morality, drugs, existence

Now I want to start by advancing that I totally disagree with William Lane Craig conclusion on the subject presented on the following video but nonetheless through it I want to show, to clarify, the difference between competent reasoning emanating from Philosophy and pseudo explanations coming from eminent scientists at the top of their field.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Ergo you're a fascist ****.

oooh, bring the big words in to show you're serious now eh?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I got news for you: nothingness does not exist. It's the lamest of all concept. You worship a contradiction.

thanks for your news. i never said nothingness exists. i am the first one tos ay all concepts are lame. i worship nothing.

Quote:

And now I am done with you and you useless, baseless, lack of philosophy. Live as a dead Nazi if you so wish.

you are done with 'my philosophy'. thats good because i never had one. only your idiotic interest was peaked because you realised it was interesting. but your baby little ego is all like 'ohhh noo..something exists...otherwise CM must be a ****'. hahahhahaha!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ahhh, CM...you were telling others what the REALITY is....LONG, LONG before I told you I was enjoying it. That can easily be documented...by just reading the thread.

oh is this so sir? so sorry, forgot that you were god.

Quote:

That comment of yours was just nonsense...and it fits in well with all your other comments...most of which seem to be nonsense also.

omg really? you think all my comments are nonsense? so sad really. god hates me. oh well.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

I still don't get why people choose to reify "nothing". It's fallacious. Period. And every attempt to do so will end in failure. Just look at Hegelian thought along with post-modern shenanigans.

i am not trying to reify anything, quite the opposite. i am trying to question the idea of reality. you think that means 'reifying nothing', then ok. but it doesn't. it means looking at the conceptual ideas you have of reality vs nothingness, and seeing if there is any difference. there is not, absolutely. both are mind-made concepts and cannot refer to an absolute reality.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Hi Ding. With CM, anything goes. He's not very picky. Just any incoherent hodgepodge of vague paradoxes will do at the superficial level.

thanks for answering for me, you know me quite well. certainly everything i have said on this thread has been incoherent hodgepodge, paradoxical, and superficial. perfect summation, thanks.

Quote:

Deep down I suspect he is more sinister than his incoherent, bizarre surface betrays. He mixes 3 elements already present in Nazism: a profound disgust for the Judeo-Christian tradition, a fascination for Indian mysticism, and radical nihilism. Infectious mix.

you suspect i am sinister because nothingness threatens your disgustingly overactive ego.
i have zero disgust for judeo-christian or islam or any other religions. i stated a categorical fact that they are responsible for more violence than hindu/buddhist religions. this is fact and i challenge anybody to prove otherwise. i certainly have fascination with my own country of heritage, but not necessarily mysticism, but all parts of indian culture. i completely have no attachment to any form of nihilism, nor do i have anything against it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Maybe I caricature him a bit too much and could be guilty of argumentum ad hitleram or whatever the Latin is.

yes, you are really afraid of hitler, are you jew? he's dead bru calm down.

Quote:

Smile yet I do believe carnie's ideas are in the same general line of thoughts that gave us Hitler and Staline: a belief in radical philosophies that demean the person in favor of the group, for instance.

aww cute, you think i'm another hitler. i believe in zero philosophies, but ok, lets pretend i want to exterminate races. yes lets say jew/christian/muslims, all of them. KILL THEM ALL. I AM A DICTATOR, I WANT GENOCIDE.

Quote:

His defense of democracy was rather tepid.

why the **** should i defend democracy? yeah lets all just follow whatever the mainstream media suggests, whatever USA is doing, that must be the best idea. no dumb ****.

Quote:

I am also ticked-off by his contempt for the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition...

i have no contempt for them. i see that their ideas on god are all similarly flawed (that god is not synonymous with the entire universe). this creates the fundamental separation of themselves and god from the universe, which creates violence.

Quote:

As much as I sympathize and identify with Western anticlericalism, I still think that the respect for each and every human being, including the poorest, was a key "output" of that J-C-M tradition,

oh was it now? so when christian countries invaded pretty much every single other country on earth from africa to middle east to asia to australia to america, they were 'respecting every human being'? when they used armed forces to overpower all these human beings?

when muslims kill jews and christians, and they strike back, is that 'respecting all human beings'?

