have made this claim, what will you do when evidence to the contrary is presented?

1. Admit that this claim is false.

2. Fail to acknowledge all evidence presented which contradicts your claim. Then, when faced with insurmountable evidence which contradicts your claim, make some some other preposterous claim to start the whole cycle over.

Just wondering. Okay I admit it, I am subject to being mistaken. I am not infallible. That, however, is not the same thing as lying.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay I admit it, I am subject to being mistaken. I am not infallible. That, however, is not the same thing as lying. This is, to my memory, the first time you have admitted this. In your opinion, have you been mistaken before on this forum without having admitted it afterward? Does this happen often? Rarely? What thing(s) do you now admit you were mistaken about (so that we might quit hounding you about it/them)?

As a side question...how often do you need to be corrected on something, in your opinion, before you are no longer merely "mistaken"?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Being sentient has everything to do with understanding this, in which case it's all in our minds ... in that respect.

Nope. Your thread is implying that there is a link between counsiousness and existence. Specifically, you draw a paralell between imaginary creatures and real creatures. The paralell would be that, these imaginary creatures have no physical traces of their existences and once we die, no traces of our counsiousness is left other than the memories that other people have.

The similarity fades away when one notes that we leave physical evidences (bones, texts, artifacts) of our existence behind us. No bones or artifacts of the Easter Bunny have ever been found, as far as I know.

Being sentient has nothing to do with it. A mineral may be composed by atoms that once composed a human. And this mineral will to be sentient to be composed by these atoms?

And the human will know about this?

So, counsiousness has nothing to do with it as you think. One needs to exist to have a self, but most things exist independent of having a self or not.

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you're speaking of the dead corpse which is left behind, you are sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but you are the one who is sadly mistaken.

I wrote:

"And according to the "tenets of materialism" there will be nothing after death only in respect to the deceased´s POV."

According to materialism (regardless if you adopt it or not), death means the end of counsiousness of the individual that died. Plain and simple. So that counsious body, when life ends, no longer has a self. The other individuals as well as the universe, are still there. From the decased´s POV however, there´s nothing else, actually not even a POV. His/her remains continue to exist, its atoms will be recycled, becoming parts of other living beings or minerals, for example.

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Universe doesn't give a crap? You're right, maybe it doesn't ... But, maybe God does?

A god would have to exist, know about our existence and be able to care or not about us. Any evidence of this?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
This is, to my memory, the first time you have admitted this. In your opinion, have you been mistaken before on this forum without having admitted it afterward? Does this happen often? Rarely? What thing(s) do you now admit you were mistaken about (so that we might quit hounding you about it/them)?

As a side question...how often do you need to be corrected on something, in your opinion, before you are no longer merely "mistaken"? No, I never claimed to be omniscient. Of that I am most certain!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
So, counsiousness has nothing to do with it as you think. One needs to exist to have a self, but most things exist independent of having a self or not. Actually, I don't disagree with you as much as you think. However, I would ask that you prove any of these assertions that you make, which you can't. Because the only means we have of proving anything is immaterial ... via consciousness.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I never claimed to be omniscient. Of that I am most certain! Don't evade. You did claim to be right. Which things do you now admit you were mistaken about? You took a big step by admitting you had been mistaken; do not fall back two steps by prevaricating now.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Don't evade. You did claim to be right. Which things do you now admit you were mistaken about? You took a big step by admitting you had been mistaken; do not fall back two steps by prevaricating now. Yes, but unless you can claim omniscience yourself, you have no grounds to speak either. Which is my whole point. Also, as I said in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56457), I rarely attempt to put square pegs into round holes. I find the answers to be much more provocative, almost a synchronistic sense about things, when I don't. ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but unless you can claim omniscience yourself, you have no grounds to speak either. Which is my whole point. Also, as I said in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56457), I rarely attempt to put square pegs into round holes. I find the answers to be much more provocative, almost a synchronistic sense about things, when I don't. ;) I do not have to be omniscient, when there are falsifiable claims which do have evidence refuting them. Once again, you attempt to shift the burden. You know I do not click on your links, but if it is the thread I suspect, I was very much disappointed; your belated admission that you have made misstatements was a promising start at open-mindedness, but it seems you have tightened up your blinders and resumed business as usual. Which is merely annoying for the rest of us, but really a tragic loss for you; you close your eyes to a marvelous world.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Which is merely annoying for the rest of us, but really a tragic loss for you; you close your eyes to a marvelous world. If it's a loss which is merely temporal, I can both live and die with it. ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it's a loss which is merely temporal, I can both live and die with it. ;) I truly and honestly pity you. And given how annoying you are here, that is saying something. For your own sake, I hope you decide to tear down the wall you have built between yourself and learning. You have wasted too much of your life in ignorance.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, I don't disagree with you as much as you think. However, I would ask that you prove any of these assertions that you make, which you can't. Because the only means we have of proving anything is immaterial ... via consciousness.

