Philosophy Now Forum

Belief enables continuation of life and species.

The proof has been given.

Rationally disprove, the proof.

Anything else is impotence.

How do you like them apples?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:03 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:46 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:31 pm

Then you need to work on your writing skills.

Hey Veg, will you ever take me on in a debate about God\'God'?
I've been keeping away from the 'philosophy of religion' area until recently, sometimes, atheists irk me a tad, and this is where their militant forms try and hammer home their ill conceived notions of such an entity.

As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Due you consider me impossible to reason with?

Well you aren't like the usual bog-standard theist (eg Nick-A). I think of you more as an atheist with a partial brain malfunction (rather than a full malfunction in the case of Nick and his kind).

Oh, you are so kind. An atheist - lol. Brain malfunction? I have yet to lose an argument regarding my comprehension of this 3rd party entity on this forum...sure most of the time nobody 'won'.
I find you rational, but I wonder, when\if it came to a serious debate about 'God' whether you would put any bias aside, few do. uwot, Timeseeker, Arising_UK are a few of the atheists that I can debate with where they, generally, debate rationally without bias.

Apparently there is a pear hater above that wants to talk about apples.

My, how impotent.

Some debater.

Later, gator.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:03 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:46 pm

Hey Veg, will you ever take me on in a debate about God\'God'?
I've been keeping away from the 'philosophy of religion' area until recently, sometimes, atheists irk me a tad, and this is where their militant forms try and hammer home their ill conceived notions of such an entity.

As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

Due you consider me impossible to reason with?

Well you aren't like the usual bog-standard theist (eg Nick-A). I think of you more as an atheist with a partial brain malfunction (rather than a full malfunction in the case of Nick and his kind).

Oh, you are so kind. An atheist - lol. Brain malfunction? I have yet to lose an argument regarding my comprehension of this 3rd party entity on this forum...sure most of the time nobody 'won'.
I find you rational, but I wonder, when\if it came to a serious debate about 'God' whether you would put any bias aside, few do. uwot, Timeseeker, Arising_UK are a few of the atheists that I can debate with where they, generally, debate rationally without bias.

Apparently there is a pear hater above that wants to talk about apples.

'Argue' about what? How do you define 'atheist'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 am Rather God has to be co-dependent with human conditions, thus the basis of psychology.

What do you mean when you say 'psychology'?

Also, what is the basis of psychology?
That 'human conditions' are the basis of psychology?
That 'God has to be co-dependent with human conditions' is the basis of psychology?
Or, some thing else is the basis of psychology?

Also, I thought you were arguing before that 'God is an impossibility', but now you appear to be saying that 'God is a belief' and the basis of psychology, or some thing along those lines. You are a bit hard to follow some times.

Do 'beliefs' exist to you?
Does God exist to you?

You were arguing before that beliefs MUST exist, because human beings can not live without beliefs, but now you appear to be saying that God is a belief, and therefore, if this is now the case, then God MUST also exist, have I got you correct, this time?

If I have not got you right this time, then could you please just say what it is that you are trying to say, and "argue" for?

You are very stupid on this;

• Beliefs must exists.
  God is a belief
  God must exist.

Yes, DNA wise ALL humans [not you*] essentially must have beliefs.
[*since you're not human, you're a beast probably]

Fact is beliefs come in a range from unjustified to justified true beliefs.
God exists is an unjustified belief, same as the schizophrenic who believed gnomes exist because he converse with them in his garden.

I am not wasting my time on the rest of your points which are full of ignorance where I have to fill in the knowledge gap for you.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:37 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:03 pm
Well you aren't like the usual bog-standard theist (eg Nick-A). I think of you more as an atheist with a partial brain malfunction (rather than a full malfunction in the case of Nick and his kind).

Oh, you are so kind. An atheist - lol. Brain malfunction? I have yet to lose an argument regarding my comprehension of this 3rd party entity on this forum...sure most of the time nobody 'won'.
I find you rational, but I wonder, when\if it came to a serious debate about 'God' whether you would put any bias aside, few do. uwot, Timeseeker, Arising_UK are a few of the atheists that I can debate with where they, generally, debate rationally without bias.

Apparently there is a pear hater above that wants to talk about apples.

'Argue' about what? How do you define 'atheist'?

Well, you called me an 'atheist', so how about you get the ball rolling on that one.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:14 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:37 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:10 pm

Oh, you are so kind. An atheist - lol. Brain malfunction? I have yet to lose an argument regarding my comprehension of this 3rd party entity on this forum...sure most of the time nobody 'won'.
I find you rational, but I wonder, when\if it came to a serious debate about 'God' whether you would put any bias aside, few do. uwot, Timeseeker, Arising_UK are a few of the atheists that I can debate with where they, generally, debate rationally without bias.

