Myths in the Making

KelvinG said:
Is it just me, or does Iacchus make no sense? I want to understand his babble, but it's incoherent.

Is it because he is just so smart that everything he says goes over my head, or is he just a self absorbed wanker who spouts nonsense?

I'm highly doubtful of the former.
What evidence would it take for you to be convinced of the former? Perhaps Iacchus could try to present it.

Failing that, I concur with your doubtful opinion.
 
Correa Neto said:
It is irrelevant to your point if bones, humans, and "imaginary creatures" have or not self-counsioussnes and its nature (in case it exists). Your whole idea is flawed since real creatures can leave traces of their existence after their deaths.
And if there were no sentient (real) creatures to point this out to other non-existent sentient (real) creatures, then who gives a crap? Obviously the only thing that makes it real -- regardless of whether it "exists" or not -- is the fact that we're sentient. Therefore, it's only possible to believe that we're here, so long as were here ... and then, according to the tenets of materialism, there will be nothing.
 
Mercutio said:
What evidence would it take for you to be convinced of the former? Perhaps Iacchus could try to present it.

Failing that, I concur with your doubtful opinion.
What, would you have me bring a person back from the dead, in his former body? How is such a thing possible?
 
Iacchus said:
And, to "whom" are you speaking? If you wish to discount the fact that I exist, fine, but why should you expect any kind of answer in reply? What a complete waste of time that is!

Iacchus said:
And, to "whom" are you speaking?

I know you are not stupid, why are you acting like you are?



If you wish to discount the fact that I exist,

1- Fine? You said in your last post my believing there is no “self” was disrespectful to you, now you say it is fine?

2- I to again say I know you are not stupid, why are you acting like you are?

but why should you expect any kind of answer in reply? What a complete waste of time that is!

Would not it be far more mature and honest to just admit you can not show even one thing that is in and of itself “self”. Be honest, it is a wonderful feeling.

Also stop living gripped with fears, there is nothing to free from the truth that who you “believe” you are.

The person posting, the person called you ( your name) the stubborn and all your personality traits person is comprised of a body he shares with many other life forms, a body changing every second, never the same always being born and dying, who will know death and decay, so not self.

A personality that is shaped and influenced by mother, father, friends, events, fears and emotions not the same it was at birth, 5, 10 16, 25, 40 now and at death, ever changing and by such not self.

This personality will die with the brain and body. But the mind ( I BELIEVE) like all energy moves on to again change form.


The body and personality are like all things compound they are subject to impermanence.’

You so fear not being “you” for all time, you so fear it you are not fully living every second now. You come to a discussion board filled with people who do not simply follow anything blindly and expect them to blindly follow and believe you, they will not and you become angry, frustrated and so on.

You make a statement like
The problem I have with you is that by denying your own reality -- of self -- you deny mine. And I find this to be very disrespectful.

You really believe that others not believing you means they are being disrespectful to you. Sad

You are causing your own suffering.
 
Iacchus said:
If God didn't make me ego-centric, I wouldn't know that I exist contrary to God. So yes, it is very important that we have a self.

silly and illogical statement
1- prove God
2- Prove God created anything
 
Mercutio said:
And at least one in electronic form...are they all to be treated as equal? Not at all.
It's hard to say, it all depends on who reads them.

Your dismissal of books written by experts in the area of knowledge you claim to be interested in is very telling. If I was as interested in this alleged "animating force" as you were, I would be reading everything I could by the top experts in the field. They are not that difficult to identify, Iacchus. You instead turn away from the accumulated knowledge of decades of dedicated researchers, preferring dreams and numerology. What are we to make of this? Are you really interested, as you say you are? Are you being honest, with us? With yourself? You certainly do not act as if you are trying to find the answers to the big questions you are asking. Instead, it seems you use questions only to distract from your refusal to answer the questions of others.
And why are the experts in any given field so often proven wrong? Because knowledge is not the key. It is not the actual "thing" that knowledge alludes to.

Do you honestly see no difference between the critical process of science, and "following the trend"?
No, I think the question was directed towards you.

I know you think it helps your case to paint science as a strawman, but it only makes you look more foolish. Science is a far more elegant tool than your understanding of it allows you to see.
And what we have here is a case of blind men and gray elephants.

