GENIUS FORUMS

could it be the atheists don't know their history ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv2l93v4v0g

Honestly, the shit you believe is embarrassing, and so it that video, which contains an utter lie - not just a stupidity, but a lie about the discovery of Pluto. Pluto was searched for as a means to explain perturbations in the orbit of Neptune (and those of Uranus that Neptune did not fully explain). Neptune, for its own part was found when searching for the reasons for perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.

I suggest you read some material that critically analyzes and debunks the many follies of Zecharia Sitchin before you start accepting this stuff.

dejavu wrote:

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Give a little!

I can't understand a word of what you wrote, needs more fondant, more cream....

more filling!

By what authority is such a request made, and who told you you knew what is needed so as to tell any one what is the best way to write?

You already knew what my signature said even with the typo, which I changed for your comprehension You understood it clearly now?


Never give power to anything a erson believes is their source of strength - jufa

p.s. If you want more fondant, cream, and filling why didn't you taste of the questions and answered them with additives?

Animus wrote:the idea of a purposeful universe issues in accordance with our own inner sense of purposefulness

I don't think so. If we had an inner sense of purposefulness, we wouldn't seek purpose outside of ourselves. It is precisely because we are purposeless that we seek purpose elsewhere. But consciousness and idealism have so declined in this age that people don't even seek purpose outside of themselves. They think that their purposelessness is the ultimate state of existence, and happily go forward to say that the entire universe around them is purposeless....just like them!

It's hard to seperate the self and the non-self when it comes to purpose, purpose comes from consciousness, but is purpose without consciousness is not possible, and consciousness is a seperate thing. Most people aren't conscious enough to have much purpose, though.

Because people don't have any faith in their minds, they don't have the ability to generate purpose, and I think most people live very immediate, without much desire of purpose at all, they wanna have food, go to a movie, then sleep, and then they forget about it again, this is basically just whimsical emotions, not focused goals.

People seek satisfaction as a means of bridging the seperation between their self and the world, so in that sense, they seek things, but if it is purposeful, then it is only really purposeful for maybe a minute, or an hour, for most people.

There's a few who might be sucessfully dealing with the ego, in some way, and they manage to do alot of things, but on a bad premise, those i would call quite purposeful, but ignorant...

This age is more dead than ever, and not as much is happening, wise or unwise, mainly because the world is explored and people are living relatively comfortably.

edit: sorry for following the track to offtopia..

jupiviv wrote:

Animus wrote:the idea of a purposeful universe issues in accordance with our own inner sense of purposefulness

I don't think so. If we had an inner sense of purposefulness, we wouldn't seek purpose outside of ourselves. It is precisely because we are purposeless that we seek purpose elsewhere. But consciousness and idealism have so declined in this age that people don't even seek purpose outside of themselves. They think that their purposelessness is the ultimate state of existence, and happily go forward to say that the entire universe around them is purposeless....just like them!

Allow me to try to clarify what I mean. I don't think that we inherently feel like we lack purpose or that purpose lies elsewhere. I think its a matter of thinking in duality about purpose and non-purpose. Completely remove the idea of the ego from the equation and there is no "one" who has or creates purpose. We wind up in very difficult thinking on the matter. If no one can have purpose independently of the totality of existence, then surely the totality of existence has purpose. Then if the totality of existence has purpose so do we, and what of purposelessness? It loses its meaning. What sense can be made of purpose if there is nothing which is not purposeful? Is purposelessness simply a delusion? If all is purposeless is purpose a delusion? I think, both and neither are delusions. The essential nature of anything is non-dualistic, purpose and purposelessness are just yin and yang to the mind. We might even boil it down to a basic value system, as seems to be the case, people who speak of the purposeless universe tend to disregard the obvious order and constancy of their life experience. Focusing too much on order can also bring about a disregard for disorder. I think its possible to never be introduced to the duality of purpose and non-purpose and merely speak of somethings function, but that in itself is a bias in a duality between something which has a certain feel and another something which has a certain feel.

And this is perhaps at the core of my thinking lately. When I say to myself: The universe is purposeless, or God is purposeful, or any other such statement, they bring about a different tinge to consciousness. They are regarded differently, the idea of purpose has a greater sense of living and being able to tackle the world, whereas purposeless inspires passivity. If I were to seriously regard them the same, with no particular bias, then in that case neither of them should affect me at all. I should have no attachment to them either way, and if someone said reality was with or without purpose, I should not be offended or comforted in the slightest. This is not an easy task because as soon as one or the other is mentioned the mind is swamped in preconceptions, or associated imagery. I think at that point we will tend to re-categorize the person under whatever hierarchy of duality we are most obsessed with. If we are highly politically motivated, we will likely take their idea of a purposeful universe and think of them as conservative, from there we begin to infer other allegiances, beliefs and attitudes. I suppose this works to a large degree because people are willing to take on the identities, and live in the dualities.

