Thread: That's it, I'm done

Originally Posted by Ne-Yo

[Citation Needed]

This post is CRAP. You can help clean it up by aiding the poster in GETTING A CLUE.

-Unsupported Garbage- -Random Retarded Statements-

.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Uh No actually all that fire and brimstone stuff is ridiculous and the scriptures never supported it. Like I said before bluefinger you don't take the opportunity to analyize things for yourself. You hear a lot of people talking about hell so you take it as face value that this is a belief among all and it's never the case. J

People still love to assert it. Guess you've never met Carico.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I actually never seen them tear apart creationist views I've only seem them dig holes for themselves that so deep it's damn near impossible to get out.

Which is the case... in bizarro world.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What's the point you're saying the same thing over and over again and I'm just going to say the same thing over and over again and it will utimately result in a circular argument.

Or you are ultimately ignoring the evidence. I explained and pointed it out to you, but all you do is go "Nuh-uh! Can't be that, it must be a design!". What citation have you got for your proposed design mechanism?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What are you talking about past events? In this case there are no past events.

So shifting the goalpost in the end?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

1 in thousands of others, however creationist also believe in evolution to a certain degree (selection working on alleles/mutation, which causes variations) Some of us would conclude that the changes in species(or kinds) is mainly through changes in frequency in alleles, and secondary through mutations of the alleles (which also can make changes) Some of us even believe in speciation (caused by mutations)

Right... but you go on about design. I ask "What constitutes as design and how can you test for it?". So far, everything I've seen does not suggest a design.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Whatever bluefinger the same consistency and high level of falsehood that sparks the claims on Arachaeoraptor, Gogonasus, Gigantoraptor, Elephant hurling and the lastest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle A.K.A Legged Sea Cow discovery in Jamaica

Again, must be quite fascinating to live in bizarro world, nothing is quite what it seems apparently

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Lack of evidence means I can disregard the assertion "God exists" because there is nothing to back up the claim in the form of objective evidence.

It is to get lost to think (at all) God needs proof, for objectivity cannot exist without subjectivity. Objectivity is verified by subjectivity. To measure objectivity for the proof of Subjective-Reality/God/Essence is unhelpful and inconclusive. Reason and logic cannot "prove" anything beyond what they are limited to. The intellect easily can get caught up in details. Although this has beneficial and effective worldly use, it has nothing to do with essence. Likewise, a mind which intrinsically deals with conditions and specifics is useless in the infinite non-linear domain ("higher" paradigm).

You have already admitted that these are subjective matters; not objective-"provables". And you have also admitted that you find spiritual reality irrelevant, which doesn't surprise me. Funny, that.

To cut a long reason short, because you do not actually know what "God exists" means, you do not know what you have tried to "prove". Furthermore, you are then unaware of just why proof is unnecessary.

A mystic could say "God, Almighty Father is Universe, and Universe is Reality." Of what means is it to prove Reality? Without Reality, science, man and his questions are gone also. Reality just "Is" - how laughable it is to think this needs proof! How blind must you be... How useless (natural) are the questions...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Get rid of the notion of absolute certainty, and then I'll take you seriously. NOTHING can be known for sure in the absolute sense,

Why do you think that is? Got a sense of unreliability?

This is True. Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. Surrender the system of abstractions to reveal the stunning Actuality. Dissolve/transcend the clouds to reveal the Sun. Calm the ripples of the ocean to reveal the Substrate of Stillness. Surrender falsity to reveal Truth.

Of what use is finite definition for One who is Omniscient? Of what use is finite force to the Omnipotent? Of what use is limited measure to the Omnipresent? Otherwise, you are just a sun-ray claiming to be the sun, or a ripple attempting to describe the ocean...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

This is scepticism, not faith.

Actually, it is an expression of faith in skepticism.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It is scepticism. Deal with it.

Since the skeptic is naive to context in general, he may make limited prejudgments and false assumptions, which are actually based on relatively apparent content. Therefore it is up to the skeptic to deal with what is True, for the skeptic is uncertain. Self-responsibility.

Essentially, what needs to be taken into account for the intellectual to understand God, is (without particular order):

1. The intellect/mind; its limitations - Why they are limitations; how; when.
2. The essence of Religions; Spirituality, without getting lost in the details of irrelevance (E.g. How Jesus dressed; )
3. Surrender; why this is important.

Originally Posted by really

It is to get lost to think (at all) God needs proof, for objectivity cannot exist without subjectivity. Objectivity is verified by subjectivity. To measure objectivity for the proof of Subjective-Reality/God/Essence is unhelpful and inconclusive. Reason and logic cannot "prove" anything beyond what they are limited to. The intellect easily can get caught up in details. Although this has beneficial and effective worldly use, it has nothing to do with essence. Likewise, a mind which intrinsically deals with conditions and specifics is useless in the infinite non-linear domain ("higher" paradigm).

You have already admitted that these are subjective matters; not objective-"provables". And you have also admitted that you find spiritual reality irrelevant, which doesn't surprise me. Funny, that.

To cut a long reason short, because you do not actually know what "God exists" means, you do not know what you have tried to "prove". Furthermore, you are then unaware of just why proof is unnecessary.

