Religion is Man- Made

[RCSaunders]

There is one thing they all, theists and atheists, have in common. That is the belief that it is excruciatingly important that others share their views, and they spend inordinate amounts of time and energy evangelizing, trying to convince others.

You mean like writing long opinion papers and referring people to them all the time?

No. If you review all my posts you'll find I make it point to assure those who read my comments, I'm not interested in convincing anyone or their agreement. I'm delighted to answer questions, because I assume those asking are interested, and when the answers require a little more than a 30-words-or-less explanation, I'll refer to more complete answers for those interested.

I have no interest in promoting any view or ideology, and changing anyone else's mind. I only write for those who might find some value or interest in what I know. That includes pointing out the perpetual parade of absurdities by philosophers, academics, and various ideologists. I enjoy exposing their lies and falsehoods, not to change anyone else's views, but to entertain those who share that understanding.

[Age]

Oh well, life is just amazing then isn't it, it's all so good because I have a dog.

No, mannie, just no, this is a weak argument for good. Your barking up the wrong tree again.

To love a dog is , in its own small way, to experience inclusiveness which is the only way to approach the absolute.

There is no way to approach yourself....go figure!

Love is another man-made concept. The addiction to it has the same effects as crack cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens.

The ONLY difference, however, is that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE AT ALL of becoming or being ADDICTED to LOVE.

Humanity is a whore to it's addictions. It's all very gross.

YET here 'you' are "dontaskme" continually SHOWING and REVEALING just how ADDICTED 'you' ARE, to your OWN STORY. Which, because THAT STORY is SO Wrong, some say that that is what is REALLY Truly gross here.

[Age]

Again I agree with Immanuel Can "...experience, not language, is primary."

You cannot know you are experiencing experience, until you are able to tell yourself you are, this requires the knowledge that is language...go figure!

But, like what is being POINTED OUT to you is that experience IS PRIMARY, or comes first, BEFORE language.

If you can or can NOT KNOW you are experiencing experience is of NO MATTER in what was just being POINTED OUT to you here.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality, there is no knower, nor is there an experiencer, except in this conception, aka language, aka knowledge, aka an illusion.

LOL

[Age]

...another's perspective is part of absolute truth.

Well, THAT another has a perspective cannot be denied. It is "true that they have a perspective." But that fact doesn't imply the perspective is true. For it is often manifestly the case that that perspective is errant, or even false or deluded.

Just like yours are "immanuel can".

A drug user who develops paranoia has a very strong "perspective." And no doubt it's "real" to him. But he may be totally deluded.

Not just drug users this happens to but also to those who BELIEVE 'God exists' as well. There is NO difference between the 'drug user' and the 'God believer' in this regard.

The goblins and zombies he's totally convinced are chasing him may be no more than figments of his confused state.

And if you think about education, what does it mean but that the original perspective of the learner is not quite adequate to the truth. She "learns" that while she many have thought one thing, the truth is something less obvious; and so she becomes wiser, better informed and smarter.

Were all "perspectives" equal, the phenomenon of human learning, of education, would be impossible. Each "perspective" each person might have would be just as good as the scientific or factual truth; and so there would be nothing to "learn," no way to improve on that initial "perspective."

And that's manifestly not how things are, I think we both agree.

[Age]

If you say so.

But, is there ANY actual thing, which 'you' appear SO DESPERATELY wanting to share with 'us', that actually has ANY importance at all here?

Not important no, but obviously of interest to you, since you are rather partial to reading my posts and responding to them.

There was NO need to DEFLECT.

Let us just BOTH AGREE that what 'you', "dontaskme", says does NOT have ANY ACTUAL IMPORTANCE, AT ALL.

Are they important to you, that you have to poke your beak in and leave a response, why do you read, are you hoping to find something?

Yes ALL of what 'you' SAY,
and WRITE DOWN HERE,
For ALL to SEE.
Is VERY IMPORTANT to,
and for, 'me'.

So, PLEASE continue.

[AlexW]

Yes, but "consciousness" is not a lone property. It's always "consciousness OF something," and that something is some reality that is certainly not merely linguistic.

