Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Dontaskme]

Then why call out a non-believer in your belief - to be a paradoxical bizarre?

An Atheist isn't merely a "non-believer," D., he's a guy who thinks he knows there's no God. But he admits he has no evidence sufficient to that claim, so collapses back into "I don't know," which makes him merely an agnostic, and diffuses any threat to Theism.

So yeah, it's paradoxical and bizarre. Atheism is one seriously toothless tiger...lots of roaring, but nothing to bite with.

Well that's exactly what appears to be happening, there is what appears to be an apparently believed pseudo character caught with it's head in the tigers mouth.

IC..Do you believe there is a real existing character that knows your belief that there is a God is false - who goes by the label ''Atheist'' ?

And if the answer is YES ..then ask yourself...why would I believe there is a real existing character that knows my belief in God is false, if I already know for certain that my belief is right - then continue to ask yourself why would it even matter TO ME if there was a a real existing character that knows my belief that there is a God is false..or that this character could ever dispute or deny my belief?

If the answer is NO you do not believe there is a real existing character that knows your belief that there is a God is false - who goes by the label ''Atheist'' ....then how would you know your God belief is true?

If you are certain that your belief is true, then why the need to call it a bizzarre paradox when the one who claims he does not know God to be their truth. So what if it's a paradox, both are truth claims, so how is one supposed to know what's one truth and what's another truth? and how can one deny anothers truth while holding fast to their own. It's the sickness of the human mind.

You see, it's all just a silly mind game.


.

[Immanuel Can]

I talk about a not-knowing known.

Right. A self-contradiction in three words.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, but then the scripture that predated the days of when Jesus lived makes no sense anyway.

Sure it does. It's actually quite remarkable that Messiah was prophesied by the OT. It validates the claims of Jesus as the Christ, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

IC..Do you believe there is a real existing character that knows your belief that there is a God is false - who goes by the label ''Atheist'' ?

I believe there's a you, a me, and a bunch of other people, some of whom (albeit a relatively small number) are claiming to be "Atheists." But I know you believe in none of that. So what's your question?

[Dontaskme]

I talk about a not-knowing known.

Right. A self-contradiction in three words.

Words divide the undivided.

The Self doesn't need to inform itself with a word to be.

[Dontaskme]

IC..Do you believe there is a real existing character that knows your belief that there is a God is false - who goes by the label ''Atheist'' ?

I believe there's a you, a me, and a bunch of other people, some of whom (albeit a relatively small number) are claiming to be "Atheists." But I know you believe in none of that. So what's your question?

So you believe in a character that says there is no God. So I'm asking you, do you know for certain that their belief there is no God is false based on your own belief there is a God that is true?

[Dontaskme]

Ok, but then the scripture that predated the days of when Jesus lived makes no sense anyway.

Sure it does. It's actually quite remarkable that Messiah was prophesied by the OT. It validates the claims of Jesus as the Christ, actually.

Why did human primates foretell a future prophet would come to earth to speak for God. And why don't all the other primates that share this planet with us do the same?

While it is true that Humans developed the capacity to think, based on their brains growing larger, which just happened to spur them into becoming a more sophisticated primate, aware of being aware as a separate identity, also at the same time evolving a langage that just happened to appear as if they were the authors of their language which was dualistic and appeared to cause an apparent separation of creator and creation. So then invented a belief thinking they were of some special divine origin. When in reality, they were identifying with a pseudo character they believed to be real, and so then had to create themselves a higher self which they called God.

And then they believed that they had to depend on this higher self to inform them how best to live their life, because they couldn't do that for themself. Because they did not know how to be, even though all the other sentient creatures on the planet were all knowing exactly how to be.

Hmm, what a lovely story. Who'd have thought that even the believing brain itself gets sucked into it's own BS

.

[Dontaskme]

I talk about a not-knowing known.

Right. A self-contradiction in three words.

For an intelligent person, you really are stupid when it comes to hearing the nondual message. Oh that's right, you don't want to hear it, for you need ears for that action.

It's not the ear that hears. There is only hearing.

Does a chirping bird know that it is contradicting itself every time the chirping sound comes out from it's being. Does the chirp inform the bird that the bird is the author of it's own chirp. I very much doubt it.

It's only the human mind that lives in a seemingly contradictory world of opposites..via the hominoids brains capacity to create a sense of separate self delusion. And is why life for humans will never end well. They were doomed the day they became self aware, for no such self ever existed. The universe is totally selfless.

.

.

[Immanuel Can]

So you believe in a character that says there is no God.