A mystic could say "God, Almighty Father is Universe, and Universe is Reality." Of what means is it to prove Reality? Without Reality, science, man and his questions are gone also. Reality just "Is" - how laughable it is to think this needs proof! How blind must you be... How useless (natural) are the questions...

You can make a lot of assertions about many things, and I can disregard them if you don't have anything to back-up those assertions. Why should I take this one assertion of "God exists" any more seriously than "Magic Pixies exist"? Both can't be proven or disproven and both are just as absurd as the other. With nothing to show for such statements and relying on subjective accounts does not constitute as proof for such things.

Originally Posted by really

Why do you think that is? Got a sense of unreliability?

This is True. Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. Surrender the system of abstractions to reveal the stunning Actuality. Dissolve/transcend the clouds to reveal the Sun. Calm the ripples of the ocean to reveal the Substrate of Stillness. Surrender falsity to reveal Truth.

Of what use is finite definition for One who is Omniscient? Of what use is finite force to the Omnipotent? Of what use is limited measure to the Omnipresent? Otherwise, you are just a sun-ray claiming to be the sun, or a ripple attempting to describe the ocean...

There is no such thing as absolutes, so the idea of absolute Truth™ as being an attainable thing is a crock of shit. Surrender falsity for Truth™? Fuck off... Go to preach to someone who might actually be gullible enough to fall for that crap.

Originally Posted by really

Actually, it is an expression of faith in skepticism.

Faith has nothing to do with scepticism. Only in the eyes of a religious fanatic does everything seem to require faith.

Originally Posted by really

Since the skeptic is naive to context in general, he may make limited prejudgments and false assumptions, which are actually based on relatively apparent content. Therefore it is up to the skeptic to deal with what is True, for the skeptic is uncertain. Self-responsibility.

Essentially, what needs to be taken into account for the intellectual to understand God, is (without particular order):

1. The intellect/mind; its limitations - Why they are limitations; how; when.
2. The essence of Religions; Spirituality, without getting lost in the details of irrelevance (E.g. How Jesus dressed; )
3. Surrender; why this is important.

Err, no. Fuck off with this idea of 'surrendering'. It is still up to the believer to show that his beliefs are not false, and the sceptic only has to provide evidence for his own argument if the believer has provided evidence of his own. This applies to anything of a claim is made on from "This pill can cure cancer" to "Magic Pixies exist in my garden". Why must I treat the claim "A God exists" any differently from the previous two claims?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You can make a lot of assertions about many things, and I can disregard them if you don't have anything to back-up those assertions.

You can also disregard all the back-up (ignorance). This is not my choice. Faith; understand it, doubtful one.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Why should I take this one assertion of "God exists" any more seriously than "Magic Pixies exist"? Both can't be proven or disproven and both are just as absurd as the other. With nothing to show for such statements and relying on subjective accounts does not constitute as proof for such things.

How naive are you? Who mentioned magic-pixies? Do you hear Bibles, Teachings, Teachers, Avatars, Churches, Spiritual Groups, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Neurologists, Scriptures, etc. etc. etc. mention even one "magic pixie"? They speak about something quite different. This "pixie" idea is baseless just like the "spaghetti monster" arguments... naive comparisons... Jumping in... missing...

There are reasons for which you must devote your own time for understanding. Why waste your time arguing without an interest at all...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

There is no such thing as absolutes, so the idea of absolute Truth™ as being an attainable thing is a crock of shit. Surrender falsity for Truth™? Fuck off... Go to preach to someone who might actually be gullible enough to fall for that crap.

Why do you think that is? Got a sense of unreliability?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Faith has nothing to do with scepticism. Only in the eyes of a religious fanatic does everything seem to require faith.

And the skeptic takes another naive guess.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Err, no. Fuck off with this idea of 'surrendering'.

What about the other two "ideas"? Probably far too challenging in this lifetime...

It easy to be ignorant; anyone can be skeptical.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It is still up to the believer to show that his beliefs are not false, and the sceptic only has to provide evidence for his own argument if the believer has provided evidence of his own. This applies to anything of a claim is made on from "This pill can cure cancer" to "Magic Pixies exist in my garden". Why must I treat the claim "A God exists" any differently from the previous two claims?

Because the previous two have nothing to do with the last. Whether you understand spirit or not has nothing to do with trying to prove temporary claims. Not only that, I seem to have to repeat myself in saying these realities do not even lie in the domain of "proof".

Originally Posted by really

You can also disregard all the back-up (ignorance). This is not my choice. Faith; understand it, doubtful one.

Right...

Originally Posted by really

How naive are you? Who mentioned magic-pixies? Do you hear Bibles, Teachings, Teachers, Avatars, Churches, Spiritual Groups, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Neurologists, Scriptures, etc. etc. etc. mention even one "magic pixie"? They speak about something quite different. This "pixie" idea is baseless just like the "spaghetti monster" arguments... naive comparisons... Jumping in... missing...

A superstition is still a superstition... whether it is magic Pixies or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. God is just another baseless superstition. A majority may believe the superstition, but that does not make it any more true than let's say... Longcat.

