Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Nihilisn, Nationalism & Nazism


ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

So how do you accomplish this? Do you believe that such a state can be permanently achieved, moment by moment, every hour of every single day throughout a person's life, without the aide of some spiritual/supernatural influence/power? If so, how? I'm just curious. You don't have to reply if it doesn't interest you. Thanks. 

Aren’t you going to tell him that you think Buddhism is demonic? Or are you now disassociating yourself from that little pearl of wisdom?

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, eight bits said:

OK, I withdraw the claim that you conflated anything.

Sand, metal, some rare earths, ... yes, it looks like a lot of ground up and otherwise processed rock to me.

I think we are talking past each other. I don't see the relevance of performance (integrated circuits) to capability (what other combinations of matter might also exhibit "intelligent behavior").

I do see an irony that just as the God Squad argues for an indispensible role for gods by variations on "the watch implies the watchmaker," you seem to argue for an indispensible role for human beings in order that rocks achieve their inherent potential to participate in arrangements that compute (the integrated circuit implies somebody like our colleague DieChecker).

I no more expect rocks to spontaneously form computers before my eyes than I expect springs and gears to spontaneously form watches. Nevertheless, I do not conclude that gods are necessary for there to be living beings, nor do I conclude that people are necessary for matter to compute. Whether an arrangement of rocks that groks has or will actually happen somewhere in the universe I don't know. If you know that it hasn't and won't, then I welcome your proof.

Well, first I agree that we may have been talking past each other, I’m not sure what groks is, and I’m not arguing for the existence of the Supreme Being here, but as it pertains to science, technology and the advancement of intelligent machines, we are the supreme beings.  We, that is smart people are the driving force behind these things without question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Buddhahood is a state of mind where all the mental defilements related to strong desires in the form of cravings and aversions is eliminated resulting in peace and inner joy of a perpetual nature, not dependent on external objects and events. Therevada Buddhism considers it to be a state where all psychological suffering ceases permanently.

As per Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha nature is there in all sentient beings , even in the most vicious and negative, so it is just a matter of cleaning the mind of all its unnatural psychological impressions or  sankhara to manifest the Buddha nature within.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṅkhāra

I personally consider Jesus to be an enlightened being, who had similarly removed his mental defilements and attained the innate Buddha nature, or 'kingdom of God within' as he put it.

One potential point of discussion is the idea that all mental defilements related to desires and aversions are eliminated in the state of Buddhahood. While it is true that the path to enlightenment in Buddhism involves overcoming attachments and desires, it is debatable whether complete elimination of all mental defilements is achievable.Thrre is a strong arguement that desires and aversions are inherent to human nature and can be channeled towards positive goals, such as personal growth and social progress. In this perspective or in a real time practice, the goal is not to eliminate desires entirely, but to develop a more skillful and balanced relationship with them.

For me, the idea that Buddhahood results in peace and inner joy of a perpetual nature, independent of external objects and events, is misleading. While the teachings of Buddhism do emphasize finding inner peace and joy through meditation and mindfulness, it is important to remember that external circumstances will still impact an individual's emotions and well-being. Instead of complete detachment from external objects and events, some interpretations of Buddhism/mindfulness suggest cultivating a sense of equanimity and non-attachment, allowing one to navigate the ups and downs of life with more resilience and acceptance.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

it is debatable whether complete elimination of all mental defilements is achievable.

The first and last desire is for Buddhahood.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Well, first I agree that we may have been talking past each other, I’m not sure what groks is, and I’m not arguing for the existence of the Supreme Being here, but as it pertains to science, technology and the advancement of intelligent machines, we are the supreme beings.  We, that is smart people are the driving force behind these things without question.

To grok is a Martian-language verb coined by Robert Heinlein for his novel Stranger in a Strange Land. The root meaning is to drink, but the typical usage corresponds with the English verb to understand.

I appreciate that you are not arguing for a Supreme Being, and apparently we agree that God-as watchmaker is to "life forms" in the famous theist argument-analogy as humans-as-computer-makers are to "intelligent arrangements of matter" in your teaching.

That's probably as close to agreement as  you and I are likely to get on this subtopic. A draw, then?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly, an attachment.

That's why I think a lot of spirituality stuff is self defeating. Especially in the case of happiness and love, the more you desire it the less you have it and what you do have is never enough. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That's why I think a lot of spirituality stuff is self defeating. Especially in the case of happiness and love, the more you desire it the less you have it and what you do have is never enough. 

The hook or the carrot. For me, wanting the life one does have is a steep enough hurdle. :P

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

For me, wanting the life one does have is a steep enough hurdle. 

