nabiscothejerd
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 60
Marquis de Carabas said:
hey isn't hoboken the ken and ryu's fireball from street fighter
hey isn't hoboken the ken and ryu's fireball from street fighter
Silly boy that would be you, remember you are here telling us what to believe, yet offering no facts we must just simply believe what you tells us.
Also remember you have said you do not answer questions, you only ask them.
Also remember you said that my not believing you is disrespectful to you.
Also remember you are the one who wrote a huge cyber book telling people what to believe.
Also remember you have said you are the founder and leader of “the NEW Church†and will be followed.
Also remember I am Buddhist and Buddhism teaches this
1 Kalama Sutta
Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.
Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)
and 2 ( amoung other things_
By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left
undone, by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself no one Purifies another.
3-His last recorded words were "Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your own salvation with diligence."
4- Don’t confuse the finger point at the moon with the moon.
So I ask you to define “soul†and you ask me if I know what you like the feel of under your pants??
Very poetic now, define ‘soul†and prove we have one.
From time to time you say something logical.. Yet you believe you are here to ‘save†us and we need blindly follow you?
Iacchus said:Well, I can see that I've managed to garner your attention, simply by putting you on ignore.
Yes that's right... I psychically knew you'd put me on ignore, because you hadn't actually got around to telling me you'd done so, and you in return psychically knew what I'd written and could quote it, even though no one else had quoted it themselves before you did so...
Now a more honest statement would be "I'm putting you on ignore from now on", but honesty isn't your finest point, is it? Never mind the fact that it's your own religious book I was quoting from... Poor, poor old Iacchus. All he has is obsession and innuendo and fibbery to argue with; he daren't even defend his own religion!
It's not that huge; Each "chapter" is merely a page of html approximate to the size of a JREF page... You can skim read it (notice Iacchus tried to use innuendo again that it was a great effort I'd made on his behalf, and then ran away from my pointing out any educated person leads to skim read quite early) in about 20 minutes, if you can bothered. A full read would probably take at most an hour, and only then because it's so incoherant you'd have to sit and work certain passages out.
No, Iacchus is not a deep thinker; He responds deeply to things, and he confuses that for deep understanding. Go ahead folks, read his "book"... It's almost entirely numerology, obsessions with people (women in particular) and six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Iacchus said:Use your imagination ... It's all you've got.
If I am my imagination why I sit ever changing, “self/soul†can be nothing but just that one thing, never changing or effected by outside stimuli? Well shot down another one.
Max560
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 256
It's a remarkable pattern: Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .......
This fails to qualify as an adequate response.
Mercutio wrote:
Iacchus wrote:
This also fails to qualify as an adequate response. It also seems to be your go to line of response when you wish to avoid having to concede a point:
"That's just what you believe "
No, that's not how facts work. Facts are not contingent on belief in them. Facts are supported by evidence. Whether
or not you choose to acknowledge the evidence has no effect on the evidence itself. Look at the following example:
Belief: I don't believe that any harm can come from sticking my arm in this wood chipper."
Evidence: People have been harmed in wood chipper accidents.
Fact: You can cause serious harm by sticking one of your limbs in a wood chipper.
Note how the belief has no bearing on the evidence. Note how the opposite belief corresponds with the evidence.
When I say:
What I mean is that there is evidence that you (Iacchus) have a tendency to Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .....
I understand that that you might get upset when people kick your dogma. It probably makes you squirm when you can't cough up any evidence to suport your beliefs.
When you are confronted by this barrage of requests for supporting evidence for your beliefs, it seems as though you can go one of three routes:
One: Provide supporting evidence. Offer something more substantive than "I believe it intrinsically"
Two: If you are unable to manage option One, question your belief system, re evaluate your standards for believing something.
Three: When unable to manage option One, engage in avoidant behavior. Obfuscate. Misdirect. Finally, when push comes to shove, and you have been painted into a corner, and when no one is going for your red herrings, use your catch all, universal throw away line, "That's just what you believe "
Sadly, you have opted for choice number Three up to this date. You may be able to stave off the discomfort of confronting the frailty of your belief system by doing so, but this does nothing to actually strengthen your claims.
This fails to qualify as an adequate response.