Originally Posted by really

Why do you think that is? Got a sense of unreliability?

We can know things to a degree of relative and practical certainty. All 'truths' and 'falsities' are relative distinctions based upon the circumstance and perspective of the observer. We can show certain things to be the case through objective observation and experimentation, but we can never know things to be the case with absolute certainty. Absolute Truth™ is a red herring.

Originally Posted by really

What about the other two "ideas"? Probably far too challenging in this lifetime... Your own time, I guess. It easy to be ignorant; anyone can be skeptical.

Condescending... much? And yes, anyone can be sceptical. People should be more sceptical in general. Might do us all some good.

Originally Posted by really

Because the previous two have nothing to do with the last. Whether you understand spirit or not has nothing to do with trying to prove temporary claims. Not only that, I seem to have to repeat myself in saying these realities do not even lie in the domain of "proof".

No, really. If someone comes along into a debate and makes the explicit claim such as "God exists!" he better have something to show for it, otherwise the claim is disregarded. I'm not going to make any special cases for such claims just because you happen to believe in them. To plead that this lies in the realm of unprovable things means it is put alongside other unprovable things... like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Magic Pixies.

Two things:
1. Overreacting on the part of the church, but it was a fairly offensive act.
2. I just got a hankering for some crackers, time for a midnight (well, 2:45am) snack..

Originally Posted by bluefinger

A superstition is still a superstition... whether it is magic Pixies or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. God is just another baseless superstition. A majority may believe the superstition, but that does not make it any more true than let's say... Longcat.

Yes, if you naively assume that God is a superstition. Do you believe in Life/Experience, or Reality, for that matter?

Longcat is already physically impossible as "shown".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

We can know things to a degree of relative and practical certainty. All 'truths' and 'falsities' are relative distinctions based upon the circumstance and perspective of the observer. We can show certain things to be the case through objective observation and experimentation,

This is True. Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. A ripple is not the ocean (even analogies are limited). However, absolute truths and lack thereof can be scientifically verified through Consciousness calibration research. Absolute/Ultimate Reality is revealed as a result of a shift from objective content to unconditional essential Context. Truth does not depend on opinion.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

but we can never know things to be the case with absolute certainty.

Are you sure about that?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Condescending... much? And yes, anyone can be sceptical. People should be more sceptical in general. Might do us all some good.

Hahaha... might... still hoping.

I was skeptical at first for quite a while, but my efforts to understand were later learned to be childish (as I was). I was, not bothered with Spirituality and so was not going to learn anything. Until I chose to do some good research; regretting nothing; I did learn.

Being skeptical generally arises out of the "logical/rational" argument. It is a limited understanding, through this:

Through the expansion of conscious awareness, transcended understandings and attitudes may now seem illogical. But, in the past, they were perceived as “logical”. Of course, the process is simply the refinement of a relationship between oneself and the world (in spirituality/identity/life), expanding beneficial awareness.

This, through growth, can be called paradigm shifting. Now, to look skeptically into other paradigms before the underlying awareness has ripened, spiritual/subjective information can seem very wishful and unconvincing. Just like the intellectual may skeptically presume human flight cannot be possible, since he has caught himself in the facts of gravity. Selections and exclusions may unconsciously be made via the innate structure of the ego/mind.

It becomes interesting, in mentioning again, how the linear mind cannot comprehend non-linear causality (the ego generally assumes Newtonian Cause-Effect paradigms which are fallacious in Reality). The seemingly “illogical”, “unpredictable” “chaotic” realms of the non-linear domain/quantum physics demonstrate how linear objectivity can be a limitation to understanding Truth. And yes, it may seem irrational, but that is a perception of the mind, the animal mind. It is “rational”, at higher levels of non-linear awareness; considering other dimensions, whether it is through linguistic abstraction or subjective awareness of the impersonal. Many presume it must be false because of esoteric language, or the apparent ambiguous and wishful communication. Without awareness of why this occurs in the first place (the limitations of mind and word), criticizing this is like saying he who cannot physically jump to the moon has not practiced jumping enough. In the realm of form, things can only go so far…

Vaguely, this is the realm of Spiritual Reality: where no lines of duality are Real; one is without obstruction; without obstacles - the realm of the perfect miraculous, non-verbal intuition, remote viewing and other psychic phenomena. It is especially the non-linear, non-verbal recognition of Truth, without the distortions of the mind at present. Spiritual Reality does not actually preclude or block anything out, for it is Context. And it is Love. This is because, through transcendence, the “lower levels” are not rejected hatefully but re-contextualized through non-resistance. It is “the big picture”, which the intellect often completely forgets about. It has nothing to fear either, for it is the Truth. Only ignorance is exclusion, because by nature, ignorance does not allow discerning appearance from essence; anymore than identifying the source of its very own problem.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No, really. If someone comes along into a debate and makes the explicit claim such as "God exists!" he better have something to show for it, otherwise the claim is disregarded.

Most don't understand that spiritual Realization is something you must realize for yourself, especially if you are going to deny so much of what appears to be heard from other "unreliable" people. Nobody is going to write down the Truth; nor would they have a familiar capacity to do so.