Try not using "We" all the time. There is only you, and I.


Too much we makes your argument drown in piss.

Animus wrote:Completely remove the idea of the ego from the equation and there is no "one" who has or creates purpose.

Only the *deluded* ego needs to be removed from the equation. The true ego can have purpose...however, that purpose will not be separate from itself. The ego should be one and the same as its purpose.

prince wrote:Try not using "We" all the time. There is only you, and I.


Too much we makes your argument drown in piss.

I say "we" a lot because excessive use of "you" and "I" tends to get peoples' egos up. But I see that it really doesn't matter on this board.

The major flaw of atheism

Example given: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet? ... OHG9iJbVTI

TMA decided to block me because I called into question the operations of his own mind. He told me he already knows all of the truth, and that the scientific theories I presented to him are all bullshit, and duality itself is bullshit. A very closed-minded individual it seems. He advanced many of the same tactics toward me that he complained about in "theists". Such as: claiming to know everything, claiming that the most prominent scientific theories are hogwash, and eventually blocking me for posing too much of a challenge to his world-view.

BTW, TheMorbidAtheist continued to talk at me on the comments section long after blocking me from responding. So it was clear that the conversation was supposed to be one-sided. I presented him with a plethora of scientific theories exemplifying the duality of the mind, he said they were "fairy tales". So, here's a guy who is condemning "theists" for not taking science seriously and for getting caught up in delusion, and backing away from inquiry, but then he does exactly the same thing. He explicitly denied the most prominent scientific theories pertaining to perception and cognition, he completely disregarded and became offended at the prospect that he might still be delusional effectively blinding himself to the possibility, and he blocked me so as to stop my criticism but continued on criticizing me.

So, you only just discovered that the guy is a dropkick? I've known that for a while now :)

Dan Rowden wrote:So, you only just discovered that the guy is a dropkick? I've known that for a while now :)

To be honest, I don't know that I've ever talked to him before, but he was pretty quick to block me from his channel. I tend to avoid much dialog with people on youtube or elsewhere, Genius Forum is about the only exception now. I've made far too many enemies, and in vain, to keep on entertaining much conversation. GF is an exception because there seems to be a general acceptance of some basic percepts which are enlightening. Granted, there is also a lot of riffraff from time to time.

That guy surely is quite loose with his definitions.

I'm not sure what he'd peddling, but consciousness builds on identity which builds from relativity, i.e. we learn that something is hot by judging it different from cold, or temperate, and thus different from the everyday state of affairs. Nothing comes to be without what it is not. He is trying to sell existence as non-dual, a sure way to become braindead is to try avoid discrimination, that is, consciousness...

He is ofcourse using discrimination, and duality, all the time, but he doesn't know it.

the major flaw of atheism...and any view...is that they are attachments...and...as with all attachments..if they are taken away from you (if you are attached to them), you can't find a place to hide...you're lost without your little belief system....if i told you guys that you think you know everything...but in reality..YOU KNOW NOTHING...you wouldn't believe it...you're so stuck on your own shit....you support each other like the KKK.

Kunga wrote:....if i told you guys that you think you know everything...but in reality..YOU KNOW NOTHING...you wouldn't believe it...

Just as well you're not then, eh Kunga? :)

Well Robert...i can honestly say i don't know anything anymore.
As of recently i've been exploring the NWO shit, (for the first time in my life)
it makes me so sick to think if it's true....if it is...it makes me not want to live anymore.
I'm so tired of nothing but lies every time you turn around in pursuit of the truth.
I can't belive anyone or anything anymore.

Kunga, have faith in your own mind to find out for yourself what's true. Try and keep a level head, meaning keep it rational. Don't let emotional highs and lows affect you too much (especially with a lot of the utter crap that's online about things like the NWO). The only other thing I can say is focus on what's most important to you, what you value the most, and if that's finding out what's ultimately true, then do that. You realise soon enough that beliefs are irrelevant to truth.

Robert wrote:Kunga, have faith in your own mind to find out for yourself what's true. Try and keep a level head, meaning keep it rational. Don't let emotional highs and lows affect you too much (especially with a lot of the utter crap that's online about things like the NWO). The only other thing I can say is focus on what's most important to you, what you value the most, and if that's finding out what's ultimately true, then do that. You realise soon enough that beliefs are irrelevant to truth.

So have faith in your mind or my mind?

Which is it?

You can remain oblivious to facts and evidence - they are still stuck in stubborn reality. Do you have all the facts? Do you know what is and is not true? If you do then you know what is happening and what is not.

Have you looked at the ingredients in the grocery store of the different foods? You should look em up, might be a real eye opener for ya.