Mercutio wrote:
Iacchus wrote:
This also fails to qualify as an adequate response. It also seems to be your go to line of response when you wish to avoid having to concede a point:
"That's just what you believe "
No, that's not how facts work. Facts are not contingent on belief in them. Facts are supported by evidence. Whether
or not you choose to acknowledge the evidence has no effect on the evidence itself. Look at the following example:
Belief: I don't believe that any harm can come from sticking my arm in this wood chipper."
Evidence: People have been harmed in wood chipper accidents.
Fact: You can cause serious harm by sticking one of your limbs in a wood chipper.
Note how the belief has no bearing on the evidence. Note how the opposite belief corresponds with the evidence.
When I say:
What I mean is that there is evidence that you (Iacchus) have a tendency to Start/hijack a thread, obfuscate/evade, get cut to ribbons, flee. Start/hijack a thread, .....
I understand that that you might get upset when people kick your dogma. It probably makes you squirm when you can't cough up any evidence to suport your beliefs.
When you are confronted by this barrage of requests for supporting evidence for your beliefs, it seems as though you can go one of three routes:
One: Provide supporting evidence. Offer something more substantive than "I believe it intrinsically"
Two: If you are unable to manage option One, question your belief system, re evaluate your standards for believing something.
Three: When unable to manage option One, engage in avoidant behavior. Obfuscate. Misdirect. Finally, when push comes to shove, and you have been painted into a corner, and when no one is going for your red herrings, use your catch all, universal throw away line, "That's just what you believe "
Sadly, you have opted for choice number Three up to this date. You may be able to stave off the discomfort of confronting the frailty of your belief system by doing so, but this does nothing to actually strengthen your claims.
Well, with regards to the Prime Mover thread, this is what I just posted recently in the Intelligent Design thread ...Max560 said:
So, whether you argue from the standpoint of the Prime Mover or, Intelligent Design, it simply cannot be refuted. And, if people continue to wish to argue about something they cannot possibly hope to win, it's not my problem.Iacchus said:
Yes, indeed, your imagination is all you've got.Max560 said:
Yes, the imagination is full of "wonders" now isn't it?Pahansiri said:If I am my imagination why I sit ever changing, “self/soul†can be nothing but just that one thing, never changing or effected by outside stimuli? Well shot down another one.
Iacchus said:Believe what you will, until you die that is, for then you can believe no more ... Or, can you? So, what's the point in looking for God, or invisible pink fairies or, any other of these other "mythological beings?" We need look no further than ourselves. We are all myths in the making!
I have an experiment for you:
1. Lock yourself out of the house. Make sure all the doors are locked and shut, keep all the windows closed, seal every other possible entry.
2. Destroy your existing set of keys.
3. Without breaking in, calling a locksmith, or contacting someone with a duplicate set of keys, believeyourself back into the house.
Oh yes, I believe that so long as we are here, we are subject to the limitations of the "physical universe." I have never claimed otherwise. However, when we're dead and gone (according to the materialists), we are incapable of believing we were ever here. So, what does that tells us about a reality which doesn't persist? That we are clearly imaginary?c4ts said:
Also, how is it possible to acknowledge anything, if it wasn't first already in our minds in order to do so? Doesn't this tell us that there's a reality of the mind -- hence dimension -- as well? For example, where do you go in your dreams? And "who" is it that is experiencing them? If dreams are experiential, why shouldn't they be considered a reality as well? The fact is they are.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Iacchus said:
Being sentient or not is irrelevant to the case in question. Real things exist independent of being sentient or not, and independent if a given creature, sentient or not, is aware of their existence.
And according to the "tenets of materialism" there will be nothing after death only in respect to the deceased´s POV.
The universe does not give a crap about our existence. Actually there are no evidences that it has any level of counsiousness, so it can´t even give a crap. Scavengers, however, will give a crap (composed by residua of ourselves) about our existence after it ceases.
Being sentient has everything to do with understanding this, in which case it's all in our minds ... in that respect.Correa Neto said:
If you're speaking of the dead corpse which is left behind, you are sadly mistaken.
The Universe doesn't give a crap? You're right, maybe it doesn't ... But, maybe God does?