Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:let us pause a moment in silence,
before customarily reacting in defense.

This sounds familiar?

sthitapragya wrote:

Walker wrote:All you atheists. Listen up.

All is not lost.

Neti-neti is also a philosophy of negation.

But unlike atheism which turns outward and relies on theists for existence, neti-neti looks inward and relies on awareness for existence.

Simply tuuurrrn that ship around to find ineffable, that is, if you're sincere. Lots of inertia, The Titanic in a full teacup.



There's other ways at other capacities.

See what I mean? Been there, done that. When I first read the whole net neti (I still believe Shankaracharya is the greatest writer ever), it blew my mind too. But again, you just will have to grow out of it.

Also, neti neti tells you to look both inward and outward to find God, not only inward. When you deny everything inside and out, then you will understand God. At least that is the concept. Basically tells you that when you are left with nothing, that which is left is God. More obfuscation for the already bewildered.

Yes yes. Shankaracharya also discovered it, and you gained a bit of conceptual knowledge by reading Shankaracharya. Congratulations Full Cup.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:let us pause a moment in silence,
before customarily reacting in defense.

This sounds familiar?

You just can't do it, can you?

Total reactionary. It has infected all of your thought processes.

Walker wrote: You just can't do it, can you?

Sorry, I meant you sound familiar, been here before?

Nor really sure what you're asking me to do?

Total reactionary. It has infected all of your thought processes.

Depends what we're chatting about. As like I said the theist 'God' is not involved in my thinking.

Walker wrote: Duh. Look at the title of the thread. You don't have the say.

I think you need to understand the function of the word "really" in the context of the thread title, as you seem to have missed the point again.

The implication so that no one is an atheist. The thread, for that reason, has progressed nowhere.

Walker wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Walker wrote:All you atheists. Listen up.

All is not lost.

Neti-neti is also a philosophy of negation.

But unlike atheism which turns outward and relies on theists for existence, neti-neti looks inward and relies on awareness for existence.

Simply tuuurrrn that ship around to find ineffable, that is, if you're sincere. Lots of inertia, The Titanic in a full teacup.



There's other ways at other capacities.

See what I mean? Been there, done that. When I first read the whole net neti (I still believe Shankaracharya is the greatest writer ever), it blew my mind too. But again, you just will have to grow out of it.

Also, neti neti tells you to look both inward and outward to find God, not only inward. When you deny everything inside and out, then you will understand God. At least that is the concept. Basically tells you that when you are left with nothing, that which is left is God. More obfuscation for the already bewildered.

Yes yes. Shankaracharya also discovered it, and you gained a bit of conceptual knowledge by reading Shankaracharya. Congratulations Full Cup.

Nope. Just telling you that everything you think you know and atheists don't, we already know. We grew out of it. You still need to know more. Only then will you be able to rid yourselves of your grown up's Santa Clause. Till you need the crutches, you will remained tied to Santa.

Walker wrote:Atheists are destroyers...

Of what? I can't speak for all atheists, but my own atheism is simply that I do not believe in any god. On the contrary, it is theism that destroys. The point I sometimes make is that any metaphysical model could be true; it is theism that says only one of them is, thereby destroying curiosity and research.
Here's a little story I sometimes tell. We don't know what the universe is made of, what the material that fundamental particles are made of is. It appears to have started out very tiny, and is now very big. Whatever it is, we know that it can form stars and planets, that it can come to life and become conscious. Any one of those facts is indistinguishable from a miracle, and we know all this, because we are made of the same stuff. Because of that, we are subject to the same terms and conditions as everything else. The brain is, in part at least, an electromechanical mechanism; so like all such mechanisms, it radiates energy, not much, but enough to make various brain scanners effective. Individual experiences can be identified with particular events in the brain, but the whole which is consciousness cannot. It's a mystery that science is trying to unravel. To use an analogy, one of the many possibilities is that the brain is like a light bulb, and consciousness is like the light. If that is so, then when the bulb breaks, the light it created, continues; much as there are stars we can see that blew up years ago. If it pleases you, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says you cannot equate that 'light' with your soul, and that such a soul will be part of 'heaven' for eternity, or several trillion years, which is near enough. That is the sort of option that theism destroys; it may be true, but I don't believe it any more than I believe in god.

sthitapragya wrote: Nope. Just telling you that everything you think you know and atheists don't, we already know. We grew out of it. You still need to know more. Only then will you be able to rid yourselves of your grown up's Santa Clause. Till you need the crutches, you will remained tied to Santa.