Sorry, this is simply another assertion. Do you understand what we mean when we use the term "evidence"?
Evidence means nothing outside of our ability to "experience" -- as opposed to just furnishing knowledge -- what that evidence means.

By assertion, again. The gum metaphor, like most of your metaphors, is useless and does not advance your cause.
Just merely to inform you that things do "stick" together. ;)

No, that is not "evidence". Nor does it address my question. Are you trying to distract again?
I cannot present anything to you, other than what's in your mind to see. If it's not there, then you won't see it.

Ah..."the moment" has returned. What will be next--numerology?
Aha, it's clearly plain to see ... but, only in the moment.
 
Pahansiri said:
silly and illogical statement
1- prove God
2- Prove God created anything
Yes, but wouldn't you rather I prove to you that I exist first? First things first, right?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but wouldn't you rather I prove to you that I exist first? First things first, right?

Hmmmm stubborn or just not getting it, that is the question…:con2:

1- demonstrate to me one thing that is and of itself, “ self” nothing other then just self.
 
Iacchus said:
What, would you have me bring a person back from the dead, in his former body? How is such a thing possible?
I had asked KelvinG (not you) what sort of evidence might convince him that you knew what you were talking about. Are you suggesting that only something so extreme as re-animating a dead person would be enough to serve as evidence for your beliefs? If that is the case, why do you believe what you do? Have you seen the dead come back to life?

If it does not take that to convince you, why assume it would take that to convince KelvinG? Why not wait to see what you might be asked to provide as proof?

Or, perhaps, just admit that you have no proof. You have your beliefs, based on your dreams and numerology, and you realize that those do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Or rather, those would not stand up to critical scrutiny, if you had the intellectual honesty to submit them to it.

I don't expect that, of course. I expect you to attempt once again to distract, or change the topic, or evade somehow, anything but actually examine your precious beliefs.

I would love for you to prove me wrong.
 
Pahansiri said:
Hmmmm stubborn or just not getting it, that is the question…:con2:
According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

1- demonstrate to me one thing that is and of itself, “ self” nothing other then just self.
Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.
 
Iacchus said:
It's hard to say, it all depends on who reads them.
Is that what you really think? That is the only difference between your "book" and the peer-reviewed articles by experts in their fields? You think more of yourself than I would have guessed.

And why are the experts in any given field so often proven wrong? Because knowledge is not the key. It is not the actual "thing" that knowledge alludes to.
Why? It is called improving. When we subject our ideas to critical scrutiny, and discard that which does not work (um...this is, by the way, a far cry from being "proven wrong"), we continually improve on our understanding of the phenomena in question. Contrast that with your book...it has never once been critically examined, and so has never been "proven wrong". It is more than merely inaccurate--it is utterly worthless. It would topple over in a light breeze.

What is more...could you please demonstrate that the experts actually are "proven wrong"? You are notorious for your avoidance of the scientific literature--how is it you are able to make this claim so strongly?

As for the rest of your post...you say nothing of substance, and do not address any of the questions. Not worth responding to it...
 
Mercutio said:
I had asked KelvinG (not you) what sort of evidence might convince him that you knew what you were talking about. Are you suggesting that only something so extreme as re-animating a dead person would be enough to serve as evidence for your beliefs? If that is the case, why do you believe what you do? Have you seen the dead come back to life?
Since you folks don't believe in spirits, I would have to furnish a live body in order for you to talk to one. In which case it's not possible.

If it does not take that to convince you, why assume it would take that to convince KelvinG? Why not wait to see what you might be asked to provide as proof?

Or, perhaps, just admit that you have no proof. You have your beliefs, based on your dreams and numerology, and you realize that those do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Or rather, those would not stand up to critical scrutiny, if you had the intellectual honesty to submit them to it.

I don't expect that, of course. I expect you to attempt once again to distract, or change the topic, or evade somehow, anything but actually examine your precious beliefs.
If all you folks are looking for is proof of the physical, that's all you will find, is proof of the physical. This is the "blindfold" that you choose to wear.

I would love for you to prove me wrong.
If you maintain an open outlook in life, there should be no difficulty in proving it upon your death. If, on the other hand, you are completely resistant to the idea and, wholly sensual in your view, there will be no way to prove any such thing after you die, and you will continue to believe that you still exist in the material world.
 