Wich ones I can´t prove?

The explanation on the materialistic view of death?

Or that for god care about us there has to be a god, it must be able to acknoweledge our existence, and also able to care?

I agree with you that proving (better write try to prove) that something is immaterial -actually the very act of proving anything- require counsiousness. However, this does not implies anything else! The act of thinking requires that the creature who is thinking must be able to think. So what?

Note that the above cited actions also require that the thinker is a material being.

[Iacchus]

If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds. If our ability to prove anything does not, then what? You have been unable to even *define* consciousness or mind, let alone demonstrate their existence. Your statement is utterly vacuous.

Oh, and "proof" is the wrong standard, as has been discussed in other threads. We look for evidence, not for proof.

I am really sorry that you have retreated to your old habits. There was a glimmer of hope there for a moment.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If our ability to prove anything does not, then what? You have been unable to even *define* consciousness or mind, let alone demonstrate their existence. Your statement is utterly vacuous. Hey, I always question myself, and rarely am I demanding of anyone else. However, certain things like "the sky is blue" and "a brick wall is dense," are a given.

By the way, consciousness or "mind," through its "experiential" nature, is that which defines and/or puts labels on things.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I always question myself, and rarely am I demanding of anyone else. However, certain things like "the sky is blue" and "a brick wall is dense," are a given.
It does not count as "questioning yourself" when you only count on yourself for the answers. Have you ever actually, for example, looked at the literature on dreams? You base so much of your ideology on your dreams--how do you know you can trust that? Did you question yourself, and then answer yourself?

Certain things, like "the world is flat", are a given. Self-evident.

By the way, consciousness or "mind," through its "experiential" nature, is that which defines and/or puts labels on things. We define things. We label things. Why do you say that it is only a part of us--an unobservable part, at that--which accomplishes these things? Is this something you asked of yourself? Was it as obvious as a flat earth?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If our ability to prove anything rests with the immaterial (consciousness), what does that tell us about the nature of proof? ... That it's all in our minds.

It just tells us that your "proof" is created by a material entity. It tells you, if you preffer, that the "immaterial" is created by the material.

Note that one can use your reasoning as an evidence that our mind is created by material entities. And that´s as far as you will be able to go comparing the Easter Bunny with real creatures.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
It does not count as "questioning yourself" when you only count on yourself for the answers. Have you ever actually, for example, looked at the literature on dreams? You base so much of your ideology on your dreams--how do you know you can trust that? Did you question yourself, and then answer yourself?As much as I don't read books, although my posting and reading habits on the Internet more than makes up for it, and neither am I prone to reading fiction, I have a small bookshelf at home with approximately 100 books, and just about every one of those is some sort of reference book. And yes, at least one or two of them have been particularly helpful in my understanding the nature of dreams.

Also, the dream realm is none other than the mythic realm, and any book concerning mythology (of which I have 20-30), helps aid in our understanding of dreams as well ... Since quite often we'll meet the same types of "characters" in our dreams.