Quite often those wearing the been-there-done-that-T-shirt (sometimes over their reactionary Che shirt) start calling folks their son when there is no actual blood relation, at least not since Noah got to know Mrs. Noah, if you kinda knowa that story. Got that label up your sleeve, wise one?

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote: You just can't do it, can you?

Sorry, I meant you sound familiar, been here before?

Nor really sure what you're asking me to do?

Total reactionary. It has infected all of your thought processes.

Depends what we're chatting about. As like I said the theist 'God' is not involved in my thinking.

Well bless your heart. An innocent visitor falls to earth and knows nothing.

Very true. Specifics of theism destroy all other alternatives.

uwot wrote:

Walker wrote:Atheists are destroyers...

Of what? I can't speak for all atheists, but my own atheism is simply that I do not believe in any god. On the contrary, it is theism that destroys. The point I sometimes make is that any metaphysical model could be true; it is theism that says only one of them is, thereby destroying curiosity and research.
Here's a little story I sometimes tell. We don't know what the universe is made of, what the material that fundamental particles are made of is. It appears to have started out very tiny, and is now very big. Whatever it is, we know that it can form stars and planets, that it can come to life and become conscious. Any one of those facts is indistinguishable from a miracle, and we know all this, because we are made of the same stuff. Because of that, we are subject to the same terms and conditions as everything else. The brain is, in part at least, an electromechanical mechanism; so like all such mechanisms, it radiates energy, not much, but enough to make various brain scanners effective. Individual experiences can be identified with particular events in the brain, but the whole which is consciousness cannot. It's a mystery that science is trying to unravel. To use an analogy, one of the many possibilities is that the brain is like a light bulb, and consciousness is like the light. If that is so, then when the bulb breaks, the light it created, continues; much as there are stars we can see that blew up years ago. If it pleases you, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says you cannot equate that 'light' with your soul, and that such a soul will be part of 'heaven' for eternity, or several trillion years, which is near enough. That is the sort of option that theism destroys; it may be true, but I don't believe it any more than I believe in god.

Finally, someone treating the topic and our time with the intelligence both deserve.

The quote speaks of intent and I'll just leave it at that, to give your transmission the silence and time that it deserves.

uwot wrote: Of what? I can't speak for all atheists, but my own atheism is simply that I do not believe in any god. On the contrary, it is theism that destroys. The point I sometimes make is that any metaphysical model could be true; it is theism that says only one of them is, thereby destroying curiosity and research.

As I've said, the young are inflicted with the negativity of both blind believers and blind deniers. But they have an emotional need as opposed to simple curiousity for "meaning." You cannot scientifically research experiential meaning. You have to experience it and to do so a person must avoid the temptations of either blind belief or blind denial which interpret rather than experience.

You can tell an eight year old boy about orgasms and explain scientifically what they are but it is all meaningless until he has one. Metanoia or the change of inner direction towards the light is the same thing. Until a person experiences it and what it invites, the struggle between blind belief and blind denial will interpret it into oblivion for themselves and others they draw into this meaningless battle.

Atheism is a belief system based on weighing the evidence as presented to our senses. Religion is a belief system based on accepting that which is contrary to our senses.

... and others they draw into this meaningless battle.

And yet your light appears to involve doing just such?

Walker wrote: I'm simply witnessing the ongoing manifestation of atheism. ...

Likewise we the sadu gnu.