Apparently there is a pear hater above that wants to talk about apples.

'Argue' about what? How do you define 'atheist'?

Well, you called me an 'atheist', so how about you get the ball rolling on that one.

The word is meaningless anyway, because apparently God has evolved to suit whatever anyone wants him to be.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:59 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:14 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:37 pm

'Argue' about what? How do you define 'atheist'?

Well, you called me an 'atheist', so how about you get the ball rolling on that one.

The word is meaningless anyway, because apparently God has evolved to suit whatever anyone wants him to be.

him? (case in point)

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:46 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:59 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:14 am

Well, you called me an 'atheist', so how about you get the ball rolling on that one.

The word is meaningless anyway, because apparently God has evolved to suit whatever anyone wants him to be.

him? (case in point)

This is the patheticness of the religious. Yes, he's a him. It says so in the babble. People think they are being terribly enlightened and wise, by saying 'she', or 'it' or whatever, but God is what people who say they believe in God are 'believing in', and 'atheists' are the ones who don't believe in HIM. The religious are such hard work --for all the wrong reasons. Oh, but they 'aren't religious' (I don't know how many times I've heard THAT one).
You really don't HAVE to believe in anything, you know. Your head won't explode.
If, as you keep saying, God is anything you want him to be, then there's no further discussion needed. Apparently God doesn't even have to be a god any more, so we're all atheists then..or not..

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:58 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:46 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:59 am

The word is meaningless anyway, because apparently God has evolved to suit whatever anyone wants him to be.

him? (case in point)

This is the patheticness of the religious. Yes, he's a him. It says so in the babble. People think they are being terribly enlightened and wise, by saying 'she', or 'it' or whatever, but God is what people who say they believe in God are 'believing in', and 'atheists' are the ones who don't believe in HIM. The religious are such hard work --for all the wrong reasons. Oh, but they 'aren't religious' (I don't know how many times I've heard THAT one).
You really don't HAVE to believe in anything, you know. Your head won't explode.
If, as you keep saying, God is anything you want him to be, then there's no further discussion needed. Apparently God doesn't even have to be a god any more, so we're all atheists then..or not..

Let me ask you a question re two things within the buy bull. What is the Tree of Life and What is the Tree of Knowledge?

..and I already know you are likely to give me a dismissive answer..(if any)

I'll just say, it's when you eat from both trees, and continue to nurture your needs from the tree of know-ledge that 'God' places you into dire karmic circumstances, sometimes lasting for months.

um

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:49 am

So you have a belief in no belief in non-god belief then?

No.

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

Then you need to work on your writing skills.

Totally agree. And, especially if that is what you grasped from my writings.

You must have missed my posts when I have continually pointed out that I WANT and NEED to learn how to communicate better. And, that the very reason that I am here, in this forum, writing, is to learn how to communicate better, through writing.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:46 pm
As an addition your statement:- Indeed. Belief in gods is irrational because the whole concept is a contradiction in terms. No wonder they are so screwed up and impossible to reason with.

The lungs breathe. The stomach digests. The kidneys filter. The mind believes. So what?

After you prove, with evidence, what the 'Mind' IS, and then show that the mind can believe, then your "So what", might stand here. But until then, there are some things that need to be discovered first.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmWell, U.G. Krishnamurti tells us that without belief, the human will die.

'I' have already posed the question, to another human being who tells the same thing but with NO reply: At what stage through evolution did the human being start to NOT be able to live without beliefs?

Maybe you can answer that question for me?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmHe specifies this will not be a metaphorical death.

You speak as though this "he" [named krishnamurti] KNOWS all and/or the absolute truth of things. Does "he"?

It will be the physical death of the body.
With a total loss of belief, the body will die.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmNow, that's something to think about.

I thought about it.

That is just some thing that that person BELIEVED is true, and now, followers of "him", and some "others", BELIEVE the exact same thing as absolutely True, Right, and/or Correct.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmNo breathing or no digesting or no filtering or no believing = no living.

So, are you suggesting that ALL human babies are born believing also?

If you are, then what do they believe?

And, how far into pregnancy did ALL human beings start believing?

And, what do ALL human beings first start believing?

For the purposes of analysis, assuming that his premise is true, then correlations in phenomena must be found for verification.[/quote]

Why would any one ASSUME that that premise is true?

