Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732339 -

That was a very small part of a parable and a parable is;
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.

So I don't know if was intended to be taken literal.

I think the lesson was to treat others as if they are a king. Which if everyone did that, there would be much less suffering.

It is also denoting the path of righteousness in a universal sense.

Edited by teknix (10/23/17 06:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732364 -

Quote:
He could, but he could also hate them or be indifferent to them and only care about the prophet they provide him. So as usual, you respond with a non sequitur. I never denied the fact that the farmer COULD love his chickens. My point was the fact that he feeds and houses them is not evidence that he does.


I merely posited there's no need for the farmer to unconditionally love his chickens for them to have good well being.

Quote:
This statement implies there is a difference between you and the structure of your atoms. How do you know the structure of your atoms knows that?


No it doesn't, and I know this because it's what my structure of atoms knows.

Quote:
Once again, you imply a difference. The very words "my" mind, suggests you are the knowing principle that is aware you have a mind.


Again, my suggestion isn't implying a difference and I think you've missed the point here.

Quote:
My point was, we don't know whether he would agree with you or not. I personally don't think he would agree with you because in my opinion, he saw more deeply into the nature of reality and was far more logically consistent than you are.


Not initially of course, but the point was that over time while being exposed to modern understandings his own understanding would likely develop to something more fitting for our times.


Quote:
No longer in that body but in other bodies, yes. I'm suggesting the knowing element is not particular to that body. All bodies share and make use of the same knowing element.
-
It's the observer


'I'm suggesting the observer is not particular to that body. All bodies share and make use of the same observer.'

You're free as you are my friend.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732373 -

Sudly, if you don't believe in a god, why try to turn the nature of the universe into a god to believe in a god?

All that is really being done by you is a personification of the universe.

Is that what you think Spinoza was doing?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732412 -

We're a part of this universe but that doesn't mean we are the universe, that should be elementary, I mean you're not a Sun but you have elements of a Sun within you, quite literally.

Quote:
Can you post the quote with some context, that quote by itself doesn't say love me or burn eternally.



I wouldn't take the bible literally either, interpret it how you want these are all disgusting parables to me. 

Quote:
Mark 9:43, If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Jude 1:7, In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to the sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Mathew 25:41, Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 19:29, But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

2 Peter 2:4, For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgement.

Mathew 10:28, Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 20:14, Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.


I believe god is Nature and I'm not sure what Spinoza was doing but I do think that there is value to the attempt to personify our surrounding experiences.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732423 -

When you take things out of context you are missing the moral implication. Perhaps they used such harsh words to illustrate the gravity of the situation. Perhaps it some cases it was fear mongering, to demand it of the people rather than suggest it.

It does have a bias for those who follow the scripture versus those who don't. But that bias is put on god, rather than the followers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24732433 -

I really don't see the point in turning nature into a god as far as atheism is concerned, It kinda defeats the purpose of atheism doesn't it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24732618 -

'When you take things out of context', okay, but to me their context seems pretty hellish.

I think it adapts the two, my view is one of coherence between western and eastern views that doesn't leave god apart from us.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732745 -

You guys ever wonder if the these gods you are arguing about are creations of man designed to give you something to wrestle with? Something to cling to? Something that said "man" can sell to you?

The world is a lot more complicated than most people realize. And we are living in a time full of illusion. Often the truth is so illusion shattering that most people will choose to ignore the truth when they hear it.


--------------------
There are three distinct realities occurring simultaneously.

The first involves a single point or object.
The second involves that point/object's relationship with other points/objects.
The third involves their relationships in motion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732753 -

Quote:
I merely posited there's no need for the farmer to unconditionally love his chickens for them to have good well being.


But I never contended that it was. It seems like you make irrelevant statements or change the subject to appear  as though you have answered my points when you have not. If it not your attention to answer my points and you just want to chat, make that more clear.

Quote:
No it doesn't, and I know this because it's what my structure of atoms knows.


How do you know what your structure of atoms knows? My tv has a structure of atoms. Should I assume it knows it's a tv?

Quote:
Not initially of course, but the point was that over time while being exposed to modern understandings his own understanding would likely develop to something more fitting for our times.


More fitting to our times, yes but that does not mean he would agree with  your positions.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Mike O Voidenski]
    #24732760 -

Mike O Voidenski said:
You guys ever wonder if the these gods you are arguing about are creations of man designed to give you something to wrestle with? Something to cling to? Something that said "man" can sell to you?

