Philosophy Now Forum

sthitapragya wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:The problem for Walker is that he also understands the concept of neti neti. So he knows that whatever concept of God he might conjure up, that is not God. He obviously has an opinion or concept of God in his mind, but he knows that that is not God because neti neti. Hehehe he. It is hilarious in a way, because his God is not God and will never be God. Ever. Ever. Ever. Because neti neti.

It ought to be a burden carrying around all that neti neti, but I also suppose you have to recognise the burden. But as god is not what he thinks it is, then the concept of god must be very light, and only covers his eyes like a cloud.

Sometimes I think of publishing a book called "religion for dummies". A 5000 page book with a very elaborate cover but complete blank inside. Not a single word on any page. I think that would be a perfect book.

You could also market the same thing and call it "The truth of Religion".

Nick_A wrote:sthit wrote:

Not really. I have accepted that I am a loser good for nothing who presents himself very well. I have almost no ego. But I really do believe from the bottom of my heart that religion is the single biggest threat to the human race. It divides, and makes us weak.

This is where you make your biggest mistake. Blind belief isn't the cause of division and weakness, it is a symptom of what we ARE..

No, no, no. This is what YOU are. You are the problem and the courage to abandon your belief if the solution.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Walker did not understand what he put up

I didn't think so either.

Little piggies want all the understanding for themselves. Most selfish.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Sometimes I think of publishing a book called "religion for dummies". A 5000 page book with a very elaborate cover but complete blank inside. Not a single word on any page. I think that would be a perfect book.

You could also market the same thing and call it "The truth of Religion".

YES! That's the title I was thinking of too! Geez... H.C... you're freaking me out with these incidences where we are agreeing!

The book is a great idea, sthitapragya. I would buy multiple copies (for my friends too) with that revised title. There, you have your first order! That's more than Bob has.

Walker wrote:Little piggies want all the understanding for themselves. Most selfish.

You're really weird and creepy.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:Little piggies want all the understanding for themselves. Most selfish.

You're really weird and creepy.

Don't be a hater

Be a participator

You gots the moves to harsh my cool

Thinking everyones a fool

As you are some were

As some are you will be

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Sometimes I think of publishing a book called "religion for dummies". A 5000 page book with a very elaborate cover but complete blank inside. Not a single word on any page. I think that would be a perfect book.

You could also market the same thing and call it "The truth of Religion".

YES! That's the title I was thinking of too! Geez... H.C... you're freaking me out with these incidences where we are agreeing!

The book is a great idea, sthitapragya. I would buy multiple copies (for my friends too) with that revised title. There, you have your first order! That's more than Bob has.

I'd buy a copy of both. That's exactly the sort of quirky note book I'd love to have. Other examples from my less PC childhood; Italian Book of War Heroes; Irish book of Wisdom; Guide to the American Monarchy; BoB Evensons complete list of Followers.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Other examples from my less PC childhood; Italian Book of War Heroes; Irish book of Wisdom; Guide to the American Monarchy; BoB Evensons complete list of Followers.

Walker wrote:Don't be a hater

I don't hate you. I just don't find enough value in anything you say to wade through your psychotic ramblings.

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Walker did understand what he posted. It is surprising how so few can even appreciate theoretically how blind denial by definition is a denial of truth. Blind denial is emotional denial. It can become a person's god. With such a god that offers so much self justification, who needs another; who needs to experience the truth and the hypocrisy of the human condition.

It does seem that a sensible person would admit that it is silly to either blindly believe or blindly deny the unknown. All we can do is experience and admit what we need. If a person needs food or water but don't know where to find it, they look for it. Seems simple enough. If a person needs the heart felt experience of meaning, of satori or gnosis, they make the efforts to open to the experience. Simple enough but not for our species which for some reason is called intelligent.

Lacewing wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Other examples from my less PC childhood; Italian Book of War Heroes; Irish book of Wisdom; Guide to the American Monarchy; BoB Evensons complete list of Followers.