Facts and evidenc eis much more reliable than your opinion, wouldn`t ya say?

Wakey wakey

Bof1, ironically I have to "wakey wakey", yet you managed to totally misconstrue my words. I'm not suggesting remaining oblivious to evidence or facts, I don't know how you got that idea. Faith in your own mind only means trusting your own noggin, having at least the belief in your own powers of reason to determine for yourself the state of things through examination of, yup, evidence and facts.

jupiviv wrote:

Pye wrote:"Intention" and "beginnings" are highly anthropomorphic experiences, projected upon an indifferent universe - indifferent to whether it has life to witness it or not.

So are non-intention and non-beginnings, actually. Calling the universe "indifferent" is also a projection.

Perhaps you are taking what she said out of the context she established?

The way I believe she framed it: does the universe care whether or not humans witness it's events? If you conceive of the universe as mindless or "total", then it clearly does not care, it is indifferent to human concerns. That's not projection, it's a logical necessity that follows from premises.

Animus wrote: Indifference is just part of the difference<->indifference duality.

The concept of care or valuing only makes sense in contrast to indifference, but that does not mean I am incorrect to say that the universe is indifferent to human concerns. Right?

More to the point though, I think, is that the idea of a purposeful universe issues in accordance with our own inner sense of purposefulness,

Do you mean that when we attribute purposefulness onto the universe that we are just projecting?

but this inner sense of purposefulness in many respects assumes an non-causal agency.

How so? Purposefullness is causal to it's very core, as anything dualistic is.

Since such an agency does not exist, the idea that we are purposeful in the sense of originating from a non-causal agency is flawed.

I just don't understand why you think that purposefullness would need to originate from a non casual agency. Why do you see it that way?

It may in-fact be the case that the genuine kind of purpose that we do have, which does not include non-causal agencies, is no different than the kind of purpose owed to say a hammer.

I would say the purpose of a hammer is created by the mind, and without the mind there is no hammer and thus no purpose. I would say the same thing about a person.

Robert wrote:Kunga, have faith in your own mind to find out for yourself what's true. Try and keep a level head, meaning keep it rational. Don't let emotional highs and lows affect you too much (especially with a lot of the utter crap that's online about things like the NWO). The only other thing I can say is focus on what's most important to you, what you value the most, and if that's finding out what's ultimately true, then do that. You realise soon enough that beliefs are irrelevant to truth.

Yes...what else can you do ?
Even if all that shit about the NWO is true...then i believe the good guys will win in the end.
Evil has it's consequenses.
Thankyou Robert.

Cory Duchesne wrote:If you conceive of the universe as mindless or "total", then it clearly does not care, it is indifferent to human concerns.

That is self-contradictory reasoning. If the totality is defined as "everything", then I am necessarily a part of it. So the whole distinction of concern and unconcern falls down there. It's like saying that I care for myself, or I am indifferent to myself. If you are talking about everything in the universe except yourself, then also there is no question of saying that they are "indifferent", because indifference assumes a relationship between two things, whereas things other than yourself are separate from you.

People who say things like this gain a certain ego boost from thinking that they know and can accept something that is unacceptable to others. Either that, or they want to have sex with a horse. Their hypocrisy lies in the fact that they turn the "purposelessness" of the universe to their own deluded purpose. They are the exact opposite of Schopenhauer, who was tortured all his life by his conception of the "Will" as chaotic and purposeless, and stuck to that view only because he valued his thought and didn't know better.

dejavu wrote: Belief that we must ascend our height purely through common descent is prejudice and nothing besides.

Nah, you just know you are going to get left behind.

Bitter much?

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:If you conceive of the universe as mindless or "total", then it clearly does not care, it is indifferent to human concerns.

That is self-contradictory reasoning. If the totality is defined as "everything", then I am necessarily a part of it.

All I am saying is that the universe as a whole does not have the capacity to be concerned about anything, therefore it is un-concerned. If your point is that the totality is beyond opposites (not big, not small, not concerned, not unconcerned) then I agree, but that still doesn't invalidate the logic that that which is not big = not big.

That which is not concerned is not concerned.

In other words, the universe doesn't care about you, because it has no capacity to even consider you or consider anything.

If you are talking about everything in the universe except yourself, then also there is no question of saying that they are "indifferent", because indifference assumes a relationship between two things, whereas things other than yourself are separate from you.

The totality cannot assume a relationship between two things, and therefore it has no capacity for caring. That which cannot care, by definition, is indifferent. You may insist that for something to be indifferent it needs to consider a relationship between two things, but that is merely your insistence, your unique way of framing it, and does not invalidate the way I look at it. The way I see, to care about something you need certain conditions. The totality is conditionless, and therefore cannot care. That is irrefutable.