What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

Prove it!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

[lancek4]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

Prove it!

Truth is! bro! Comon , smoke up dude.

[lancek4]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

How do you remove the perspective of being able to remove the perspective ?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

Prove it!

Truth is! bro! Comon , smoke up dude.

In this case It really doesn't matter whom the object, as it's misinformed!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

How do you remove the perspective of being able to remove the perspective ?

So you 'believe' it 'impossible' to nullify a percentage of perspective, where perspective comes loaded with preconceived ideas, huh, dude? Wha-cha drinkin, man? It's done every day via the scientific method, are you 'double blind' or what?

[lancek4]

Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

How do you remove the perspective of being able to remove the perspective ?

So you 'believe' it 'impossible' to nullify a percentage of perspective, where perspective comes loaded with preconceived ideas, huh, dude? Wha-cha drinkin, man? It's done every day via the scientific method, are you 'double blind' or what?

Science may have a 'best possible' route upon eliminating bias, but it does not posit that which it is not directly dealing with. The universe is all the comprises the compendium of studied or observed phenomena. The term 'phenomena ' is left open, it is not defined against any 'absolute ' universe except that which is framed within the scope if 'universe'; which is to say, a circular suspension that is only defined by what has been studied and recorded.

One cannot take everyday experience and reduce it a 'science' or 'scientific'; this is loosely meant to imply that one lives life 'logically', but as wee see with Wittgentein, (again) as Chaz is trying to show, logic is a method that can come to 'illogical' or incorrect 'truths'.
And again I then say to you: as opposed to say 'the planet mars', or 'this rock of granite I have in my hand' - how do you, how are you capable, by what method or mechanism do you remove your self from your self in order to gain you 'correct' perspective from your 'incorrect' perspective? How are you able to discern your belief from what is based in 'not merely belief'?

If you are saying the absolute truth of the universe is what science is dealing with then you have excluded a major portion of your personal experience from what is true. But then how do you live? What about the rest if the unstudied experience? Is not that a part of the absolutely true universe? But you say science discerns of the absolutely true; then what of that which is not discerned? Hope? So the absokute universe exists by virtue of hope? Then the absolute universe is a metaphysical posit: not true. ( unless you include belief as part of the absolute universe, but then you have excluded science).

[lancek4]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

OK, I've found that, as pertaining to the totality of an individual, existentialism does not consider the whole of the trinity, of Child, Parent and Adult, that is responsible for ones becoming, I see that while it is obviously, firmly rooted in the Child it doesn't consider the Child, as contrasted by the Parent, in the becoming of the Adult.

Existentialism is contrasted by Scientific thinking which I see, as rooted in the Parent, and Moral thinking, which I see as rooted in the Adult, such that it should never be considered in lieu of Science or Morality as in fact it can be seen as part of a trinity. It therefore should be seen in contrast to Science in the formation of Morality as Morality gives feedback to regulate both Science and Existentialism.

Of course this is not to say that these three are all inclusive with respect to the totality of the trinity of Child, Parent and Adult, it is only to point out that existentialism is rooted in the Child. And that, I see that, with an increased exclusive alignment, with existentialism by a majority, seals the fate of mankind, to that of doom.

[lancek4]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

[MJA]

Genesis

Had we not eaten from the tree of knowledge perhaps we would still be living in the naked paridase of truth.

For surely underneath it All... simply is

=

[lancek4]

SpheresOfBalance"]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

[/quote]

I think the word you are looking for is 'trope', and not tripe: pig intestines.
Sure, ones interest surely sculpts what one might be interested in investigating. But I have no contempt if I did need to look into those things.

But so far as philosophy, Religion cannot be removed from consideration due to ones bias. Philosophy is about removing bias.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

in BLUE

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

in RED

I think the word you are looking for is 'trope', and not tripe: pig intestines.

Sure, ones interest surely sculpts what one might be interested in investigating. But I have no contempt if I did need to look into those things.
It's just that I try not to expose myself to things that make me miserable. And as I read any religious text, I'm thinking of Galileo, Bruno and others, the hypocrisy, the BS about golden idols, yet the Vatican contains more gold that Fort Knox, the Genesis BS. It's just not worthy of my time, If I'm constantly shaking my head and crying, what's the fucking point? I'd rather stab my flesh than stab my mind, as flesh heals more readily, as far as I'm concerned. I'm at a point in my life were I just can't take any more bad news, it's just getting to be too much. Trust me when I say that if I knew of an island of forest that enjoyed four seasons, that no one had ever, and would ever find, I'd take my family there and live off the land like it's supposed to be, saying to hell with everyone else, I'm just sick of everyone's BS.

But so far as philosophy, Religion cannot be removed from consideration due to ones bias.
If it didn't exist, would you consider it? It's not about bias, it's about worthlessness. I consider it, just as if it was nonexistent. I guess I could do as a dog and chase my tail, but I prefer to be more productive.

Philosophy is about removing bias.
No, philosophy is about the truth of the matter, and as to that, Christianity bears no fruit, and so is discarded. Look I believe that Jesus was a cool philosopher, and I would like to have talked to him, but that's about it.