By just looking at what IS, instead, the Actual and Real Truth can be and IS already found.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmHere’s one:
Often, long-time spouses soon follow one another into mahāsamādhi (or death depending on the perspective).

If you think that VERIFIES, what you are ASSUMING is true, then this is just another example of BELIEFS and how much, distorted, power they can have over human beings.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmIn light of U.G. Krishnamurti’s knowing, this would mean that the official cause of death, for a spouse that soon follows another into death, when the death is said to be caused by natural causes, is actually caused by loss of all belief.

Another example of how the brain is influenced by the BELIEF-system to only see THAT what confirms an already held biased view, or BELIEF.

The "death" could have just been the result of no more will to live any longer. Or,
The "death" could have just been the result of loss of a loved one and of just not wanting to be, or live, "alone". This could just be to much to bear, thus feeling like there is no real reason to live anymore. This is a FEELING, and NOT a belief. Or,
The "death" could have just been the result of natural causes. (I think the doctors who inspected each and every case (or body) would be in bit of a better position to say what actually caused the "death" of that body, than some other person who has NEVER even looked at nor even seen the body has.) Or,
The "death" could have just been the result of some other reason, yet discussed here.

So, I do NOT think that krishnamurti's knowing does MEAN what you are proposing here. Some spouse's that soon follow their spouses into "death" might just be for some other reason than what krishnamurti THINKS "he" knows. The bodies of some spouses, for example, might have just stopped pumping blood, which is, after all, just a natural cause for no breathing, no digesting, no filtering, and no believing, soon following (whatever "soon" means here) their spouse's "death" because they just had a heart attack. I think it will be found that heart attacks are NOT caused because one stops believing, but for some other reasons/s. For all we know a spouse's heart attack might have been caused/helped on by the shock of losing a loved one, "so soon" or "so suddenly", or for some other reason like a relatively very long period of an unhealthy diet for example, or for some other reason. Just maybe A BELIEF like; The "other" has "died" SO SOON, or, SO SUDDENLY was what caused a major shock, which triggered the heart attack, which caused the death of the spouse, soon following the "death" of the first one?

If this last example IS possible, then it could actually be a BELIEF that has caused the "death" of a human being. Contrary to popular BELIEF it turns out that BELIEFS can trigger a serious of actions, which in turn kill humans, and NOT the other way around.

Just some thing else to think about and muse over.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmIt would also mean that death of belief results in death of the body and the world, which is in you.

That does NOT necessarily mean that at all.

The "death" of a belief does NOT necessarily result in the "death" of the body.

Granted, a perception of the "world", which is within 'you', the one who has a belief, would die or change, with the death or the changing of a belief. But that in no way MEAN that the body will "die". This has obviously already been proven by the continual dying off or passing on of beliefs as the body ages.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmThis also makes sense because as many know who reach the point when simply facing another day is an effort that requires some kind of motivation, that if examined closely, the omph to move is rooted in some kind of belief.

Is it for ALL?

Some lose that "omph" because they have lost all and/or any PURPOSE.
Some lose that "omph" because they have lost all and/or any HOPE.

There are OTHER reasons for lack of motivation other than just belief.

Some would be thinking 'depression' might cause a lack of motivation.

By the way, what 'belief' do you propose is rooted in the omph to move?

I can see a few beliefs rooted in and cause any oomph to move. For example, a BELIEF that there is NO reason to live anymore, a BELIEF that there is NO hope to live anymore, and/or, a BELIEF that there is NO purpose to live anymore. I can SEE HOW these BELIEFS can very easily cause some people to think about, and consider, "death" and "dying".

Just maybe here are some MORE examples of how with BELIEFS, the human WILL die.

Just more to think about regarding just how strong the BELIEF-system really IS.

The trouble with SEEING the Truth of things, like this, IS if you, human beings, even just considered that without BELIEF that you could keep living, then that would MEAN the death of the BELIEF-system, itself, which would, obviously, be the very last thing that it, itself, wants you, the human being, to SEE and UNDERSTAND. The BELIEF-system IS held up within the human brain, which is more or less what 'you' are, and the BELIEF-system TRIES its very hardest to only let you SEE, discover, learn and understand, what it wants you to SEE, discover, learn and understand.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmScience will someday acknowledge the worship gene, which causes belief, which enables continuation of life and the species. Acknowledging dark matter is just the first step in this recognition.

What has already been discovered, and WILL BE revealed, soon enough, then proven as absolutely True, Right, and Correct, is NOT at all what you are suggesting here.

In fact 'dark matter' has already been discovered, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD, and thus IS already KNOWN, let alone needed to be acknowledged.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 pmIt would also help to invent another word for worship.
Folks balk* at that word.