I believe when people tell me they don't believe in God, that they're not outright lying to me about what they believe. But if I'm right about their truthfulness about what they say they believe, they're also still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Why did human primates...

"Primate" means a monkey or ape. I reject your premise there. So does science, actually. The ape-to-man theory is dead, replaced by an alleged "common ancestor" theory, which the Bible itself also rejects.

[VVilliam]

2.382 billion Christians could make a whole good difference to this world if they actually understood what Jesus was saying...and practiced that 'for real'.

Wow.

Well, maybe you'd better tell us about that. What do you think "Jesus was saying," as you put it?

What if the Bible was written by the Roman Empire - as a psyop that would ensure the mind control of every thinking hominoid brain?
Lets face facts, a thinking hominoid mind/brain mechanism, has the potential to make up just about any story is cares to imagine.

I agree that the bible is a story.

( That's a dangerous prospect ) A threat.

I do not think of the minds ability to make up stories is a threat.

After-all, a self aware entity can very quickly become aware of itself as something that is very much in control of it's own actions.

Nevertheless, it is a necessary step in the process.

Once it believes it is the controller, it can control others.

Then it has yet to make the necessary step.

That's when the mind games of manipulation started. One example of that is when your parents gave you an identity, they named you, and that was the beginning of separation for you.

True. Who named Adam? We know re the garden story that Adam was tasked to name everything...did he name himself? Or did some other name him...

Suddenly a thought arises in you, ''I am a someone''

Yet if you existed without a name, would you therefore "not exist"?

Any yet thought itself has ''no idea'' how or from where THOUGHT is sourced, but thought will of course think of something, any source will do..for what can thought do with ''no answer'' but to make up any answer it can think of ?

Thought is the language of the mind trying to understand itself in its human position, on a speck of dust in an immensely large universe.
Yet the perspective through the brain the mind uses to investigate its surroundings, allows for the mind not to feel as small as the rest of the universe insists it is.




.

[VVilliam]

Then why call out a non-believer in your belief - to be a paradoxical bizarre?

An Atheist isn't merely a "non-believer," D., he's a guy who thinks he knows there's no God.

This is not really the case. An atheist is someone who specifically lacks belief in gods. They don't think they know there are no gods. They just lack belief that there are gods.

But he admits he has no evidence sufficient to that claim, so collapses back into "I don't know," which makes him merely an agnostic, and diffuses any threat to Theism.

That is not really the case. An agnostic may come to that position from the atheist position of not believing there are gods, to the position of not knowing one way or the other. An Agnostic also may also come to that position from the theist position of believing there are gods, to the position of not knowing one way or the other.

So yeah, it's paradoxical and bizarre. Atheism is one seriously toothless tiger...lots of roaring, but nothing to bite with.

It certainly can appear that way when you come from a misinformed position.

[VVilliam]

I talk about a not-knowing known.

Right. A self-contradiction in three words.

Words divide the undivided.

The Self doesn't need to inform itself with a word to be.

This would be true I suspect.

From The Source [of all that exists] perspective, It has no requirement to be called a name, in and of itself. It simply IS.

From any other perspective of beings who have self awareness but are not directly The Source, these require names for The Source, and along with those names come forth the images pertaining to the naming.

Generally this process of naming is involved with how the one doing the naming, regards itself and through that, applies its own image of that self, onto the image of The Source.

[VVilliam]

The universe is totally selfless.

We do not know if the universe has a mind developed which acknowledges itself to be said mind of the universe.

It requires a mind in order to be self aware. There can be no such thing as a selfless entity if it is a mind. Objects without minds are selfless, having no sense of self.

[Immanuel Can]

Then why call out a non-believer in your belief - to be a paradoxical bizarre?

An Atheist isn't merely a "non-believer," D., he's a guy who thinks he knows there's no God.

This is not really the case. An atheist is someone who specifically lacks belief in gods. They don't think they know there are no gods. They just lack belief that there are gods.

That's implausible, because if somebody just "lacks belief in gods," it means he has no basis for an opinion...and certainly no basis upon which to tell other people what they can know or believe. But Atheists always seem to want to say, "You're wrong to believe in God."

If they're happy to give that up, I'm happy to call them whatever they want.

But he admits he has no evidence sufficient to that claim, so collapses back into "I don't know," which makes him merely an agnostic, and diffuses any threat to Theism.

An agnostic may come to that position from the atheist position of not believing there are gods, to the position of not knowing one way or the other.

It's not a question of how he got there. That's immaterial. He may have come from Catholicism, or Wicca, or Jim Jones's cult, for all anyone has to care. It matters not. It's about where he is. And he is an agnostic.