Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

So you acknowledge that the world may not be a non-dual world at all.

You also acknowledge you do not know if it is or if it isn't.

But you still want to maintain the self-serving, gratuitous absurdity that non-duality is "a philosophy which best allows the question of 'reality' to be investigated."

Have you wondered why?

It makes no sense.

You occasionally acknowledge that you do not know either...but then you set about explaining what it is.

You ought really to consider STOP DOING THAT.

Do you know what the true nature of REALITY is?

If you truly have an open mind on this issue, CM...just say "I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is"...and if you want to make a blind guess that it is this non-duality...just say, "My blind guess, though, is that it is a non-duality world."

Quote:

So you acknowledge that the world may not be a non-dual world at all.

You also acknowledge you do not know if it is or if it isn't.

no i never said any of that.

Quote:

But you still want to maintain the self-serving, gratuitous absurdity that non-duality is "a philosophy which best allows the question of 'reality' to be investigated."

no, it is you that wants to maintain that anything i say or do is self serving and gratuitous and absurd, simply to maintain your own perception of yourself as normal, and others as absurd.

Quote:

Have you wondered why?

It makes no sense.

why i think non duality is the best philosophy? because it resolves all possible questions, actually logically and experientially resolves them, for the investigator. that makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote:

You occasionally acknowledge that you do not know either...but then you set about explaining what it is.

You ought really to consider STOP DOING THAT.

i acknowledge that i don't know anything 'ultimately', because knowledge is ultimately an illusion, depending on words and definitions. i explain what i think about reality because that is what these forums are for. i don't think i ought to consider STOPPING doing anything, as intimidating as your caps lock is.

Quote:

Do you know what the true nature of REALITY is?

yes, if i choose to define the words in that sentence. no, if i choose not to.

Quote:

If you truly have an open mind on this issue, CM...just say "I do not know what the true nature of the REALITY of existence is"...and if you want to make a blind guess that it is this non-duality...just say, "My blind guess, though, is that it is a non-duality world."

here's an idea for you. if you truly want to give somebody advice on being open minded, consider not telling them exactly what to say, in quotes, which goes against the idea of openmindedness. you just NEED to believe so badly that non duality is my blind guess, because it so easily resolves all your questions, and you can't handle that, your very identity and life lives in the unanswerable question, 'what is reality? does god exist?', agnosticism. i don't care about what you believe. i know the true nature of reality, according to my definitions. i can teach it to you too, if you give me your exact definitions of the words 'true nature of reality', i will explain how non duality provides a solution.

I'm sorry. What were you saying?

Quote:

I'm sorry. What were you saying?

that non duality is the best philosophy for any logician to investigate reality with.

pure logic can take you nowhere else.

agnosticism also comes from pure logic, but that logic can go further and non duality is the only philosophy which addresses the eternal possibility of logic.

C'mon. Everyone knows Buddhism is the best.

Or is it Christianity?

Oh, wait a sec...maybe it is atheism.

Anyone can make a self-serving assertion that their pet is the best, CM.

Pure logic can take you many places...sometimes the wrong place. But to suggest what you seem to be suggesting with this comment...is nothing but self-serving pap.

Do you grow this stuff in a garden?

Do you have help making it up (or growing it)...or do you do it by yourself?

DOZEE DOATS

Frank Apisa said: C'mon. Everyone knows Buddhism is the best.
Or is it Christianity?
Oh, wait a sec...maybe it is atheism.
Anyone can make a self-serving assertion that their pet is the best..

Quote:

Or is it Christianity?

no, its not. lol

Quote:

Frank Apisa said: C'mon. Everyone knows Buddhism is the best.
Or is it Christianity?
Oh, wait a sec...maybe it is atheism.
Anyone can make a self-serving assertion that their pet is the best..

Buddha and atheists are just ordinary humans giving us their best guesses and hunches, but Jesus had a direct line to God, spot the difference?..

Jesus said - "For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49)

Quote:

C'mon. Everyone knows Buddhism is the best.

i agree, its very similar if not equivalent to non duality

Quote:

Or is it Christianity?

no, its not. lol

Quote:

Oh, wait a sec...maybe it is atheism.

probably better than christianity.

Quote:

Anyone can make a self-serving assertion that their pet is the best, CM.

true. just like all the members of the 100m athletics final can make a self serving assertion that they are going to win. but only usain bolt will. similarly, out of all the philosophies you mentioned, some will self servingly assert that they are the best. others, like non duality, will actually be the best. if usain bolt makes a self serving assertion that he is going to win, it is still true. haha.