*All rational faculties shut down.

How do you define 'worship'?

And, what invented word, for that definition, do you propose will help folks from having all rational faculties from shutting down?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:56 am Rather God has to be co-dependent with human conditions, thus the basis of psychology.

What do you mean when you say 'psychology'?

Also, what is the basis of psychology?
That 'human conditions' are the basis of psychology?
That 'God has to be co-dependent with human conditions' is the basis of psychology?
Or, some thing else is the basis of psychology?

Also, I thought you were arguing before that 'God is an impossibility', but now you appear to be saying that 'God is a belief' and the basis of psychology, or some thing along those lines. You are a bit hard to follow some times.

Do 'beliefs' exist to you?
Does God exist to you?

You were arguing before that beliefs MUST exist, because human beings can not live without beliefs, but now you appear to be saying that God is a belief, and therefore, if this is now the case, then God MUST also exist, have I got you correct, this time?

If I have not got you right this time, then could you please just say what it is that you are trying to say, and "argue" for?

You are very stupid on this;

I KNOW, to you, I am very stupid on "this", and just about on every other thing I write as well. You keep telling me that I am stupid.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 am

• Beliefs must exists.
  God is a belief
  God must exist.

Lol

Also;
Beliefs must exist.
There is NO God is a belief.
NO God must exist.

Also;
Lol

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amYes, DNA wise ALL humans [not you*] essentially must have beliefs.
[*since you're not human, you're a beast probably]

Or, some thing else, maybe?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amFact is beliefs come in a range from unjustified to justified true beliefs.

Agreed. There is NOTHING to dispute here.

But just because the fact is that some of you, human beings, BELIEVE some things, does NOT mean that 'beliefs MUST exist'.

I have already asked you a couple of times, in two examples, to clarify WHERE and WHEN these so called "MUST exit beliefs" are in those examples, but your continual refusal to answer these clarifying questions SHOWS what the actual TRUTH IS here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amGod exists is an unjustified belief, same as the schizophrenic who believed gnomes exist because he converse with them in his garden.

Some could also TRY TO say;

God does NOT exist is an unjustified belief, same as the schizophrenic who BELIEVED gnomes exist because "he" converse with them in his garden. But to TRY TO say such a thing would be just as STUPID as what you are TRYING TO say here. For the very reasons I have already given. That is;

None of you, human beings, over countless of centuries have yet to provide just one agreed upon definition of what this God thing could POSSIBLY be, which would PROVE once and for all if It really existed or not.

I have already hinted that IF, and WHEN, the definition is agreed upon, then the ANSWER will become KNOWN. Surely you would have already been able to READ THAT in my writings?

There is absolutely NO use, at all, in even TRYING TO "argue" for some thing as existing or not, if you do NOT even know what 'It' is, that it is supposed to be in the first place.

To discover and KNOW if God exists or not, is to just LOOK AT this as a puzzle, or a riddle, and NOT LOOK AT it as though it is an either/or issue.

Instead of TRYING TO "argue" for a BELIEF one has, and rather just SEE 'this' as a puzzle to solve, then the True and Right ANSWER comes much more quickly. Obviously, the way you, human beings, have been LOOKING AT THIS over millennia has NOT worked, so WHY NOT just do some thing a bit differently?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amI KNOW, this is WHAT you say.

What do you THINK, I say.

Nothing that you have written so far indicates that you actually KNOW, WHAT it is that I actually do say.

My, already, written down words is actual prove of this, and this IS, already, obvious to any READER who IS actually following My written words.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amBut, remember, you have NOT provided nor shown ANY evidence whatsoever to prove any of this.

To prove WHAT?

WHAT you THINK, I say.

WHEN, and IF, you provide, in clear concise language what you THINK, I say, then we, readers, can SEE, by just going back through my writings IF I have show ANY evidence to prove any or ALL of "this". Whatever "this" IS?

How about you say what you THINK, I say.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 amI am not wasting my time on the rest of your points which are full of ignorance where I have to fill in the knowledge gap for you.

Yes I KNOW, to you, that I am ignorant. You have told us this many times also.

But lucky 'I', the reader, has you, veritas, to fill in ALL of the "knowledge gaps", for ALL of us witnessing this.

Without people like you, and especially the words that you use, their would be some gaps in 'KNOWLEDGE' that i would NOT have seen, thus nor been able to fill.

You, veritas, are providing the very words that are needed to prove what I SAY. Your responses are SHOWING what I have been SAYING all along.