GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:Maybe you're playing a game of billiards, maybe you see a person entering the intersection on a red light and you just take an evasive maneuver. The successful evasion may have all been caused, but it does not appear that way.

A lot of processing happens in our brain subconsciously, this is because our conscious thinking happens too slowly to keep us alive. This is a known activity of the brain, and is no mystery.

I have experienced it most noticeably when bushwalking. Sometimes I will be walking along and then suddenly come to a dead stop, seemingly for no reason whatsoever. I then look around, and notice that I am just about to tread on a snake which is curled up on the track several feet in front of me.

It then occurs to me that my mind must have noticed the snake out of the corner of my eye, and acted upon the information before it entered conscious thought.

This is purely a survival mechanism that is made necessary by the slow propagation of our thought that is dependent on movements of chemicals in our brain. There's no need to imagine that angels are looking after us.

I was watching a video yesterday where a talk-show host explained that the main reason he believed in God was that he once saw a dog crossing a road at a zebra crossing. Why else, he reasoned, would a dog cross a road at a zebra crossing, unless there was a God?

Well, perhaps the dog's owner often takes the dog for a walk, and crosses at the zebra crossing, and the dog is retracing the familiar route. Or perhaps the dog is following the scent of other dogs, which have been led across the zebra crossing by their owners.

What it boils down to is that many people want to believe in magic, and will turn their back on the obvious explanation in preference for a fantasy.

Iolaus wrote:Such a being might have a lifetime of hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. They might spend their time serving. They might be multidimensional or outside the constricts of linear time and be able to do more than one thing at a time. And they might not be at our side at all times. The guidance that I sometimes think I have gotten, has been of a mental, instructional nature.

They don't seem to have served you very well. How many years have you been doing this now? - and you still don't understand the nature of the Infinite, or the nature of existence, or indeed anything fundamental at all.

Hakuin used to say that if a monk doesn't reach enlightenment in the first twelve months of his monastic journey, then he should hang up his robes and do something else, as he is evidently not cut out for it. There is a lot to be said for that.

I don't believe in magic.

To be honest, I can't see any aspect of your thought which isn't driven by a belief in magic.

-

Iolaus wrote:As to causality and free will, these are very difficult questions.

Not if you have reliable guides.

But certainly there is the appearance of making a difference in outcomes, and every one of us exercises it every day, multiple times per day. Maybe you're playing a game of billiards, maybe you see a person entering the intersection on a red light and you just take an evasive maneuver. The successful evasion may have all been caused, but it does not appear that way. There is no reason you cannot take an evasive maneuver, or shout at someone else to do so. It appears that you have averted one outcome in favor of another.

It's as though you have no understanding what the issue is. Are your guides so feeble that they cannot even clarify the issue for you?

-

Iolaus,

Do you understand why David and Kevin are thinking so much more intelligent that you are? They explain events by logically discerning their related causes, both gross and subtle. And those causes are based on direct experience on observable phenomena within reality, that is what makes a brave philosopher, a thinker who is strong enough to go beyond our evolutionary conditioning, which yearns to invoke the supernatural whenever possible. This tendency is programmed directly into our consciousness, but it is a logical fallacy to explain reality that way. It may have worked 2500 years ago, but we need to start advancing mentally. Do you know what happens to a species that doesn’t change as its environment changes? It goes extinct, think about it. Moreover, all of our progress in science and philosophy has been in despite of supernatural notions, not because of them. For instance: Newton’s creative genius that advanced our understanding of the cosmos stopped when he invoked the supernatural at a point in his calculus when he became confused. You see, there are sane reasons as to why things happen as they do, and then there are insane reasons as to why things happen as they do. And you seem to have an emotional preference for the insane reasons.

Such a being might have a lifetime of hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. They might spend their time serving. They might be multidimensional or outside the constricts of linear time and be able to do more than one thing at a time. And they might not be at our side at all times. The guidance that I sometimes think I have gotten, has been of a mental, instructional nature.