The world is a lot more complicated than most people realize. And we are living in a time full of illusion. Often the truth is so illusion shattering that most people will choose to ignore the truth when they hear it.


I think these gods are just reality maps. They can help us understand certain things.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732798 -

Quote:
But I never contended that it was. It seems like you make irrelevant statements or change the subject to appear  as though you have answered my points when you have not. If it not your attention to answer my points and you just want to chat, make that more clear.


Your point being?

Quote:
How do you know what your structure of atoms knows? My tv has a structure of atoms. Should I assume it knows it's a tv?


Because I am my own structure of atoms and I know it.

I wouldn't assume a TV knows it's a TV but the structure of its atoms sure does allow for a liquid crystal display.

Quote:
More fitting to our times, yes but that does not mean he would agree with your positions.


Well it's true he could take up creationism or start believing in Zeno but I think he'd be the kind of guy to be more intuitive than that if he came about to our times.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (10/23/17 09:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Mike O Voidenski]
    #24732805 -

Mike O Voidenski said:
You guys ever wonder if the these gods you are arguing about are creations of man designed to give you something to wrestle with? Something to cling to? Something that said "man" can sell to you?

The world is a lot more complicated than most people realize. And we are living in a time full of illusion. Often the truth is so illusion shattering that most people will choose to ignore the truth when they hear it.


That's more or less what I'm saying. I find a comfort in having an understanding of what I think of as god.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732850 -

Peyote Road said:
Quote:
I merely posited there's no need for the farmer to unconditionally love his chickens for them to have good well being.


But I never contended that it was. It seems like you make irrelevant statements or change the subject to appear  as though you have answered my points when you have not. If it not your attention to answer my points and you just want to chat, make that more clear.




That sounds pretty close to a strawman argument.

He did the same thing in bringing up the Abrahamic god.

Edited by teknix (10/23/17 09:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732869 -

I'm into whatever God is. I have whitnessed miracles and would be a liar if I said that I didn't believe that I was created by a loving force.

There are secret groups of people who believe they have a right and an obligation to see to your affairs/welfare because they believe they are so much better off than you that you couldn't possibly be capable of making the proper sort of decisions for yourself that they are making for you. I'm talking about groups of social engineers who are heavily involved throughout the fabric of most civilized societies today.

Some of these groups have had their hands in the fate of the world for a long long time.

So, let's pretend you want to take over the world.....
Wouldn't a convenient way to make the population behave themselves be accomplished by giving them a text that confuses them and tells them they need to live in fear? It could even be sold for a profit. I'm just sayin, the whole church and state thing worked super good in old Europe. It all developed during the dark ages too when anybody that wasn't a part of one of these groups didn't actually have a clue as to what was going on.



I believe all genuine religious scripture is about something. I just think that something has been coveted by these secret societies who over the centuries have become very powerful. These secret groups hide themselves in plain sight. And they have sacred text remaining in circulating religious scripture but it is disguised so that the ignorant person receives a separate message from the informed reader.

These secret groups are literally all over the place. They have their own secret texts that both non members and low level members are not allowed to read. The practice I described of the ignorant vs the informed is more than a common practice for them. It is their way.

You may view this as conspiracy talk but I ask you to educate yourself on secret societies. Maybe look into joining one? (I never would because I believe their design is to serve the self and I believe that when self service is practiced at the highest levels that it becomes evil). But they are not hard to find and many of their members are powerful people, business owners, polaticians, and world leaders.

So if our world is ran by secret groups who practice hiding the truth from ignorant people then why would they not be doing it with religion?


--------------------
There are three distinct realities occurring simultaneously.

The first involves a single point or object.
The second involves that point/object's relationship with other points/objects.
The third involves their relationships in motion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732899 -

Quote:
Your point being?


My point was that a farmer could feed and house chickens without loving them. Hence you haven't really supported your claims of love.

Quote:
Because I am my own structure of atoms and I know it.


How do you know that you know it?

Quote:
I wouldn't assume a TV knows it's a TV but the structure of its atoms sure does allow for a liquid crystal display.


What does a display have to do with knowledge?

Quote:
Well it's true he could take up creationism or start believing in Zeno but I think he'd be the kind of guy to be more intuitive than that if he came about to our times.


So all intuitive people agree with you?