Quote:

Pure logic can take you many places...sometimes the wrong place. But to suggest what you seem to be suggesting with this comment...is nothing but self-serving pap.

no, pure logic can only lead to non duality eventually.

what is logic?

google gives "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." so if you use such reasoning to question any aspect of 'existence', the conclusion will always be 'non dual', ie there is only one 'existence'. that is all i'm saying. you can never prove separation of anything with anything else.

Do you grow this stuff in a garden?

Quote:

Do you have help making it up (or growing it)...or do you do it by yourself?

love it when you resort to some lame implication about how i must be crazy or making stuff up. hahaha

all it shows is your pathetic inadequacy at logical arguing.

what i said made perfect sense, if your brain was able to understand common english: non duality is the only philosophy which allows for the eternal possibility of logic. it means an understanding that logic/intellect will eternally be in operation, therefore there is no possibility of a single 'ultimate truth' or understanding, because whatever it is can be questioned further.

basically, agnosticism is saying you don't know, BUT you think you might know, and some people do know, and its possible to find out.

non duality is simply getting rid of those extra beliefs, and going into agnosticism more deeply

if you truly accept you don't know, then you need to find out why you don't know.

if you truly investigate why you don't know, you end up at the paradoxical ultimate truth that you can never know, and nor can any human.

therefore, as you have pointed out before, if the ultimate truth can 'never be known', then that itself is ultimate truth. so i define that ultimate truth as an understanding coming from the non duality philosophy.

Supposing there was a Jesus ... how do you know that Jesus had a direct line to God ... other than by a blind guess?

logical cryptoanalysis

Frank Apisa wrote:

Supposing there was a Jesus ... how do you know that Jesus had a direct line to God ... other than by a blind guess?

This is called logical cryptoanalysis, Franky. You have a brand new attitude to the world and you have to find the private key - the logic standing behind all this. It is something that you cannot think of by yourself, s.th. that you have not even seen so far ... and it is very different from anything observed hitherto. How does that happen, Francky?
How does that happen ... to speak about plausible solutions of problems that will arise 2000 years later? To calculate the optimal behavior for the survival of the species without even having the assignment. To foresee the devastating power of usury, greed and stupidity without even seeing on the horizon the platform on which it will be implemented. How does that happen?
Can you give an example for a solution ... without defining the problem.

Frank Apisa said: Supposing there was a Jesus...how do you know that Jesus had a direct line to God...other than by a blind guess?
Get the connection?

So what you are saying, Herald...is that Romeo is just blindly guessing that Jesus had a direct line to GOD?

That was sarcasm on my part, CM. Get with it.

Give it a break. To assert that pure logic can only lead to non duality eventually...is illogical. Try putting in a syllogistic format!

what i said made perfect sense, if your brain was able to understand common english: non duality is the only philosophy which allows for the eternal possibility of logic. it means an understanding that logic/intellect will eternally be in operation, therefore there is no possibility of a single 'ultimate truth' or understanding, because whatever it is can be questioned further.

So can agnosticism...because agnosticism does not fall into the trap of claiming to know the truth as you do with your silly non-duality program.

Do not claim to be an agnostic. You are far from being one. You are merely a theist with a different program.

Quote:

Frank Apisa said: Supposing there was a Jesus...how do you know that Jesus had a direct line to God...other than by a blind guess?
Get the connection?

But why on earth would he lie and lay himself open to a blasphemy charge by the snooty priests?
Jesus said- “I assure you that the Son can’t do anything by himself except what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise" (John 5:18-20)

The High Priest freaks after Jesus tells him he's the Son of God-

Frank Apisa wrote:

So what you are saying, Herald...is that Romeo is just blindly guessing that Jesus had a direct line to GOD?

Romeo is using the typical appeal to authority. He empowers the bible to be literal truth so what ever it claims is suppose to be real. However; logic and reasoning do not work in this fashion. This doesn't stop him from making blanket claims without anything substantial to back them up. He thinks they are perfectly reasonable but I don't think anyone takes him serious unless they too are delusional believers like him.

What he has to say would never convince anyone with even the most mild of intellect. It almost leads me to the conclusion that Romeo is a POE because I am skeptical that a person could be as dumb as him. Even the most retarded person on the planet would have to pretend to be even dumber to reach his level of stupidity.