The beauty of existence is that we can figure out these things by ourselves, for ourselves, without any sorts of babysitters, guides, travel companions, pajama buddies, and so on. I find the whole thought of needing to be guided by supernatural entities as an insult to our most basic integrity! You’re basically implying that humans are so inept, that we are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere. Are you serious? No Seriously though, come on, is any of this getting through or are you a lame duck for life?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Iolaus,

Do you understand why David and Kevin are thinking so much more intelligent that you are? They explain events by logically discerning their related causes, both gross and subtle.

No, they don't, not in this case. Kevin's post is nothing but his opinion, and David's point is cleverly framed but goes no farther in settling the matter; perhaps it is Iolaus' reception that is faulty, or perhaps on some level she has not fully cultivated the desire to know, perhaps she has not been ready to give up certain of her delusions.

And those causes are based on direct experience on observable phenomena within reality,

No sir, they are not. Not always and not all of them, and any philosopher worth his salt would admit this.

that is what makes a brave philosopher, a thinker who is strong enough to go beyond our evolutionary conditioning, which yearns to invoke the supernatural whenever possible. This tendency is programmed directly into our consciousness, but it is a logical fallacy to explain reality that way.

This is your myth, Jack, and you are welcome to it.

Such a being might have a lifetime of hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. They might spend their time serving. They might be multidimensional or outside the constricts of linear time and be able to do more than one thing at a time. And they might not be at our side at all times. The guidance that I sometimes think I have gotten, has been of a mental, instructional nature.

The beauty of existence is that we can figure out these things by ourselves, for ourselves, without any sorts of babysitters, guides, travel companions, pajama buddies, and so on.

Even if true this is not evidence against the existence of the entities in question.

I find the whole thought of needing to be guided by supernatural entities as an insult to our most basic integrity!

Your opinion, noted, is not pertinent to the case.

You’re basically implying that humans are so inept, that we are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere.

No, she is not. You have unhelpfully embellished her meaning with your bias.

Are you serious? No Seriously though, come on, is any of this getting through or are you a lame duck for life?

An ad hominal outburst which you will probably deny is emotionally based.

Carl,

An ad hominal outburst which you will probably deny is emotionally based.

It is just a tactic that I’m presently experimenting with, I respect Kevin and David’s approach to politely use impersonal arguments without emotion, and I use this approach much of the time myself, but it doesn’t seem to be working on many of these chaps around here, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but its been more of the same for years now, so I thought I’d stir the pot a little by throwing out some negative karma and see what happens. I’ve got nothing to lose now do I Carl?

“Sometimes it takes a wolf to catch a wolf”

btw, there have been a few sages of yore that have cultivated a more aggressive and sarcastic persona as a means to shake people out of their delusions, and I’m just trying it out to see what sort of results I get. For instance: Diogenes and UG krishnamurti used emotion and sarcasm in their dealing with people, but I suspect it was more acting than their actual character, but such a claim is difficult to prove.

This is your myth, Jack, and you are welcome to it.

Carl, how long are you been defending these supernatural fantasies of yours? Have you ever watched a child trying to learn how to drive a bicycle? There is a stage where the child drives with training wheels, but eventually he gives them up, and achieves a higher state of travel. Now, metaphorically Carl, as far as enlightenment is concerned, you don’t want to give up your supernatural training wheels, you want to drive with that handicap forever, but what I’m offering you is a chance for a higher state of travel. I’ll tell you what, Here’s what I’ll do for you – you abandon your supernatural fantasies and see how that feels, but we’ll keep driving, meaning I’ll hold onto the back of your bicycle as you’re driving, and once you’re comfortable, I’ll let go, and you know what will happen? I bet you’ll be thrilled with the new found freedom you have, and you’ll drive away over the horizon, happy and superstition free.

What do you say?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

An ad hominal outburst which you will probably deny is emotionally based.

