Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by David Quinn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Way of the Tao is to go with the natural flow, so it was.

Not mad, we are all only on here because we have nothing better we could be bothered doing, obviously, you noobs are being amusing while I have a koan? as one of you guessed.

Which drugs do you guys mostly use?
You really ought to lay off the drugs. They might be able to open your mind to some degree, but they can also distort your judgment.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

The only drug I've ever had besides alcohol is marijuana and its a damn good one for judgement and clarity of mind.
If you don't smoke weed often you are missing out haha, life in HD
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by oxytocinNA »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:but*

Nothing exists except for sensory experience. There is no corresponding physical reality, only consciousness. The universe exists as an illusion of the senses.

VERY simple, very correct, you probably can't understand it yet. It is the fundamental understanding required for enlightenment.
Wow! You just don't see the contradiction.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

There is no contradiction,

Matter and a physical universe are not the cause of consciousness.

Consciousness is the cause of sensory experience, from which the very idea of a physical world is derived.

Consciousness is all that exists. There are only feelings, your existence flows with these feelings.

It is named the tao, for lack of a better name. It is undeniable. Any other understanding is a misunderstanding.

There is no contradiction. And if there is, it is only of language, if you do not understand the concept, read some scriptures that will explain it better than I can, then return.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Have you learnt about Buddha's philosophy? This is one of the main concepts.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by oxytocinNA »

LiquidRainbow wrote:Admittedly, Oxy, I just posted the 6th one to be childish and see if I could make it of any value anyway. It's not an end all.However I do love all my other questions. And please refute my points when you actually have time, not just passing by. People from both sides could probably learn a lot if you actually gave this some serious effort.
First up - If someone posts 2 plus 2 = 5. I am under no obligation to explain why it's wrong. I may, or may not, depending on value exchange. Mostly I don't, as it gets me nothing for the effort. However - it doesn't cost me anything to let someone know they have an equation wrong.

I do not debate things. I dig for and get answers as I can. Opinions are worthless. So I am really not the person to help you move this thread along - but certainly others are jumping on board.

On some of the questions I dismissed - I will not delve into the axioms I referred to - and that leaves the standard response that has been offered to such claims (like those you opened with) over and over ad nauseam:
Here is the standard response: You made the claim - you prove it. You do not ask someone to prove a negative. I am not coming from that direction. Nothing wrong with that direction. It is making a correct stance. I go by evidence (axiomatic) that is contradicted by the claims you are making - but I will not be sharing this (value exchange).

Your thread going!
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

"A little philosophy inclines men's minds to atheism, a depth in philosophy turns them back to religion"
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by oxytocinNA »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:"A little philosophy inclines men's minds to atheism, a depth in philosophy turns them back to religion"
You are missing critical information in my particular case. I am not into philosophy in a standard sense. Beliefs are not a viable substitute for actual answers, and I do not subscribe to any beliefs.

To make this clearer: 2 plus 2 equals 4. Attempting to convince me to substitute a belief - 2 plus 2 equals _____(enter anything other then 4) - is a waste of anyone's time.

More over - I am not going to waste my time explaining why your beliefs are incorrect - enjoy them.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

That's because you can't. The truth is the truth, and it goes far beyond an atheist viewpoint.
LiquidRainbow
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:52 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by LiquidRainbow »

oxy- I proposed the questions to be answered so I could debate them and prove my claim depending upon your reasoning. I do want to answer the questions but first I need to hear your explanations for them.

this thread is the exact reason why I don't post on here, facebook keeps much more intelligible debates than this place(wow.. that's sad.)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Liquid

That's because whenever you post on here people completely avoid what you are talking about to nag you about something unrelated to your main point.
Aniihya
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Aniihya »

SeekerOfWisdom: I do not see any enlightment in you since someone who is enlighted would never brag about it. Though I see a lot of existential nihilism in you.