Quote:

in contrast with the gross inequalities that seem entirely justified and backed-up by religion in a country like India.

and yet again, following mainstream views without having a clue about them. of course the world thinks indian society is 'unequal' with the 'caste system'. but i have already explained clearly in the other thread, that the caste system had no ranks or 'inequality' involved. it didn't exist as a 'caste system', but as a 'job system' for all people, where everybody had equal opportunity.

it was christian/british occupation in india who changed the 'caste system' into a classification and introducing the ideas of untouchables.

of course, some weak minded indians followed the brits lead and kept the untouchable idea going, which is why it still happens today. but the entirety of caste discrimination is caused by christian influence. feel free to show me any evidence of caste discrimination occurring before british occupation of india.
caste discrimination does not mean servants did not exist. it meant they were happily fed and sheltered, not untouchable, and they were simply doing a job that they were paid for and were good at doing.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I still don't get why people choose to reify "nothing". It's fallacious. Period. And every attempt to do so will end in failure. Just look at Hegelian thought along with post-modern shenanigans.

i am not trying to reify anything, quite the opposite. i am trying to question the idea of reality. you think that means 'reifying nothing', then ok. but it doesn't. it means looking at the conceptual ideas you have of reality vs nothingness, and seeing if there is any difference. there is not, absolutely. both are mind-made concepts and cannot refer to an absolute reality.

What allows you to conclude that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different? Could you lay out these premises in detail? That would be greatly appreciated.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that reality or nothingness are mind-made concepts. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Only minds could create concepts. There aren't concepts existing independently of minds. However, that doesn't mean that reality or nothingness are solely referents to something in the mind. The concept and the referent are not the same. So stop conflating the two.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

What allows you to conclude that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different? Could you lay out these premises in detail? That would be greatly appreciated.

i cannot CONCLUDE that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different, because there is no absolute reality or nothingness to compare.

the premises i have for subjectively opining that reality and nothingness are exactly the same are:
1. all scientific knowledge points to the entire universe being one uniform energy field from which all matter/existence arises.
2. all matter is 99.9999999% empty space
3. even the 0.00000001% which supposedly exists is not 100% sure to exist, as heisenberg's principle of uncertainty explains.
3. the experience of nothingness happens daily for all humans, and goes unquestioned.
4. the experience of consciousness is scientifically unproven today, and yet the entirety of human knowledge, concepts and ideas comes from it.
5. the entirety of what i have said in this thread gives millions more premises from which i am PERSONALLY equating reality and nothingness.

all the crazy backlash i am getting is simply individualised ego-maniacs like frank and olivier who need their personal self to exist and get attention constantly.

otherwise, why would anybody care if somebody thinks 'everything is nothing'. it does not affect anybody in any way. if anything i will just kill myself soon as olivier thinks. hahahaha.

Quote:

I don't think that anyone would disagree that reality or nothingness are mind-made concepts. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Only minds could create concepts. There aren't concepts existing independently of minds.

agreed

Quote:

However, that doesn't mean that reality or nothingness are solely referents to something in the mind.

you are ASSUMING that 'something' exists outside the mind, to even imply that 'things can be referred to' outside the mind.

Quote:

The concept and the referent are not the same. So stop conflating the two.

i am not conflating them, i have clearly differentiated them in all my comments. my point is that the concept has no absolute referent, all referents are subjectively created by minds.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

More of the same problem:

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Ahhh, CM...you were telling others what the REALITY is....LONG, LONG before I told you I was enjoying it. That can easily be documented...by just reading the thread.

oh is this so sir? so sorry, forgot that you were god.

Quote:
That comment of yours was just nonsense...and it fits in well with all your other comments...most of which seem to be nonsense also.

omg really? you think all my comments are nonsense? so sad really. god hates me. oh well.

Childish...but very entertaining.

Thanks for stooping lower and lower. I enjoy it when my suppositions are confirmed.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
What allows you to conclude that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different? Could you lay out these premises in detail? That would be greatly appreciated.

i cannot CONCLUDE that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different, because there is no absolute reality or nothingness to compare.

Poor CM. He just continues to pontificate and pontificate.

CM, you ought really to learn how to write some of this stuff in a way that makes the pretense that you are just speculating seem more true.