It is just a tactic that I’m presently experimenting with, I respect Kevin and David’s approach to politely use impersonal arguments without emotion, and I use this approach much of the time myself, but it doesn’t seem to be working on many of these chaps around here, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but its been more of the same for years now, so I thought I’d stir the pot a little by throwing out some negative karma and see what happens. I’ve got nothing to lose now do I Carl?

“Sometimes it takes a wolf to catch a wolf”

btw, there have been a few sages of yore that have cultivated a more aggressive and sarcastic persona as a means to shake people out of their delusions, and I’m just trying it out to see what sort of results I get. For instance: Diogenes and UG krishnamurti used emotion and sarcasm in their dealing with people, but I suspect it was more acting than their actual character, but such a claim is difficult to prove.

Okay.

This is your myth, Jack, and you are welcome to it.

Carl, how long are you been defending these supernatural fantasies of yours?

I am defending science and logic. I have been pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Nowhere am I defending so-called supernatural fantasies.

Have you ever watched a child trying to learn how to drive a bicycle? There is a stage where the child drives with training wheels, but eventually he gives them up, and achieves a higher state of travel. Now, metaphorically Carl, as far as enlightenment is concerned, you don’t want to give up your supernatural training wheels, you want to drive with that handicap forever, but what I’m offering you is a chance for a higher state of travel. I’ll tell you what, Here’s what I’ll do for you – you abandon your supernatural fantasies and see how that feels, but we’ll keep driving, meaning I’ll hold onto the back of your bicycle as you’re driving, and once you’re comfortable, I’ll let go, and you know what will happen? I bet you’ll be thrilled with the new found freedom you have, and you’ll drive away over the horizon, happy and superstition free.

What do you say?

I say that you are on the wrong track. Where have I indicated that I am operating with supernatural fantasy or with superstition? Again, I am defending the science of reason and logic. You don't seem to see this. You appear to fail to see your own lack of this here. You think this is about me and my beliefs. It is about yours.

Carl,

I say that you are on the wrong track. Where have I indicated that I am operating with supernatural fantasy or with superstition? Again, I am defending the science of reason and logic. You don't seem to see this. You appear to fail to see your own lack of this here. You think this is about me and my beliefs. It is about yours.

I’ll admit, as of late, you’ve been doing a fairly decent job at staying rational and reasonable, but you’ve been known to prefer supernatural notions over more empirical ones, Have you suddenly given them all up? And if so, congratulations.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

I say that you are on the wrong track. Where have I indicated that I am operating with supernatural fantasy or with superstition? Again, I am defending the science of reason and logic. You don't seem to see this. You appear to fail to see your own lack of this here. You think this is about me and my beliefs. It is about yours.

I’ll admit, as of late, you’ve been doing a fairly decent job at staying rational and reasonable, but you’ve been known to prefer supernatural notions over more empirical ones, Have you suddenly given them all up? And if so, congratulations.

I'm not sure to what you refer. Maybe crop circles? In that thread also there were some trying to tar me with the supernatural brush, and there, as here, I was defending the scientific method! And, too, regarding David Icke, old Cory was trying desperately to put words in my mouth. Perhaps you have gotten a wrong impression?

Carl,

I'm not sure to what you refer. Maybe crop circles? In that thread also there were some trying to tar me with the supernatural brush, and there, as here, I was defending the scientific method! And, too, regarding David Icke, old Cory was trying desperately to put words in my mouth. Perhaps you have gotten a wrong impression?

Yes, it was probably your defense of David Icke with Cory, combined with how on many occasions you tend to whimper like a wounded hound at the possibility of no afterlife…

Getting used to the idea of total annihilation at death takes the most courage of all. Moreover, the ego tends to cringe at the thought of no continuity at death, but the more rational you become, the more comfortable you are with any outcome because you realize that annihilation is a realistic possibility. By my calculations – a 50% possibility. Because we have no way of knowing what happens at death, and so there are only two possibilities – continuity or no continuity. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

As Hitchens and others have stated - we are the only creatures on the planet aware of our own mortality, and it is a difficult pill to swallow. And organized religion emerged to pacify this fear with an absolute promise of an afterlife if certain actions are taken, which is of course nonsense. It is very easy to control people when you tap into their deepest most unconscious fears. And this deep unconscious fear is one of the hardest to get over....