Mercutio said:
Is that what you really think? That is the only difference between your "book" and the peer-reviewed articles by experts in their fields? You think more of yourself than I would have guessed.
How so?

Why? It is called improving. When we subject our ideas to critical scrutiny, and discard that which does not work (um...this is, by the way, a far cry from being "proven wrong"), we continually improve on our understanding of the phenomena in question. Contrast that with your book...it has never once been critically examined, and so has never been "proven wrong". It is more than merely inaccurate--it is utterly worthless. It would topple over in a light breeze.
"And have you not heard, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." In other words prove it to those folks who have passed on.

What is more...could you please demonstrate that the experts actually are "proven wrong"? You are notorious for your avoidance of the scientific literature--how is it you are able to make this claim so strongly?
How can they be proven right by something they haven't experienced yet?
 
Iacchus said:
According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.

According to you, "I" don't exist. It's as simple as that.

Define “I” ( for the billionth time)
Remember what I said, we do deal with a “physical reality” then recite 1000 times this “ reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one.- Albert Einstein

Yes, stubbornness is a form of willfulness, and willfulness is a form of self.

Wrong, self can be nothing other then JUST “self” and also unchanging for if it chances it was never self.


Willfulness/ pig-headedness often changes as you are now stubborn about things you were not stubborn about at 18 and 18 you were stubborn about things you would find silly now.

What is self is can not change, also your Willfulness/ pig-headedness is over a belief you have come to believe over the years due to external stimuli, events, other people etc even internal mind changing, so again NOT self.

;)
 
Iacchus said:

hmmmm delete what? Was it proof of GOD, you did say the other day if it were not for having to go to work and all...:con2:

Perhaps it was something that is and of itself "self":p
 
Iacchus said:
Since you folks don't believe in spirits,

Define “spirits”… and not
3274.jpg
 
Pahansiri said:
Define “I” ( for the billionth time)
Remember what I said, we do deal with a “physical reality” then recite 1000 times this “ reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one.- Albert Einstein
Neither did Einstein believe in an afterlife. So? ...
 
Iacchus said:
Neither did Einstein believe in an afterlife. So? ...

Define "afterlife" define how or how Einstein did not believe in an "afterlife". Also please remember as a Buddhist I believe in no real death. Just a body I believe the mind is endlessNot created not destroyed .

Just what I believe.
 
Pahansiri said:
Define "afterlife" define how or how Einstein did not believe in an "afterlife". Also please remember as a Buddhist I believe in no real death. Just a body I believe the mind is endlessNot created not destroyed .

Just what I believe.
Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then? Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul? Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?
 
Iacchus said:
Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then? Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul? Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?

Am I to take it you believe in transcendence then?

I believe the body is little different then a suit, when it ages and dies the mind like energy ( I believe) simply moves on. We believe it is the ordinary state of mind the grasping, emotional, conditioned, obsessed mind. The mind that fears not being “I” “self” that move son. In Buddhism enlightenment means/fully awake. Awake to the true nature of mind the 'very subtle' here is a link that will help explain it better then I http://www.aboutbuddhism.org/Buddhism-beliefs.htm We believe when one sees though the cloud of the conditioned mind to the true nature of mind, an end of the cycle of rebirth and death and suffering. Nirvana is a “state of mind” not a physical place where I am for all time Mark Bertrand.

We believe when this state is attained there is no room for such worthless things as concepts, “self” cravings, attainment and so on, no needs no desires.

Yet how do we trascend death, without a soul?

Easy there is no “soul” a soul would be a self, a thing in and of itself “ Marks soul” it could be nothing but just Mark, no such thing exists.

Please define “soul”.

Are you suggesting that we experience things after death? If so, then what is "it" that does the experiencing?

much like dreaming. Nothing real, all illusion.

May I ask can you see how this is done? You ask me things and I answer. I ask you questions and you refuse to answer, I feel bad for you for that. You are really missing out and your goal of your beliefs, thoughts etc and how you are look upon suffer, I believe you are far better then that.

Share with others, try to stop telling people what to believe and instead exchange ideas and beliefs. You simply ( I believe) stop making and taking this so personal, you believe we are harming and disrespecting you buy not believing what you do and tell us to. You are causing your own suffering.


Just what I believe.
 

Back
Top Bottom