And, for what you've once stated about likening the invisible with the non-existent:

If you mean subjectively, this is an unwise prejudgment that prevents certain growth. You have not “seen everything”. The mind can only be in one “state” at a given period. Beyond mind, there is a Knowing of what allows for one; infinite potentiality.

Subjectivity exists, however it is invisible to other “external observers”. Hence science cannot assume that what cannot be measured is not real. Other dimensions may be “evident” yet invisible/intangible.

Non-existence may be likened to when one is completely oblivious– when subjectivity does not exist, neither does objectivity and the observer himself. However, to external observers, a person who is dead still appears to exist, but their “spirit” does not.

If you mean objectively, it is naïve as though when one closes ones eyes the world literally disappears; or at night the sun actually becomes nothing.

Non-existence is a foolish argument, look at all of this…

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To plead that this lies in the realm of unprovable things means it is put alongside other unprovable things... like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Magic Pixies.

Yes, in the case of generalization. No, in the case of contextual integrity. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that magic pixies were along the same youthful motivations as Peter Pan. Do you believe in the imagination?

With the spaghetti monster, the skeptic has simply prejudged what "believers" appeared to be believing in, and humorously, has compared them as indifferent with an imaginary idea. Most likely this was an unconscious decision.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, if you naively assume that God is a superstition. Do you believe in Life/Experience, or Reality, for that matter?

Naively? It is a superstition, no matter how you look at it in objective terms. It has no value other than an emotional crutch.

And what is the point of that question? Reality is a perception, of which objectively, is generated by the complex interaction of electrical impulses within a vast network of neurons. I am nothing more than a complex, deterministic machine in the sense that 'our limits' are imposed by our very biology. Nothing to do with the mind or soul, there's only so much a neural network can reproduce.

Originally Posted by really

Longcat is already physically impossible as "shown".

Heh, pics say Longcat is a very real cat. At least I have proof for Longcat. Now where's that proof for God?

Originally Posted by really

This is True. Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. A ripple is not the ocean (even analogies are limited). However, absolute truths and lack thereof can be scientifically verified through Consciousness calibration research. Absolute/Ultimate Reality is revealed as a result of a shift from objective content to unconditional essential Context. Truth does not depend on opinion.

Absolutes are a red-herring in any situation, because whilst Evolution may be true about the diversification of life, it does not apply to let's say... planetary formation. Truth is relative to the circumstance, and whilst something may be true within one circumstance, it is false in another. Relative certainty can be achieved through study and collection of evidence, but even then, absolutes can never be achieved. There is no One Truth™ that can be applied to all.

Originally Posted by really

Are you sure about that?

Relatively certain.

Originally Posted by really

word salad

Umm... so many words, so little meaning. Also, tl;dr.

But, look into myself? I'll only see my guts... and maybe my spleen and liver. No soul or anything of the like... just a lot of blood and fleshy bits.

Originally Posted by really

More word salad

Ummm lol. Infinite potentiality within a limited mind? Contradiction, much?

Also, just because your subjective interpretation of reality includes some very abstract concepts and a deity does not make it true. I can't prove to you that the dreams I have are real. Subjectively, they may seem real, but it is all a construct of my mind, of which I cannot trust.

Subjectively, 'God' may seem real to you. However, there is no way you can show that to be 'true', hence why my scepticism is perfectly valid.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, in the case of generalization. No, in the case of contextual integrity. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that magic pixies were along the same youthful motivations as Peter Pan. Do you believe in the imagination?

With the spaghetti monster, the skeptic has simply prejudged what "believers" appeared to be believing in, and humorously, has compared them as indifferent with an imaginary idea. Most likely this was an unconscious decision.

Contextual Integrity? Pfft... if you want to make an assertion that God is real, you are going to have to do better than merely preach.

Religion is the SEARCH for God! It's not like we already found God.. Just like science is the search for truth, not like we already found the truth.. just something that comes close enough to make it useful.

Don't go like SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT! Just add your own insights to science to make it closer to the truth. As you are also a human being with exactly as much potential as the other human beings who contributed to science. There is no point at all to break down science, there is a good point in trying to improve science.

Don't go like RELIGION IS BULLSHIT! Just add your own insights to religion to make it closer to the truth. As you are also a human being with exactly as much potential as the other human beings who contributed to religion. There is no point at all to break down religion, there is a good point in trying to improve religion.

Don't you see? We are still in search for God and the truth.. help us in this search, instead of just claiming and acting you already have everything figured out.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Naively? It is a superstition, no matter how you look at it in objective terms. It has no value other than an emotional crutch.

The thing is, this is not about objective appearance.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And what is the point of that question? Reality is a perception, of which objectively, is generated by the complex interaction of electrical impulses within a vast network of neurons. I am nothing more than a complex, deterministic machine in the sense that 'our limits' are imposed by our very biology. Nothing to do with the mind or soul, there's only so much a neural network can reproduce.

Nothing to do with mind or soul?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Heh, pics say Longcat is a very real cat. At least I have proof for Longcat. Now where's that proof for God?