And any thinker that can get over that HUGE hump is a brave bloke in my boak, I mean boat…I mean book.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

I'm not sure to what you refer. Maybe crop circles? In that thread also there were some trying to tar me with the supernatural brush, and there, as here, I was defending the scientific method! And, too, regarding David Icke, old Cory was trying desperately to put words in my mouth. Perhaps you have gotten a wrong impression?

Yes, it was probably your defense of David Icke with Cory, combined with how on many occasions you tend to whimper like a wounded hound at the possibility of no afterlife…

Picturesque language there, Ryan, but see, I have never done this.

Getting used to the idea of total annihilation at death takes the most courage of all.

I don't have a problem with the idea.

Moreover, the ego tends to cringe at the thought of no continuity at death, but the more rational you become, the more comfortable you are with any outcome because you realize that annihilation is a realistic possibility.

Fuck comfort.

By my calculations – a 50% possibility.

Your calculations and two bucks will get us a cup of coffee.

Because we have no way of knowing what happens at death,

Exactly my point. Can we close the case now?

and so there are only two possibilities – continuity or no continuity. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Yes.

As Hitchens and others have stated - we are the only creatures on the planet aware of our own mortality,

So far as we know. It's awfully presumptuous to state this as a fact, since we are not even sure we know all the creatures on the planet, let alone their physiological makeup. Do we know, for instance, whether or not the planet itself is a living being? Do we know whether or not there are individuals of an alien species among us? Do we know that elephants do not pre-cognize their deaths when they head for their happy hunting ground?

and it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Fuck difficulty.

And organized religion emerged to pacify this fear with an absolute promise of an afterlife if certain actions are taken, which is of course nonsense. It is very easy to control people when you tap into their deepest most unconscious fears. And this deep unconscious fear is one of the hardest to get over....

Who cares about organized religion. We are speaking of you and I.

And any thinker that can get over that HUGE hump is a brave bloke in my boak, I mean boat…I mean book.

Agreed. I just don't want you to myth the boat yourself.

One possible reason why a lot of women believe they have angels guiding them, is that women have no control over their own minds, and so are simply seeking an explanation for their own behaviour:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=k17ckGkkGgU

Well! At least I have livened things up a bit. And where the hell is Alex? This is all his fault...

Kevin,

It then occurs to me that my mind must have noticed the snake out of the corner of my eye, and acted upon the information before it entered conscious thought.

This is purely a survival mechanism that is made necessary by the slow propagation of our thought that is dependent on movements of chemicals in our brain. There's no need to imagine that angels are looking after us.

I would agree with this.

David,

They don't seem to have served you very well. How many years have you been doing this now? - and you still don't understand the nature of the Infinite, or the nature of existence, or indeed anything fundamental at all.

I am surprised you say this. What do you think is the nature of the infinite and of existence? Why do you think I fail to understand the nature of the infinite?

You ask how long I have been at this thing. The thing I have been at is a journey of revelation and relationship with God. I have no complaints, I have drunk of the water of no-thirst-again. The difference between us is, that I have much learning to look forward to, while you apparently have none.

Hakuin used to say that if a monk doesn't reach enlightenment in the first twelve months of his monastic journey, then he should hang up his robes and do something else, as he is evidently not cut out for it. There is a lot to be said for that.

Well, he may be right. Not that the person should give up entirely, but sometimes it is better to go at a thing obliquely, let it rest, let your subconscious work on it. Sometimes when I am looking for a lost item, I want to keep looking out of determination, but I find that if I forget it and go about my business, I will find the thing in due course, usually soon.

To be honest, I can't see any aspect of your thought which isn't driven by a belief in magic.

Perhaps we had better define magic.

As to causality and free will, these are very difficult questions.

Not if you have reliable guides.