Certain things, like "the world is flat", are a given. Self-evident.
We define things. We label things. Why do you say that it is only a part of us--an unobservable part, at that--which accomplishes these things? Is this something you asked of yourself? Was it as obvious as a flat earth? And if we weren't sentient, what would we know? It's as easy as that I'm afraid.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
It just tells us that your "proof" is created by a material entity. It tells you, if you preffer, that the "immaterial" is created by the material.

Note that one can use your reasoning as an evidence that our mind is created by material entities. And that´s as far as you will be able to go comparing the Easter Bunny with real creatures. The Easter Bunny is no less real than the imaginary person that exists between your ears. They both come from the same place, the mythic dimension we call "the mind."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As much as I don't read books, although my posting and reading habits on the Internet more than makes up for it, and neither am I prone to reading fiction, I have a small bookshelf at home with approximately 100 books, and just about every one of those is some sort of reference book. And yes, at least one or two of them have been particularly helpful in my understanding the nature of dreams.
Would you care to share what those books are? I am very interested in seeing what you would consider to be a reference book for dreams. I could recommend a few for you.

Oh, and it is crucial to remember that the internet is not peer-reviewed. Any nut can put up a website. It is quite naive to suggest that internet reading can make up for a thorough examination of the literature on any topic. If you are serious about learning, there is no shortcut.

Also, the dream realm is none other than the mythic realm, and any book concerning mythology (of which I have 20-30), helps aid in our understanding of dreams as well ... Since quite often we'll meet the same types of "characters" in our dreams.
Ah...I begin to see what sort of books you consider references. And I begin to see what you consider "questioning yourself". You are asking questions and seeking answers which confirm your beliefs. That is not the path to learning.

And if we weren't sentient, what would we know? It's as easy as that I'm afraid. It's as circular as that, I'm afraid.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Easter Bunny is no less real than the imaginary person that exists between your ears. They both come from the same place, the mythic dimension we call "the mind."

Note that the Easter Bunny is not able to peform any action or leave any traces. It is a concept. One person, however, can use this concept to create some effect in the world. Here´s the difference between the unreal Easter Bunny and the real person. The later can interact with the world.

The "person that exists between my ears" is my mind, self, whatever term you want. My mind can create imaginary entities, but it and these immaginary entities are not the same thing, they do not come from a "mythic dimension" or archetypical realm.

One has to be a material creature to be able to have a self and create imaginary creatures. It is most likely that the Easter Bunny and the self are products of the brain.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Would you care to share what those books are? I am very interested in seeing what you would consider to be a reference book for dreams. I could recommend a few for you.And while I'm sure you're not going to agree with this, this one is online ... Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell (http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh00toc.html).

Oh, and it is crucial to remember that the internet is not peer-reviewed. Any nut can put up a website. It is quite naive to suggest that internet reading can make up for a thorough examination of the literature on any topic. If you are serious about learning, there is no shortcut.It had taken me a good 20-30 years to come to what I know. There were no shortcuts.

Ah...I begin to see what sort of books you consider references. And I begin to see what you consider "questioning yourself". You are asking questions and seeking answers which confirm your beliefs. That is not the path to learning.Looking for things which coincide with my experience? Is that such a God-awful crime?

It's as circular as that, I'm afraid. Not to a dualist. It's just a beginning.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And while I'm sure you're not going to agree with this, this one is online ... Swedenborg's, Heaven and Hell (http://swedenborg.newearth.org/hh/hh00toc.html).
Could you explain why you think this is a legitimate reference for the study of dreams? And please feel free to list other books by title and author. Unlike you, I have no fear of libraries.

It had taken me a good 20-30 years to come to what I know. There were no shortcuts.
One can spin wheels for a good long time without getting anywhere. 20-30 years is a measure of time, not progress.

Looking for things which coincide with my experience? Is that such a God-awful crime?
See, now, this does suggest you were taking shortcuts. Yes, it is a terrible thing to do if you are concerned with finding the truth. It is easy to demonstrate; I have classroom demonstrations for this. Remember, Iacchus--a flaw in your theory that you have failed to uncover is still a flaw. It is best to find the problems, not ignore them.

Not to a dualist. It's just a beginning. "Making up the answers" is not the same thing as "finding out the answers".