Oh yeah, very real, excluding all the other amusing manipulations:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Long_cat

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Absolutes are a red-herring in any situation, because whilst Evolution may be true about the diversification of life, it does not apply to let's say... planetary formation. Truth is relative to the circumstance, and whilst something may be true within one circumstance, it is false in another. Relative certainty can be achieved through study and collection of evidence, but even then, absolutes can never be achieved. There is no One Truth™ that can be applied to all.

Yes, you will never see absolute truths whilst observing with the mechanism which describes relative truths. Circumstance is relative to Truth. What you describe as relative truths are therefore merely circumstances.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Relatively certain.

Relatively.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Umm... so many words, so little meaning. Also, tl;dr.

But, look into myself? I'll only see my guts... and maybe my spleen and liver. No soul or anything of the like... just a lot of blood and fleshy bits.

Quite obvious, quite distracted, quite easily.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Infinite potentiality within a limited mind? Contradiction, much?

"Beyond mind,"

Infinite Context, limited content. Trying to use what is limited (mind) to realize the infinite (what lies "behind" it), is fallacious.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

but it is all a construct of my mind, of which I cannot trust.

You cannot trust the content of the mind, but you can trust its Context. The Substrate of Awareness; there is no denying this.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Contextual Integrity? Pfft... if you want to make an assertion that God is real, you are going to have to do better than merely preach.

You don't understand the paradigm. I'm not going to follow you in circles.

Originally Posted by really

The thing is, this is not about objective appearance.

But it is. Objectively, we see what it really is without all the subjective abstractions one might impart on that belief.

Originally Posted by really

Nothing to do with mind or soul?

The mind is only a construct of a complex neural network, and souls are just another nebulous and abstract concept.

Originally Posted by really

Oh yeah, very real, excluding all the other amusing manipulations:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Long_cat

But Longcat is Longcat. The pic I provided shows him in his unedited glory. Likewise, at least I have something to show for myself if I decided to worship Longcat seriously.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, you will never see absolute truths whilst observing with the mechanism which describes relative truths. Circumstance is relative to Truth. What you describe as relative truths are therefore merely circumstances.

Right... still nothing to quantify this "Absolute Truth™". A pointless exercise, as truth without circumstance is ultimately meaningless.

Originally Posted by really

"Beyond mind,"

Infinite Context, limited content. Trying to use what is limited (mind) to realize the infinite (what lies "behind" it), is fallacious.

Ummm, problem right there matey. All you have is a mind. To say you can somehow think beyond it when any thought process comes as a consequence of it is simply stupid and naive. Hence it is contradictory. Fail.

Originally Posted by really

You cannot trust the content of the mind, but you can trust its Context. The Substrate of Awareness; there is no denying this.

Context? Then everyone is gonna get different ideas of what constitutes as your absolute truth, and thus it won't become so absolute any more. Because context varies for everyone, hence no absolute truths, only relative ones.

Originally Posted by really

You don't understand the paradigm. I'm not going to follow you in circles.

Then don't. However, I have yet to see anything that puts the concept of God above that of Magic Pixies and the like. Why? Because they are products of the imagination and have no bearing in reality.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Right... still nothing to quantify this "Absolute Truth™". A pointless exercise, as truth without circumstance is ultimately meaningless.

Sounds like a guess.

Whole allows for parts. Absolute allows for relatives. Context never changes; content always changes. Content/parts/relatives, by natural limitation, cannot comprehend/"be" the bigger picture. *Absolute/Context/Truth allows for relative truths as circumstances and conditions.

(*Absolute/Context/Truth = Cosmos; a Perfect Universe; the All-Encompassing Timeless Substrate).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Ummm, problem right there matey. All you have is a mind. To say you can somehow think beyond it when any thought process comes as a consequence of it is simply stupid and naive. Hence it is contradictory. Fail.

^ This is contradictory, but actually I haven't said this anywhere. Your assumptions.

Analogies for what I said: Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. Surrender the system of abstractions to reveal the stunning Actuality. Dissolve/transcend the clouds to reveal the Sun. Calm the ripples of the ocean to reveal the Substrate of Stillness. Surrender falsity to reveal Truth.

Of what use is finite definition for One who is Omniscient? Of what use is finite force to the Omnipotent? Of what use is limited measure to the Omnipresent? Otherwise, you are just a sun-ray claiming to be the sun, or a ripple attempting to describe the ocean...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Context? Then everyone is gonna get different ideas of what constitutes as your absolute truth, and thus it won't become so absolute any more. Because context varies for everyone, hence no absolute truths, only relative ones.

This is an indication that what you have described is not Context. Truth does not depend on opinion/relativity.

Generally, you are just arguing with the same responses in different words. I am not re-explaining things, especially if you're going to "pffft; tl;dr" whenever you feel like it. Perhaps I should have gone to a mature discussion forum.

This requires some deep contemplation.

Originally Posted by really

Sounds like a guess.

Whole allows for parts. Absolute allows for relatives. Context never changes; content always changes. Content/parts/relatives, by natural limitation, cannot comprehend/"be" the bigger picture. *Absolute/Context/Truth allows for relative truths as circumstances and conditions.