Walker wrote:Don't be a hater

I don't hate you. I just don't find enough value in anything you say to wade through your psychotic ramblings.

Is that what that is. I thought it was just fun.

Just one more of what bugs you …

Should one with capacity
Be as thee wants to see
Or be as he wants to see
What does Gandhi
Say about see
and for that matter sea change.

Okay, that’s enough fun. Trudgin on. Make way, clear out, here comes the philosophy.

Nick_A wrote:

“Belief is a denial of truth, belief hinders truth; to believe in God is not to find God. Neither the believer nor the non-believer will find God; because reality is the unknown, and your belief or non-belief in the unknown is merely a self-projection and therefore not real.”
- J. Krishnamurti

Walker did understand what he posted. It is surprising how so few can even appreciate theoretically how blind denial by definition is a denial of truth. Blind denial is emotional denial. It can become a person's god. With such a god that offers so much self justification, who needs another; who needs to experience the truth and the hypocrisy of the human condition.

God almighty!!
You are just so blind.
You believe in god; you are in denial of truth. Case closed.
Jog on!

Hobbes wrote:

God almighty!!
You are just so blind.
You believe in god; you are in denial of truth. Case closed.
Jog on!

Actually it should read

The Great Beast almighty says
You are so blind
You believe in me; you are in denial of truth.
You are mine. Case closed

What is this Great Beast you ask?

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:

The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.

Hobbes, you belong to the Great Beast. You are owned by that for an atheist must be the greatest collective. You will worship the Great Beast by believing in it as your greatest good, obeying its laws, and paying its bills. The Great Beast provides your meaning and purpose. The work of contemplation is no longer necessary for you. Now you are free to play with your remote.

Nick_A wrote:
It does seem that a sensible person would admit that it is silly to either blindly believe or blindly deny the unknown.

Yes, my friend it would be silly to blindly deny the unknown. I accept that. But it would also be silly to blindly name the unknown "GOD". It is UNKNOWN!!! You cannot give it any name other than unknown.

The problem here is your refusal to accept the unknown as the unknown. You want to call it God. You also want us to accept that the unknown is God. We simply stick to our commitment of calling the unknown the unknown. That is probably why it is called the unknown. If it were God, it would be known and not the unknown. Get it? I hope you do. It is quite simple.

Another thing for you to address. If your "higher self" sees and knows the unknown, then it is not the unknown anymore. It is known. So you have not seen the unknown. You never will.

Nick_A wrote:Hobbes wrote:

God almighty!!
You are just so blind.
You believe in god; you are in denial of truth. Case closed.
Jog on!

Actually it should read

The Great Beast almighty says
You are so blind
You believe in me; you are in denial of truth.
You are mine. Case closed

What is this Great Beast you ask?

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:

The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.

Hobbes, you belong to the Great Beast. You are owned by that for an atheist must be the greatest collective. You will worship the Great Beast by believing in it as your greatest good, obeying its laws, and paying its bills. The Great Beast provides your meaning and purpose. The work of contemplation is no longer necessary for you. Now you are free to play with your remote.

I suspect he belongs to Lucifer.

I know his thinking is mostly fallacy and sophistry.

That's why there is an ignore list. And it works like a charm.

Nick_A wrote:
Hobbes, you belong to the Great Beast. You are owned by that for an atheist must be the greatest collective. You will worship the Great Beast by believing in it as your greatest good, obeying its laws, and paying its bills. The Great Beast provides your meaning and purpose. The work of contemplation is no longer necessary for you. Now you are free to play with your remote.

If you can't sustain an argument, accuse your interlocutor of being evil.

For those that thing an ad hominem is just an insult, please take note THIS is the perfect ad hominem. Obviously since Hobbes is the spawn of the devil, his argument in invalid.

Not only does this clown believe in god, he also believes in the Devil.

Don't forget Nicky-Boy, "belief is a denial of truth". Chew it over some time.