I know that your mind is made up on these things, but there is room to doubt. Furthermore, you are all making much more of these guides than I intended, because you want to mock and not to understand. After all, there is nothing for you to understand! You might as well die now.

The successful evasion may have all been caused, but it does not appear that way. There is no reason you cannot take an evasive maneuver, or shout at someone else to do so. It appears that you have averted one outcome in favor of another.

It's as though you have no understanding what the issue is. Are your guides so feeble that they cannot even clarify the issue for you?

No, David, why don't you clarify it?

What would be the difference between you seeing a kid about to run in front of a truck and saying, "watch out!" and them looking up and avoiding the disaster, or an invisible guide doing so? From the point of causality, not whether there are invisible guides. And, for the third time, that is not what I particularly envision guides doing. The issue is that Ryan said a guide can't prevent an accident because all is caused. And I say, perhaps it is, the apparent averting of a disaster may be caused, yet we react just as though it weren't when we suddenly take an evasive maneuver.

Even if we think all is caused, we still must engage life as though we had choices to make.

Ryan,

They explain events by logically discerning their related causes, both gross and subtle.

They do not know nor can they know the causes.

a thinker who is strong enough to go beyond our evolutionary conditioning, which yearns to invoke the supernatural whenever possible. This tendency is programmed directly into our consciousness,

I love science and have 100% faith in it - when it is true. It goes through long permutations, mostly due to error but the errors are clung to out of ego and greed. This is the case today. We do not have freedom of scientific inquiry. You can't question Big Bang and keep you career or get a good one going. You have to read alternative ideas on the internet. I doubt Big Bang is true. Thank God for the internet. We will look back in the future to our ideas of today, and shake our heads in wonder that the truth took so long to get out - just as we now look at the struggles of the middle ages. You speak as though you know the truth about how evolution made us behave a certain way, but I know it is not so. The entire Darwinian paradigm is on the way out. If the world keeps spinning a few more years and civilization doesn't fall, Darwinisim will, and I would like to know what will happen to your timeless wisdom then, David, kevin and Ryan?

Now, the word supernatural has little or no meaning to me. There is one reality, what it contains is what it contains. The supernatural is merely a word for what we can't perceive with our five senses. Why anyone would be so shortsighted as to assume, in this day and age! that our five senses are adequate, I can't imagine. We already know that they are not adequate!

But you, O wise one, are for some utterly unimaginable reason, convinced that you, Ryan, year 2008, know all that exists in this universe! And that we, most magnificent modern people, are no longer in the same condition that humanity used to be in - that of being full of shit! No! Now we finally know it all. All! Nothing further to be discovered.

Despite the fact that we actually have no clue what is going on, why, whence or how.

Moreover, all of our progress in science and philosophy has been in despite of supernatural notions, not because of them. For instance: Newton’s creative genius that advanced our understanding of the cosmos stopped when he invoked the supernatural at a point in his calculus when he became confused.

He may have caved in to a silliness that was part of his culture, at a difficult point. Please explain the situation. But it is not true that science progresses only with atheist scientists. In fact, they are at this time holding science back.

And you seem to have an emotional preference for the insane reasons.

You have an emotional preference for death.

The beauty of existence is that we can figure out these things by ourselves, for ourselves, without any sorts of babysitters, guides, travel companions, pajama buddies, and so on.

It is entirely possible that this is untrue. Furthermore, I don't subscribe to a notion of reality in which such a thing is possible, namely, separation. I don't subscribe to it. It appears that, at a certain level of advancement, and perhaps even before then, we at times tap into knowledge and consciousness outside of our own brains. Many scientific breakthroughs appear to have occurred this way. The Maharishi effect, for example, shows that all of us have a responsibility for the level of consciousness that we wallow in, either contributing to the uplifting of humanity or to its bondage in negativity. So if you watch a horror flick, you are being irresponsible to humanity. It appears you have no choice in the matter, and cannot evade the responsibility.

You’re basically implying that humans are so inept, that we are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere.

Are you actually going to deny that humanity is quite inept?