(*Absolute/Context/Truth = Cosmos; a Perfect Universe; the All-Encompassing Timeless Substrate).

Perfection does not exist either, hence the pointlessness of the pursuit for Absolute Truth.

Originally Posted by really

^ This is contradictory, but actually I haven't said this anywhere. Your assumptions.

Analogies for what I said: Since the mind is congenitally limited, it is not unlimited. Surrender the system of abstractions to reveal the stunning Actuality. Dissolve/transcend the clouds to reveal the Sun. Calm the ripples of the ocean to reveal the Substrate of Stillness. Surrender falsity to reveal Truth.

Of what use is finite definition for One who is Omniscient? Of what use is finite force to the Omnipotent? Of what use is limited measure to the Omnipresent? Otherwise, you are just a sun-ray claiming to be the sun, or a ripple attempting to describe the ocean...

All you are giving me are abstractions, so how can you surrender them? You are wrapping yourself within layers and layers of abstract concepts. Without falsity, there is no truth to be distinguished. Without some sort of duality, difference or context, there can be no distinction. Absolutes and Perfection are nothing but constructs of one's imagination.

Originally Posted by really

This is an indication that what you have described is not Context. Truth does not depend on opinion/relativity.

Generally, you are just arguing with the same responses in different words. I am not re-explaining things, especially if you're going to "pffft; tl;dr" whenever you feel like it. Perhaps I should have gone to a mature discussion forum.

This requires some deep contemplation.

What you may think is deep contemplation is nothing more than deep brainwashing to me. I'm very sensitive to people saying "Oh but you must let go of [insert concept here] and you'll see the Truth™!". There is no truth in the absolute sense.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Perfection does not exist either, hence the pointlessness of the pursuit for Absolute Truth.

An assumption by nature assumes about Truth.

It is quite easy to understand that removing arbitrary judgments reveals actual perfection. But, the understanding itself is not enough.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

All you are giving me are abstractions, so how can you surrender them? You are wrapping yourself within layers and layers of abstract concepts. Without falsity, there is no truth to be distinguished. Without some sort of duality, difference or context, there can be no distinction. Absolutes and Perfection are nothing but constructs of one's imagination.

These abstractions are facilitating, but eventually, they too, will drop...

They do not withdraw, wrap or tighten anything, because they are along the path of surrender and non-resistance.

Perfection is not constructed from the imagination, because this Perfection is beyond all construct and metalization. Furthermore, what is conditioning and what deals with conditions can not be Unconditional.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What you may think is deep contemplation is nothing more than deep brainwashing to me. I'm very sensitive to people saying "Oh but you must let go of [insert concept here] and you'll see the Truth™!".

You're not very sensitive if you do not understand your own freedom to leave this thread in regard to this. Then again, a mere perception.

Originally Posted by really

An assumption by nature assumes about Truth.

It is quite easy to understand that removing arbitrary judgments reveals actual perfection. But, the understanding itself is not enough.

Err what? Take away distinctions and you are left with neutrality, not perfection.

Originally Posted by really

These abstractions are facilitating, but eventually, they too, will drop...

They do not withdraw, wrap or tighten anything, because they are along the path of surrender and non-resistance.

Perfection is not constructed from the imagination, because this Perfection is beyond all construct and metalization. Furthermore, what is conditioning and what deals with conditions can not be Unconditional.

Or perhaps what you are perceiving is merely the reality you want to perceive. Your mind conjures sensations when you probe into different levels of awareness, but as you fail to be able to explain them, you fall into creating these abstract concepts in your mind to serve as anchors to these experiences.

To experience things beyond your mind is impossible in the sense that you are your mind, there can't be anything else other than what you are. To try to go beyond it only invokes states of mind which you can't explain other than by all these abstract and nebulous concepts you keep throwing at me.

Originally Posted by really

You're not very sensitive if you do not understand your own freedom to leave this thread in regard to this.

Is this a very roundabout way of saying "STFU"? Because you know, whilst I may not like the stuff you are talking about, I can still freely express differing opinions and criticisms. Hence why I am still here, calling bullshit. Don't like it? Tough...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Err what? Take away distinctions and you are left with neutrality, not perfection.

Can't guess... such things are distractions...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or perhaps what you are perceiving is merely the reality you want to perceive. Your mind conjures sensations when you probe into different levels of awareness, but as you fail to be able to explain them, you fall into creating these abstract concepts in your mind to serve as anchors to these experiences.

There is no probing awareness, this is not hypnosis. It is one thing to fail to talk about something, it is another to fail to explain, and another to fail to comprehend and another to experience... Call these words illusions, allusions and catalysts, if you will...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To experience things beyond your mind is impossible in the sense that you are your mind, there can't be anything else other than what you are. To try to go beyond it only invokes states of mind which you can't explain other than by all these abstract and nebulous concepts you keep throwing at me.

According to consciousness research, we are not individual minds, for some of the mixed reasons mentioned above.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Is this a very roundabout way of saying "STFU"?

No, I thought it might help, or point out how ridiculous that was.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Because you know, whilst I may not like the stuff you are talking about, I can still freely express differing opinions and criticisms. Hence why I am still here, calling bullshit. Don't like it? Tough...