That is a huge part of the half-baked part of your concept.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It certainly looks enjoyable Fil. Plush chairs, mock tradition, hi-tech, booze, cameras, the sound of one's own voice, Big Cheeses--lovely. Digestive juices working on the last meal and peristalsis puddings processes in a series of radially symmetrical contractions and relaxations of muscles which propagates in a wave down a muscular tube, in an anterograde fashion, which in humans, and lower life forms, produce contractions of smooth muscles to propel contents through the digestive tract. It is wave contraction of longitudinal and circular muscles preceded by wave relaxation of these muscles. Earthworms use a similar mechanism to drive their locomotion. In all four of the middle-class gastrointestinal tracts on view, smooth muscles are contracting, unseen, in sequence to produce a peristaltic wave which forces a ball of food (called a bolus while in the esophagus and gastrointestinal tract and chyme in the stomach) along the gastrointestinal tract. Peristaltic movement is initiated by circular smooth muscles contracting behind the chewed material to prevent it from moving back into the mouth, followed by a contraction of longitudinal smooth muscles which pushes the digested food downwards until it becomes pressing **** and thus necessitates placing the bottom on the dunny pot and squeezing out the remnant into the care of those on lower wages and taking care to remove any clinging detritus from the nipsy to avoid skidding the underpants before pulling up the trousers.

And that's not the half of it. There's the repopulation of the testicles going on for one. A biological entity of such complexity does not go from an almost complete evacuation to being full to bursting point in a jiffy. It is a process similar to Windows being upgraded.

I didn't make it to the end I'm afraid. I assume they all fell asleep.

Infinite past--infinite future--infinite space--one might make a case that this is nothing or as near as makes no difference. And to the ego it is everything.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

i have zero disgust for judeo-christian or islam or any other religions. i stated a categorical fact that they are responsible for more violence than hindu/buddhist religions.

You found Descartes atheism 'disgusting'. Maybe you were just pretending, confused as you were?

Don't be racist now. Hindus and Buddhists are just as corrupt and murderous as the rest if us. Look at the Sri Lankan civil war. The Tamil invented suicide bombing, and the Brahmin blew them and their kids off, then parked them in concentration camps for months without a second though.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You found Descartes atheism 'disgusting'. Maybe you were just pretending, confused as you were?

no, i didn't, i clarified what was disgusting and it was your logic if i remember. not that i care.

Quote:

Don't be racist now. Hindus and Buddhists are just as corrupt and murderous as the rest if us. Look at the Sri Lankan civil war. The Tamil invented suicide bombing, and the Brahmin blew them and their kids off, then parked them in concentration camps for months without a second though.

ok lets try the frank trick with you. yes hindus and buddhists are the most violent in the world, abrahamic religions are all pure god incarnate. the entire gandhian movement was a joke, no hindus support non-violence.

lol it only takes a quick look at wiki lists of wars to notice the massively larger numbers of death tolls and violence coming from abrahamic religions. it is not racism, it is fact. i don't care that a million hindus and buddhists may also be violent.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Childish...but very entertaining.

Thanks for stooping lower and lower. I enjoy it when my suppositions are confirmed.

thank you sir. i will keep stooping lower and lower for you, i live for your enjoyment.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Childish...but very entertaining.

Thanks for stooping lower and lower. I enjoy it when my suppositions are confirmed.

thank you sir. i will keep stooping lower and lower for you, i live for your enjoyment.

I can tell! Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

i cannot CONCLUDE that reality and nothingness are not absolutely different, because there is no absolute reality or nothingness to compare.

Quote:

Poor CM. He just continues to pontificate and pontificate.

so by saying i CANNOT CONLUDE something, i am pontificating. rofl. this you are god thing is falling apart for me, i was hoping i could keep it going longer.

Quote:

CM, you ought really to learn how to write some of this stuff in a way that makes the pretense that you are just speculating seem more true.

i am not pretending to just be speculating. i wish i could do more, but no human can. you can pretend it is an assertion or knowledge, but it isn't. i have no interest in anything i am saying 'seeming true' or not.

Quote:

That is a huge part of the half-baked part of your concept.

i have infinite concepts, like all humans. they are all half baked or fully baked or whatever you want them to be. you are creating something out of what i am saying and blaming me for the way i am saying it. but i am not claiming anything in what i am saying. each statement stands on its own, eternally questionable, always a speculation, no matter how assertive or factual. "what is is" is simply another example of this.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I can tell!

no, you believe you can tell. just like all your other beliefs. especially your favourite belief, that "you don't do beliefs". hahahahaha. how does it feel to believe that you don't have beliefs? it must feel kind of self contradictory. oh well, you must have it all figured out.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I can tell!

no, you believe you can tell. just like all your other beliefs. especially your favourite belief, that "you don't do beliefs". hahahahaha. how does it feel to believe that you don't have beliefs? it must feel kind of self contradictory. oh well, you must have it all figured out.

0 Replies

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know