No, thats not actually true.
There is a "state" of pure consciousness where there is no one left to be conscious of anything - and, there is also no thing to be conscious of - yet, there still is "consciousness" - but it is without any opposite.
This "state" could be compared to deep sleep, yet without "loosing" consciousness - there are no sense impression, there is no thought, yet consciousness is.
Once this "state" has been experienced it is perfectly clear that consciousness does not belong to a thing or being (meaning: it is perfectly clear that a human being does not have its own, individual consciousness), yet, our conceptual interpretations of conscious experience seem to describe the exact opposite: "I have consciousness" is a normal statement, understood by most humans, yet, it is (at least based on the experience of pure consciousness - and when properly investigated, also for our normal waking mode of experiencing reality) not correct.

[Age]

Again I agree with Immanuel Can "...experience, not language, is primary."
Dontaskme replied to IC: "Well if you want to be really finicky over this, then it's consciousness that is primary, not experience. Experience is an appearance within consciousness, experience is not consciousness itself."

I disagree with Dontaskme. There is no such thing as consciousness itself, except in a clinical sense. Experience is consciousness.In other words, there is no DAM upon whom experiences are engraved. On the contrary, DAM is experience: without experience DAM would be a robot.

No, there is no Dam, there is only consciousness, subject and object are one.

LOL But when I POINTED OUT the object 'Consciousness' can be KNOWN, and be the subject of discussion, you CLAIM that 'It' can NOT be KNOWN. Yet now you CLAIM that there is ONLY consciousness, which is subject AND object. So, this means that thee One and ONLY object ('Thing'), which ACTUALLY EXISTS, can be KNOWN, and DISCUSSED, with and through the use of words and language.

ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION of YOURS "dontaskme".

When the concept of separation dissolves, it is seen clearly that consciousness is and ‘has always’ only ever been experiencing itself.

AND through this 'experiencing', which is PRIMARY, or FIRST, then language was created, which continually evolves, until the words used in language are sorted into a CORRECT WAY, which Consciousness, Itself, then uses to KNOW Thy Self, Its Self.

This is just ALWAYS HAPPENING, from within and through ALL of particles of matter, which are just continually CHANGING in shape and form.

At the stage of when this was being written, most of the particles of matter that were in the shape and form of 'you', human beings, just had NOT YET FULLY REALIZED that this is what was ACTUALLY HAPPENING, and OCCURRING. But soon enough 'you' WILL.

'you' just NEED to learn ANOTHER WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' to FULLY REALIZE this.

It experiences itself through itself alone and not through a body or a mind.

So, WHERE, EXACTLY, is Consciousness experiencing, if it is NOT HERE-NOW, through ALL of manifestation?

Do 'you' ENVISION Consciousness is SITTING on the OUTSIDE, and thus separate, LOOKING IN?

" Objectivity is a subject's delusion that observing can be done without him/her. Invoking objectivity is abrogating responsibility hence its popularity."
Heinz Foerster


What we need now is the description of the “describer” or, in other words, we need a theory of the observer.

'I" have ALREADY INFORMED of 'what', EXACTLY the 'Observer' IS.

REMEMBER it is 'you', "dontaskme", who BELIEVES WHOLEHEARTEDLY and INSISTS that 'It' can NOT be 'described' in and with WORDS, themselves. Which, by the way, are the VERY THINGS 'you' use to CLAIM that this can NOT BE DONE.

[RCSaunders]

There is a "state" of pure consciousness where there is no one left to be conscious of anything - and, there is also no thing to be conscious of - yet, there still is "consciousness" - but it is without any opposite.

Do you often have this experience? My Father had it before he died. It's call lewy body dementia. You really ought to see someone about it. It's fatal.

[Age]

“Since no one really knows anything about God, those who think they do are just troublemakers” Rabia Al-Basri

There's a position in the mud-slinging fest known as igtheism.

An ignostic (or igtheist) concludes that the question of God's existence or nonexistence is not worth discussing because the concept of God is not sufficiently clearly defined.

The concept of God IS, and thus HAS ALREADY, been sufficiently clearly defined.

These human beings are just NOT been made AWARE of the sufficient and clear definition, YET.

Of course, that's a stupid world-view.

The concept of sufficnency" is not sufficiently clearly defined.

But ONLY to YOU.

To 'us' the concept IS SUFFICE.

The concept of "clarity" is not sufficiently clearly defined.
The concept of "definition" is not sufficiently clearly defined.