Don't have an opinion of it, actually. You seemed to imply that you think I am brainwashing; I point out that this is a perception and that you can freely leave if you feel threatened in any way.

By the way, I am sorry if you really meant that.

Originally Posted by really

Can't guess... such things are distractions...

Then you don't think... might as well be a potato.

Originally Posted by really

There is no probing awareness, this is not hypnosis. It is one thing to fail to talk about something, it is another to fail to explain, and another to fail to comprehend and another to experience... Call these words illusions, allusions and catalysts, if you will...

Then what on earth are you going on about? You don't just simply come to these conclusions for no reason.

Originally Posted by really

According to consciousness research, we are not individual minds, for some of the mixed reasons mentioned above.

What are your sources then?

Also, Neuroscience is increasingly showing how our minds are actually deterministic in nature. An article on the late Scientist, Benjamin Libet, who contributed greatly on furthering this study.

Originally Posted by really

Don't have an opinion of it, actually. You seemed to imply that you think I am brainwashing; I point out that this is a perception and that you can freely leave if you feel threatened in any way.

By the way, I am sorry if you really meant that.

You might not be brainwashing, but certainly trying to encourage the state of mind that is vulnerable to such suggestions. Either way, it is still bullshit.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Then you don't think... might as well be a potato.

No, not even a potato, blue. I mean, again, the ego/mind should not try to comprehend something which is beyond itself, because that would place boundaries upon what is beyond them. It needs to take gradual steps to weaken its hold rather than intentionally drop itself at once (no logical ability for the latter).

It might be guessed that removing a judgment brings neutrality, however, removing all the arbitrary and categorical judgments/perceptions can naturally only reveal Perfection. This is also because there is no limitations and assumptions based on appearance.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Then what on earth are you going on about? You don't just simply come to these conclusions for no reason.

My implication was, there is no reason to argue about words, because the argument itself stems from a lower awareness. Words; whether they are limiting or not - is of no concern to those who are new to what they describe. As any abstraction, the sign is not the signified. Until the limited, abstract, approximative description has served its purpose, the words will dissolve. Likewise, we cease to use particular street signs once the streets are memorized, but one cannot argue that the street itself is not on the sign.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What are your sources then?

A lot of the talk of consciousness/awareness relates back to the research made by Dr. David Hawkins; founder of the Institute of Advanced Spiritual Research; author of many groundbreaking books, and lecturer of enlightenment/spirituality. A lot of background can be found here and more briefly, here.

Including many of his books.

You might be interested in Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness (Dissertation), and Power vs. Force (Best Seller).

Also, research in the works of Russell Targ (e.g. Limitless Mind).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Also, Neuroscience is increasingly showing how our minds are actually deterministic in nature. An article on the late Scientist, Benjamin Libet, who contributed greatly on furthering this study.

You have mentioned this because... ?

Originally Posted by really

No, not even a potato, blue. I mean, again, the ego/mind should not try to comprehend something which is beyond itself, because that would place boundaries upon what is beyond them. It needs to take gradual steps to weaken its hold rather than intentionally drop itself at once (no logical ability for the latter).

It might be guessed that removing a judgment brings neutrality, however, removing all the arbitrary and categorical judgments/perceptions can naturally only reveal Perfection. This is also because there is no limitations and assumptions based on appearance.

All you are saying is that you can't comprehend this with your mind, though it is pretty much the only thing you have for understanding things and being conscious. You are putting forth completely meaningless concepts and ideas which have no actual relevance to reality. "Throw away your perceptions!" "Letting go of judgements will reveal truth!" all sound like bullshit. What is the point of discussing this when all you do is throw these nebulous concepts at me and have nothing of actual substance to argue from?

Originally Posted by really

My implication was, there is no reason to argue about words, because the argument itself stems from a lower awareness. Words; whether they are limiting or not - is of no concern to those who are new to what they describe. As any abstraction, the sign is not the signified. Until the limited, abstract, approximative description has served its purpose, the words will dissolve. Likewise, we cease to use particular street signs once the streets are memorized, but one cannot argue that the street itself is not on the sign.

How are you coming to these conclusions though? What are you basing this upon? You build upon symbols but with no context as far as I'm seeing. What is the basis by which you come to the conclusion for these concepts? A straight answer would be preferable.

Originally Posted by really

A lot of the talk of consciousness/awareness relates back to the research made by Dr. David Hawkins; founder of the Institute of Advanced Spiritual Research; author of many groundbreaking books, and lecturer of enlightenment/spirituality. A lot of background can be found here and more briefly, here.

Including many of his books.

You might be interested in Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness (Dissertation), and Power vs. Force (Best Seller).

Also, research in the works of Russell Targ (e.g. Limitless Mind).

So no public research material of which I can access? Is the institute an accredited scientific organisation and what sort of experiments has he conducted to come to his conclusions?

Originally Posted by really

You have mentioned this because... ?