ocNA: 2 plus 2= depends what the definition of 1 is. If that which is counted is 5/4 of a cake. Then 2(5/4)+2(5/4)=5 or 2 times 1.25 cake plus 2 times 1.25 cake equals five cakes. The problem with new atheism is that the atheists of that movement tend to think too simple. But to make a breakthrough as a scientist (especially physics) you need to think around the corner.
Aniihya
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Aniihya »

But as an agnostic theist (with influences from deism, henopolytheism, polyist henotheism, taoism and buddhism), I must say I find it sad that those who think they know better because they claim to only follow facts, only follow facts as they are written but have not even tried to put further insight into them and often do not know what they are talking about. If they were as intelligent as they claim, they would be skeptical about everything, even about atheism. To refine facts you must first doubt them.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Aniihya

That's because you don't yet know the buddha bragged as lao tzu bragged and that both of them took shits every day, there is no pre-requisite for enlightenment, no way to act, in fact, if you are truly enlightened, the way one would be acting is to not give a fuck about notions of what is right way of acting or wrong way of acting, stop listening to people from the past.


If someone were enlightened, they would understand the world is an illusion and exists only as far as sense experience, as their very consciousness exists only as far as the feelings, everything else is assumed (imagined), to be aware of that in the now, is true skepticism and understanding, and is one of the only pre-requisites for enlightenment.

Aniihya, do you believe in a god or higher spirit/consciousness/awareness? Enlightenment is to recognize the divinity of this experience in everything and yourself, to be one with god.
Aniihya
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Aniihya »

To be honest anyone can claim to be enlightened, but I do not necessarily need to believe in the enlightenment of buddha or lao tsu to be influenced by their teachings (to be honest it would rather be from Hinduism since reincarnation is that influence). And to be frank, I have the impression that you rather come across as snobby which is definitely a reason for me to question your enlightenment. And yes I do not just believe in one god but all gods. No matter where you look you can find the same set of gods in many ancient cultures under different names. Though Allat/Mithra and Kali/Ereshkigal are the most important to me. I view though enlightenment to be the near unachievable.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Aniihya wrote: And yes I do not just believe in one god but all gods. No matter where you look you can find the same set of gods in many ancient cultures under different names. Though Allat/Mithra and Kali/Ereshkigal are the most important to me. I view though enlightenment to be the near unachievable.
Yes, their teachings are very good, but they are not rules.

You believe in the existence of multiple gods?

There is no number, there are only different names for the same cause....


"I view though enlightenment to be the near unachievable."

That is because enlightenment is just a word, how can you achieve a word?

You will know when you are "enlightened".
Aniihya
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Aniihya »

I actually doubt the very existence of enlightenment because to be aware of yourself might be easy but to attain the knowledge isnt. We do not even know 2% of everything and we have people calling themselves enlightened. I will never view myself as enlightened because I do not believe in what it is supposed to be. To have higher self-awareness is different though. I do not even view you as enlightened. You might be aware of yourself but there is barely a spark of the universe in you. So tell me, how did you come to the result that you were "enlightened"?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Dan Rowden »

Please define the terms you're debating. What do you mean, specifically, by "enlightenment"?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Evaluations regarding enlightenment are always rhetorical in nature, in the best cases a way to advance discussions or enhance self-reflections. Ultimately, since it can never be about any particular knowledge or status, it can only be forever affirmed by oneself but even then it's not known in any usual sense, as such knowledge would take a hold on you again: one posseses it and it will posses you.

Meister Eckhart said it right: "To be poor in spirit, a man must be poor of all his own knowledge: not knowing any thing, not God, nor creature nor himself".


(edited to specify Eckhart)
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Diebert

Eckhart also said "by connecting ones vibrational levels with this frequency", which shows clearly he does not understand "Not-knowing", and is still caught up in concepts he knows nothing about... or more likely, he is doing it because he wanted his book to be liked and sound intelligent.

Now there are probably a lot of insightful things in there, but nothing I'm assuming hasn't already been said in one way or another and simply reciprocated by Eckhart.