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Mike O Voidenski]
    #24732909 -

Like the Council of Nicaea?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732920 -

Quote:
My point was that a farmer could feed and house chickens without loving them. Hence you haven't really supported your claims of love.


I said conditional love pretty clearly, my point was that a farmer could conditionally love his chickens, heance meaning without unconditional love. And I don't think conditional love is the same as unconditional love.

Quote:
My god feeds me through the fruit and vegetables of the soil and bathes me through the release of water in the hydrologic cycle. This to me is conditional love in the sense of providing for my survival, yet also throwing forth challenges and physical dangers.



Quote:
How is that the same thing as love though? A farmer feeds his chickens and gives them a house to live in. That doesn't mean he loves them.



You using only the word love is a straw man that doesn't address what I've said.

Quote:
How do you know that you know it?



Because I exist on this planet and am capable of knowing. 

I don't think a TV has knowledge so I'm unsure of why you brought it up, I've been referring to the structure of atoms that make up my own human being.

Quote:
So all intuitive people agree with you?


No, I just think that someone with a philosophical mind of the likes of Spinoza, if somehow transported to the future, would come to terms with what Nature is god in seeing how we've come to understand and harness parts of it in forms of radiowaves and electromagnetism. I think he and most anyone with intellect from previous millennia would be in awe of what we have discovered about the natural world in these past few decades.

I'm suggesting archaic views and principles would evolve.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (10/23/17 10:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Mike O Voidenski]
    #24732950 -

Quote:
So if our world is ran by secret groups who practice hiding the truth from ignorant people then why would they not be doing it with religion?


I think you're entirely capable of making decisions for yourself. You could become and engineer or a civil servant etc.

I think it sounds fair enough that historically in the dark ages books could have more serious cultural influence especially in that there was a lesser proportion of people who were capable of reading, hence the scribes, the priests and the preachers who could read would end up finding themselves with more influence behind their words. IMO.

2000 years of Chinese whispers and the informed are none the wiser.

The world is now seemingly run like an Oligarchy and it's not like religion hasn't found itself involving a small group of people having control of a country or organization.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24732952 -

Quote:
I said conditional love pretty clearly, my point was that a farmer could conditionally love his chickens, heance meaning without unconditional love. And I don't think conditional love is the same as unconditional love.




I'm not saying conditional and unconditional love are the same. I am saying the farmer could love his chickens neither conditionally, nor unconditionally. He could hate the darn things for instance, and only raise them for prophet. I see no sense in using the word "love" to describe the using of another creature for personal gain.

Oxford dictionary's defines love as "an intense feeling of deep affection". I don't see that applies to a farmer raising chickens.

Quote:
You using only the word love is a straw man that doesn't address what I've said.


Actually I'm just going by the commonly accepted definition of love.

Quote:
Because I exist on this planet.


A tv exists also.

Quote:
I don't think a TV has knowledge so I'm unsure of why you brought it up, I've been referring to the structure of atoms that make up my own human being.


I brought it up because the qualities you claimed gave you the ability to know apply to televisions also.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24732978 -

You can love a chicken for the time you are with them, with emotional and/or literal profit from their being and their eggs and not their meat.



Quote:
I am saying the farmer could love his chickens neither conditionally, nor unconditionally.


At least you answered.

Quote:
A tv exists also.


Ok, I'm not a TV. 

Quote:
I brought it up because the qualities you claimed gave you the ability to know apply to televisions also.


A television isn't of the same structure as my atoms. It's the specific structure of my atoms that enables me to know my knowledge.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Burden of Proof
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Sclorch 8,153 81 01/16/03 05:22 PM
by Sclorch
* Burden of Proof OrgoneConclusion 844 13 03/05/08 08:59 PM
by backfromthedead
* I want proof..
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Walter1496211 5,586 97 10/19/07 11:26 AM
by Icelander
* Scientific Proof of God daimyo 2,773 18 03/11/06 04:01 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* aliens don't exist, I have proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 chodamunky 12,730 58 09/26/02 04:53 AM
by In(di)go
* Fade Proof and Resistant chodamunky 658 6 03/26/03 07:30 PM
by Sclorch
* Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Mad_Buhdda_Abuser 8,257 87 03/03/10 04:27 PM
by Evolution
* Love Truth and Collapsing Structure gettinjiggywithit 1,206 7 03/15/05 11:18 AM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,507 topic views. 2 members, 87 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.