Because the Scientist I mentioned performed experiments on the human brain which showed that the decision making process is often decided on the unconscious level before the conscious thought process, and because of that, one can predict ahead of time what decision a person will make, just by observing their brain through EEG. This paints the picture of a deterministic mind, not one that has complete free will. And here's the link to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. And here's an article describing the research in more detail. Hell, because of this sort of research is why we are getting products the like of this being made a reality.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

All you are saying is that you can't comprehend this with your mind, though it is pretty much the only thing you have for understanding things and being conscious. You are putting forth completely meaningless concepts and ideas which have no actual relevance to reality. "Throw away your perceptions!" "Letting go of judgements will reveal truth!" all sound like bullshit. What is the point of discussing this when all you do is throw these nebulous concepts at me and have nothing of actual substance to argue from?

I think with the "throw away your perceptions" or "let go of judgements" he means that when you just see the world for what it is, and don't have any expectations for it, that you see it for what it is. Having automatic judgements about things, or ideas about what things should be only limits what you see things to be. Everything is perfectly what it is. If something has a crack or is broken, that is part of it, and it is still what it is. Although you could see perfection from another angle as the quality of having no abnormalities or flaws and as a result, nothing would be perfect to you. The mindset you are in as you experience things changes your experience. It is that reason that judgements about things limits those very things you are seeing. Reality is only what your brain compiles from the signals sent from your nervous system. However, the way the brain compiles these signals is dependent on the brain itself, resulting in separate realities for everyone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the way you see the world determines what is real for you. And letting go of prejudices and expectations for what you see will get you closer to "reality." People can believe anything, and for them, what they believe is the truth to them regardless of if it is right or wrong to other people. This does have its problems when people believe malicious things and act on those beliefs, but they probably had a good personal reason for those beliefs, so to them, they're not doing anything wrong. I think people who fall into that category are basing their beliefs off of their own prejudices and personal experiences and as a result, end up causing harm. If you truly see things for what they are, you'd have no reason to kill others or bomb shit.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I think with the "throw away your perceptions" or "let go of judgements" he means that when you just see the world for what it is, and don't have any expectations for it, that you see it for what it is. Having automatic judgements about things, or ideas about what things should be only limits what you see things to be. Everything is perfectly what it is. If something has a crack or is broken, that is part of it, and it is still what it is. Although you could see perfection from another angle as the quality of having no abnormalities or flaws and as a result, nothing would be perfect to you. The mindset you are in as you experience things changes your experience. It is that reason that judgements about things limits those very things you are seeing. Reality is only what your brain compiles from the signals sent from your nervous system. However, the way the brain compiles these signals is dependent on the brain itself, resulting in separate realities for everyone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the way you see the world determines what is real for you. And letting go of prejudices and expectations for what you see will get you closer to "reality." People can believe anything, and for them, what they believe is the truth to them regardless of if it is right or wrong to other people. This does have its problems when people believe malicious things and act on those beliefs, but they probably had a good personal reason for those beliefs, so to them, they're not doing anything wrong. I think people who fall into that category are basing their beliefs off of their own prejudices and personal experiences and as a result, end up causing harm. If you truly see things for what they are, you'd have no reason to kill others or bomb shit.

I don't think that is what he means. Seeing the world for what it is does not equate to perfection, plus he is still pushing across preconceptions of his own. I see the world for what it is... and it is a nature's world, and not a supernatural one. There is nothing to suggest anything of the like of spirits or souls or anything like that. From what Science has gathered in terms of knowledge, things seem to work pretty well without the need of supernatural explanations.

To him, it might feel real, but that does not mean it is real. I could be seeing Magic Pixies, but if you can't see those same pixies, then you'd think I'm hallucinating or that I am batshit crazy. Why should it be any different with regards to a deity?

Seeing things as perfectly what they are equates to perfection. But with that, it's more of accepting things as what they are than ignoring flaws. The flaws and "imperfections" are all part of what makes up stuff.

If you're seeing magic pixies, then for you, they are real. The only difference with regards to a deity is the definition of what you're looking for. I think that the idea of a god being a single entity who has control over everything is absurd. I have my own idea of what "god" is, and it makes sense to me. For me, that is my reality. I'm not locked into my view it, with more experiences, I'm sure my reality will change. Change is constant.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Seeing things as perfectly what they are equates to perfection. But with that, it's more of accepting things as what they are than ignoring flaws. The flaws and "imperfections" are all part of what makes up stuff.

Still not perfection, matey. Flawed world would still be 'flawed' if you accepted the flaws. It would not change anything other than being aware of the problems.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

If you're seeing magic pixies, then for you, they are real. The only difference with regards to a deity is the definition of what you're looking for. I think that the idea of a god being a single entity who has control over everything is absurd. I have my own idea of what "god" is, and it makes sense to me. For me, that is my reality. I'm not locked into my view it, with more experiences, I'm sure my reality will change. Change is constant.

If I were to 'see' Magic Pixies, then whilst my experience would suggest that they are real, if everyone else can't see it, then it is not real. Otherwise, why do people end up in mental hospitals? Just because they are experiencing things differently does not mean that these experiences are valid or real. To believe in something that can't be shown to be real objectively is equatable to delusion. Whether that belief is Magic Pixies, God or lizard-people...