Again this applies to 'you' ONLY "skepdick".

But most of all... the concepts of "Philosophy" is not sufficiently clearly defined and if that's grounds for rejecting it. I am all in.

But 'you' have ALREADY PROVEN that 'you' would WHOLEHEARTEDLY REJECT 'philosophy', itself, no matter how that word is being defined to you.

Also, because the TOE and GUT, which were being sort, have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, once and for ALL, the concepts of ALL words have been CLEARLY and SUFFICIENT DEFINED. These definitions have united EVERY thing into One IRREFUTABLE FACT, also known as the Knowledge of Everything.

You people here in this forum, when this was written, just have NOT been EXPOSED to this YET.

[Age]

We are at cross purposes. Consciousness i.e. experiences is the subject. Objects are what are experienced by subjects.

Objects are not experienced. There is a conscious awareness of an object, but consciousness can never experience itself as an object. As both consciousness and the contents of consciousness, aka appearances, aka conceptual objects known, are one and the same experience.
That which is known cannot know or experience anything...as the known implies a concept.

All you are ACTUALLY SAYING HERE is that a human being can NOT know itself, which is OBVIOUSLY just False, Wrong, and Incorrect in the HIGHEST DEGREE.

[Age]

consciousness can never experience itself as an object

In other words a person can never experience himself?

So: when I sit with a problem, mullin' it over, interrogatin' my own experiences, comparin' and contrastin', I'm not experiencin' myself?

When I'm havin' fun, and I pause to appreciate that I'm havin' fun, there's no experience of myself, by me?

Consciousness cannot self-reflect?

Mind cannot contemplate on itself?

One cannot look inward?

Excellent clarifying questions.

We AWAIT the answers.

[Age]

consciousness can never experience itself as an object

In other words a person can never experience himself?

So: when I sit with a problem, mullin' it over, interrogatin' my own experiences, comparin' and contrastin', I'm not experiencin' myself?

When I'm havin' fun, and I pause to appreciate that I'm havin' fun, there's no experience of myself, by me?

Consciousness cannot self-reflect?

Mind cannot contemplate on itself?

One cannot look inward?

Henry, you are Consciousness, and consciousness is not an object.

To some people the 'you' word refers to the human body, and, the human body is 'an object'.

To some people the 'you' word refers to 'thoughts' or 'thinking', and, thoughts and/or thinking is 'an object'.

Now, when 'you', "dontaskme", CLAIM that 'you' are Consciousness, then how MANY of these Consciousness's are there? And, if 'you' want to CLAIM that there is ONLY One, then since when has Consciousness, Itself, been known as "henry" and/or a 'you'?

Also, if Consciousness is NOT 'an object', then what IS Consciousness, Exactly?

And, what IS 'an object', to 'you', EXACTLY?

It can never be an object. Objects are not conscious, objects are concepts known by consciousness.

So, if to 'you' the human being object is NOT 'conscious', then what is it EXACTLY?

There is awareness or consciousness. This is our primal and essential experience.

Who and/or what does the 'our' word here refer to EXACTLY?

Awareness is the non-conceptual (and non-perceptual) presence or being that we intimately and directly know ourself to be.

If, as 'you' propose here, 'we' can KNOW, then this, by itself, means or at least implies that 'we' ARE ACTUALLY 'conscious'.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of thinking and imagining and seems, as a result, to become a mind.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of sensing and seems, as a result, to become a body.

It is this awareness that takes the shape of perceiving and seems, as a result, to become an object, other or world.

When this awareness is not taking the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving, it simply remains as it always is, as the non-objective experience of knowing its own being.

Just because 'you', "dontaskme', do NOT YET KNOW HOW to explain this ACCURATELY in and with words, then this does NOT mean that ALL-OF-THIS can be EXPLAINED, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY in and with words.

Also, if as 'you' CLAIM here that Awareness is ALWAYS KNOWING its OWN Being, then that infers as language evolves then Awareness will come to KNOW Thy Self in and through word, and thus when words are rearranged into the RIGHT ORDER then what will BE CLEARLY SEEN is that what Awareness/Consciousness/God ACTUALLY IS can be and will be SHARED, IN WORDS.

In other words, there is the experience of ‘awareness by itself’ and there is the experience of ‘awareness taking the shape of the body-mind-world’, that is, taking the shape of an object.