Surely there is someone else on this planet that is realistic enough with themselves to realize that when they are saying words like "frequency", "wave" and "energy", they are really just imagining certain associated sensual experiences? (like electricity or a wavy line) < This is what is required for not-knowing, Eckhart doesn't have this.

^ Anyone understanding truly the significance of what I am referring to above? Diebert? Dan?

Aniihya

Enlightenment is the natural receiving of wisdom and virtue, not the receiving of all knowledge, one can be wise with little knowledge, just as one can be ignorant with great knowledge.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sorry I meant "Meister Eckart" not Eckhart Tolle who you are so allergic to :-) Actually Ulrich Tolle took Eckart's name after having some mystical events happening to him.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Oh ok good, I'm sure meister eckart never tried to explain to people how to raise their vibrational frequencies, and again, stop quoting people thinking they know whats allowed and whats not allowed, whats right and whats not right for enlightenment, the buddha was just a child, eckart is just a child, you are just a child, you are probably even a wiser child then some of them, so why not forget knowledge as eckart says is so important, and listen to yourself rather than holding on to other peoples knowledge, like you are doing for eckart while quoting him on how you shouldn't be doing it.

It is important to forget all the knowledge you think you have, but knowledge of god isn't kept as some false idea from the past, it is seen anew every time one looks.
oxytocinNA
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by oxytocinNA »

LiquidRainbow wrote:1) oxy- I proposed the questions to be answered so I could debate them and prove my claim depending 2) upon your reasoning. I do want to answer the questions but first I need to hear your explanations for them.

this thread is the exact reason why I don't post on here, facebook keeps much more intelligible debates than this place(wow.. that's sad.)
1) You are missing an important thing: You need to prove your statements using proper methodology. Facts set in proper context are established though proper methodology - in other words: If one person claims 2 plus 2 equals 5, another claims 2 plus 2 equals 6, and maybe another actually knows why it is 4 - a debate (as it always is) is a waste of time. You use proper scientific methods to get an answer.

2) You need to look up what "prove a negative" means. You started a thread claiming things and challenging people to .... "prove a negative". This is a fallacious tactic.

So you either want someone to educate you for free (it is clear that that is not really the case) - or you want to waste time (a game of baiting) trying to substitute beliefs for correct answers and proper methods for getting said answers.
Z1724v b7zb18xr y38 h24c23
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:...stop quoting people thinking they know whats allowed and whats not allowed, whats right and whats not right for enlightenment...
And then you went on and started a new thread: "We all know wise quotes others might not have yet heard so post any you think contain profound ideas or wisdom". It sounds terribly confused.
It is important to forget all the knowledge you think you have, but knowledge of god isn't kept as some false idea from the past, it is seen anew every time one looks.
The reason for that is that we're always mixing old things in new ways. Even a straight quote will be out of context and often poorly translated. It's not really from the past. Do you get that? So far you're sounding impatient, slightly irritated and sometimes confused although you might not intent to sound like that. Get a grip on yourself otherwise you'll burn bright but not very long.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Anti Atheism. Questions for the 'ill-logical;)' Atheists

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

People are imitating the wisdom of the past so much so that they have forgotten their own.

The last part of the quote says "for enlightenment", I was referring to turning wise quotes into restricting rules and concepts, as many do.

"It is important to forget all the knowledge you think you have, but knowledge of god isn't kept as some false idea from the past, it is seen anew every time one looks."

This was in reply directly to your previous quote from eckart: "To be poor in spirit, a man must be poor of all his own knowledge: not knowing any thing, not God, nor creature nor himself".


Who was it that spoke about being poor in spirit, jesus christ? Or somewhere in the bible... yet the quote goes on to say, "not knowing anything, not god,"
So jesus wasn't being poor in spirit when he had an idea of what god is?

And that paragraph in the last post admittedly didn't flow very well, so from that you discern irritated and confused?

What the paragraph said exactly was:

You are quoting someone talking about getting rid of concepts and knowledge, holding on to these peoples concepts about not-knowing as if they are rules, seeing the irony?
Locked