Carl, Carl, carl

perhaps it is Iolaus' reception that is faulty, or perhaps on some level she has not fully cultivated the desire to know, perhaps she has not been ready to give up certain of her delusions.

What do you see as being my delusions?

You’re basically implying that humans are so inept, that we are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere.

No, she is not. You have unhelpfully embellished her meaning with your bias.

I'd say we are both, inept and not. But we do seem to be in a strange situation that could stand some real improvement. The question as to whether we can figure it out on our own, may not actually compute. We may not be on our own, and it may not work that way. But, we are definitely partially on our own, and I think it is a spiritual law that help comes only when requested, because otherwise it would be interference and coercion of any kind is evil. Which means that evil influences do come to us without our asking. To be impervious to that, takes some real effort.

Ryan again,

I’ll admit, as of late, you’ve been doing a fairly decent job at staying rational and reasonable, but you’ve been known to prefer supernatural notions over more empirical ones,

You see, when you speak thus, you diminish your respectability in my mind. You sound like a dime a dozen college atheists who've picked up notions not their own. I believe that there is absolutely nothing which is not empirical. But I also think we have not empirically discovered all that there is. And again, it is downright astonishing that anyone who thinks about it for five minutes would think we have. If I went back in time a few hundred years, and tried to tell people that there were little tiny creatures living on their skin and in the water, too small to see, and they said it was nonsense with no evidence, I could forgive them because what in their experience could lead them to suspect otherwise? But we now know that there is way more to this reality than meets our senses, and we have certainly not touched bottom. We've just uncovered a layer or two. We even know that we have not picked the atom apart yet.

When you use phrases like rationality versus superstition and fantasy, what you are saying is that you are a person of almost no imagination, and with little spiritual vision, who actually thinks that what you see in the world is no different to what a rabbit can see - whatyouseeiswhatyouget.

Modern science is, and already has, left you in the dust.

But that's OK! Because this forum's philosophy is embedded in the 19th century.

Which was kind of a low point.

By my calculations – a 50% possibility. Because we have no way of knowing what happens at death, and so there are only two possibilities – continuity or no continuity. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Well, I respect you for this. But it isn't true that there is no way of knowing. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for consciousness outside the body. The thing is, many people insist it isn't so no matter how much there is. I don't quite understand it. Even people like you , who obviously find it VERY hard to come to terms with, are yet impervious to what evidence there is.

All people believe in an afterlife, and not all have a controlling religion. That only comes with civilization. We can turn the question around however, and say, that while the fear of death might have arisen as an accident of the evolution of our great intelligence, that it might simply arise from a reaction against an apparent possibility that cries out against all that we truly are - a speck of awareness - never born and never dying.

IF we are that, then we cannot get over our discomfort with the idea that our consciousness could cease - because it would go against reality.

Kevin,

One possible reason why a lot of women believe they have angels guiding them, is that women have no control over their own minds,

I don't think the belief is more prevalent among women.

Ryan,

What I don’t like about the mainstream atheist movement is that it is very quick to subscribe to reductionist views, where everything is perfectly reduced down into a neat material package that can be understood, isolated, and stripped of all mystery. And if you question reductionism then you are automatically labeled a religious nut job that is emotionally biased, and you’re not a true scientist, and all the rest of it. However, many times the scientists that subscribe to this sort of thinking the most strongly are usually your thick reading glass wearing, tedium chasing, dim-witted academics who continually prove to have a very limited and biased view of reality themselves.

perhaps sanity is somewhere in between.

What?? there is hope for you after all.

Iolaus wrote:Carl, Carl, carl

perhaps it is Iolaus' reception that is faulty, or perhaps on some level she has not fully cultivated the desire to know, perhaps she has not been ready to give up certain of her delusions.

What do you see as being my delusions?

I have no opinion about this. I was simply arguing my point about Ryan's and David's jump to conclusion. I could have said the same thing about anyone.

You’re basically implying that humans are so inept, that we are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere.

No, she is not. You have unhelpfully embellished her meaning with your bias.