We could simplify this by saying that there is ‘awareness on its own’ and there is ‘awareness plus an apparent object’.




.

[Age]

There is no Consciousness.

This seems CONTRADICTORY to what you have previously claimed.

[Age]

Henry, you are Consciousness

No, I'm a person, a composite of flesh and spirit (or matter and information). I'm conscious and self-aware. I am not a personification of a some pre-existing consciousness (cuz there is no such thing).


When this awareness is not taking the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving, it simply remains as it always is, as the non-objective experience of knowing its own being.

No, there is no free-floating consciousness contemplatin' its navel.


In other words, there is the experience of ‘awareness by itself’

No.


We could simplify this by saying that there is ‘awareness on its own’ and there is ‘awareness plus an apparent object’.

Simplify it as you like: it's not true.

Persons exist: they are self-conscious.

Life exists: in one way or another all living things are conscious, individually.

There is no Consciousness.

Ok, if that's what is happening there for you, then so be it.

But it's not what is happening for this one here.

So, which one is True, Right, and Correct?

Or, do either of 'you' even KNOW how to work out and discover what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct?

[Age]

We are all accustomed to believe that everything is made of something.

I suggest NOT projecting your own PERCEIVED experiences onto "others", especially onto EVERY one.

Now, if 'you' were accustomed to believe that a unicorn is made of some thing, then what is that 'thing', which you BELIEVE unicorns are made of?

We are taught that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of atoms which are themselves made of even smaller components. This line of reasoning makes sense initially but, as seen below, it cannot be sustained.

The notion that matter is made of something quickly leads to an infinite regress. If something is made of other things, what are the other things made of?

The smallest particles of matter.

And so on, ad infinitum.
We are left with no choice other than to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing.

If 'you' WANT to accept that, then that is fine. But until you PROVIDE PROOF that 'matter', itself, is made of NOTHING/NO THING, then NOT ALL of 'us' will accept what 'you' personally BELIEVE is true.

Contrary to YOUR BELIEF 'we' do have OTHER choices.

But how can this be? How can something be made of nothing? What is the logic?

HOW 'nothing' ACTUALLY DOES cause or create 'matter' is CLEAR, but 'you' appear NOT YET READY for this EXPLANATION and LOGIC.

The best way to understand the logic behind an ex-nihilo universe is to use an analogy.

But an ex-nihilo Universe is NOT even a possibility, so WHY would one even want to begin to 'try to' UNDERSTAND some thing that is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE?

And, by the way, if ANY one suspects that I have CONTRADICTED "myself" here, or anywhere else for that matter, then I suggest ONCE AGAIN NOT JUMPING to ANY ASSUMPTION nor CONCLUSION.

Just as zero is the sum of all positive and negative numbers, nothing is the sum of everything positive and negative.

LOL

This is CLEAR EXAMPLE of STARTING with a CONCLUSION, which is ALREADY BELIEVED to be true, and then LOOKING FOR and "finding" absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that that will back up and support their OWN ALREADY GAINED BELIEFS.

This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of CONFIRMATION BIAS at work.

It sounds absurd but nothing is, in reality, everything.

If nothing is everything, then what are things that are NOT nothing, like physical matter?

This means that all properties/things must come in complementary/opposite pairs so as to sum up to nothing.

You are on the RIGHT TRACK, but you have just been CROSSING PATHS and GETTING LOST because you are 'trying to' "find" ANY thing that will back up and support your ALREADY GAINED BELIEF, which is just an Assumption of yours that is based solely on your own Past Experiences. This type of thinking only leads you ASTRAY.

It follows that any imbalance (a non-zero sum) must be corrected so as to conserve nothing.

WHY do 'you' HAVE TO conserve 'nothing'?

Is this BECAUSE 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE 'nothing IS everything'?

Nothing ALREADY exists, and ALWAYS does exist, and thus does NOT 'need' to be 'conserved', at all by 'you', human beings.

Change/motion is thus nature's way of correcting a violation of the mother of all conservation principles, the conservation of nothing.

Sounds like 'you' are 'trying' so hard here to "find", change, and use, things, which you HOPE will back up and support your current BELIEF.

This law is applied universally, i.e., non-locally. The universe is one, as its name implies.

At least you got one part right here.