I'd say we are both, inept and not.

I was not addressing our level of ineptness so much as Ryan's claim that you believe that humans "are not even capable of surviving together in the world without supernatural mother figures constantly babysitting us by following us around everywhere." But perhaps you do believe this?

But we do seem to be in a strange situation that could stand some real improvement. The question as to whether we can figure it out on our own, may not actually compute. We may not be on our own, and it may not work that way. But, we are definitely partially on our own, and I think it is a spiritual law that help comes only when requested, because otherwise it would be interference and coercion of any kind is evil. Which means that evil influences do come to us without our asking. To be impervious to that, takes some real effort.

This is bordering on gobbledygook.

Maybe it would be best to speak in "I" terms, for starters, rather than this "we" stuff.

Kevin Solway wrote:One possible reason why a lot of women believe they have angels guiding them, is that women have no control over their own minds, and so are simply seeking an explanation for their own behaviour:

It's more do with the fact that they don't have any faith and trust in their own minds (for good reason), can't stand the thought of being alone, can't face anything directly, and don't have it in them to take personal responsibility for anything. And so they create imaginary beings to provide companionship and shoulder the load for them.

-

Shahrazad,

I don't believe there is anything after we die. Are you ready to label me a brave blokette?

You’d be even braver in my book if you could understand how the ideals of wisdom are more intelligent than the ideals of romance.

What ideals of romance? You think I glorify love?

I have been told over and over that I am very cynical about romantic love. That is because I am.

-

Iolaus wrote:David,

They don't seem to have served you very well. How many years have you been doing this now? - and you still don't understand the nature of the Infinite, or the nature of existence, or indeed anything fundamental at all.

I am surprised you say this. What do you think is the nature of the infinite and of existence? Why do you think I fail to understand the nature of the infinite?

Because your desire to avoid the simplicty of truth infuses everything you say.

Iolaus wrote:

To be honest, I can't see any aspect of your thought which isn't driven by a belief in magic.

Perhaps we had better define magic.

Ignorance of causal reality.

Iolaus wrote:

As to causality and free will, these are very difficult questions.

Not if you have reliable guides.

I know that your mind is made up on these things, but there is room to doubt.

It's not a matter of "making one's mind up", but of seeing into the heart of matters with laser-like precision.

Are your guides there to help you in this, or is it their function to get in the way?

Furthermore, you are all making much more of these guides than I intended, because you want to mock and not to understand. After all, there is nothing for you to understand! You might as well die now.

If you are going to equate enlightenment with death, then you'll never summon up the motivation to reach it. But perhaps that's the underlying idea ....

Iolaus wrote:

The successful evasion may have all been caused, but it does not appear that way. There is no reason you cannot take an evasive maneuver, or shout at someone else to do so. It appears that you have averted one outcome in favor of another.

It's as though you have no understanding what the issue is. Are your guides so feeble that they cannot even clarify the issue for you?

No, David, why don't you clarify it?

Can't your guides do it? It would only take a few seconds of their time.

Because this forum's philosophy is embedded in the 19th century.

Ah yes, the 19th century - a golden time where people everywhere were abandoning their delusions and attachments and opening their minds to the nature of Reality. Those were the days.

-

The discussion on consciousness surviving death has been moved to:

Life after death

Here's Dawkins in an unusual interview.

A bit of atheist comedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEWI3mEylQ

More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESibktdwwJg

Kevin Solway wrote:A bit of atheist comedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLEWI3mEylQ

All atheism is comedy.

Penn and Teller criticize Greenpeace (and celebrate Norman Borlaug)

I never even heard of Norman Borlaug until yesterday. He appears to be a great human being.

His conflict with greenpeace is such a tragic farce! What a circus.

All atheism is comedy.

Standup is a useful social commentary and they point up the silliness in religion, but yet like many people it has not occurred to them that religion might be a human construct that does not really negate God and does not equal God. And of course their arguments are very shallow, which shows that the topic is not one that they have truly given much thought to; perhaps they are unable.