True, very true. I just want less 'moving parts' so to speak. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lightly said:

Thanks read,  I thought you’d say 6000 years as the age of the earth..I guess that’s the ‘biblical’ estimation?     I brought up fossils ,wondering how you might explain they’re existence.???    In part of the area we spend winters in the S. Ca. desert, the Imperial Valley,  we find millions of fossilized sea shells .   The area is said to have been part of an ocean 4-5 million years ago.     I just have to ask, how do you explain fossils forming within 6000 years?          This website talks about the ancient  Imperial Sea  https://www.ivpressonline.com/life/desertmuseum/many-signs-of-underwater-life-remain-in-desert/article_bde31b82-8863-5618-927f-d1fe5bc4dae4.html#:~:text=Four to five million years,was a flourishing marine ecosystem.

The 4004 BC crap the SDAs and other Fundies believe came about from a Irish Bishop named James Ussher in the 1600s. The biggest problem with it is it doesn't take the Jewish Calendar into consideration. :wacko:

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lightly said:

The area is said to have been part of an ocean 4-5 million years ago.     I just have to ask, how do you explain fossils forming within 6000 years?  

Good question. Fossils don't take millions of years to form. That's my take on it. I know that's probably a controversial statement but I'm not exactly sure how you can observe a fossil forming from beginning to end to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how long it takes. It is possible that the dating measurement methods are incorrect - they've caught errors with carbon dating (for example). I definitely don't think it's correct. Normally, when science makes any statement it is accepted as fact. Not many skeptics. So when 'scientific evidence' is presented to me, I can't help picking it apart... find a lot that's either unreliable (how can you prove this or that) or biased to begin with. Data must be interpreted. There are more than one way to interpret it. 

Edited by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Good question. Fossils don't take millions of years to form. That's my take on it. I know that's probably a controversial statement but I'm not exactly sure how you can observe a fossil forming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how long it takes. It is possible that the dating measurement methods are incorrect - they've caught errors with carbon dating (for example). I definitely don't think it's correct. Normally, when science makes any statement it is accepted as fact. Not many skeptics. So when 'scientific evidence' is presented to me, I can't help picking it apart... find a lot that's either unreliable (how can you prove this or that) or biased to begin with. Data must be interpreted. There are more than one way to interpret it. 

Hi Read

It doesn't take millions of years for a fossil to form, it was once millions of years ago a living organism and the fossill is evidence that existed millions of years ago

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Good question. Fossils don't take millions of years to form. That's my take on it. I know that's probably a controversial statement but I'm not exactly sure how you can observe a fossil forming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how long it takes. It is possible that the dating measurement methods are incorrect - they've caught errors with carbon dating (for example). I definitely don't think it's correct. Normally, when science makes any statement it is accepted as fact. Not many skeptics. So when 'scientific evidence' is presented to me, I can't help picking it apart... find a lot that's either unreliable (how can you prove this or that) or biased to begin with. Data must be interpreted. There are more than one way to interpret it. 

No fossils take anywhere from about 5 years to a thousands to form. But it doesn't mean they aren't older. You keep talking about carbon dating, which is only part of Radiometric dating and your completely ignoring stratigraphy. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Good question. Fossils don't take millions of years to form. That's my take on it. I know that's probably a controversial statement but I'm not exactly sure how you can observe a fossil forming to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how long it takes. It is possible that the dating measurement methods are incorrect - they've caught errors with carbon dating (for example). I definitely don't think it's correct. Normally, when science makes any statement it is accepted as fact. Not many skeptics. So when 'scientific evidence' is presented to me, I can't help picking it apart... find a lot that's either unreliable (how can you prove this or that) or biased to begin with. Data must be interpreted. There are more than one way to interpret it. 

So where are the fossilised human bones? You know, of all the people drowned in the Noahidic flood (or destroyed in one of the dozens of previous “God wiped them all out” events mentioned in the Torah)?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

You might be right, but I just don't see a point. Sure, I'm a semi hairless primate that click clacking on a keypad. Etching what we call words on a virtual cave wall. Some of my words might seem smart or important, maybe. I just don't apply a meaning to it all. The value is minimal and temporary. 

I just can't see a reason to think any of this is important. Sorry if that seem like I'm in a 'mood', I'm not. I just have a bleak view of reality. This existence just isn't worth it. 

One hundred years from now the vast majority of people alive today will be dead. The cabin you built will be gone. None of us will be remembered.  So, you are correct. There is no real meaning to anything we do. 

I have never been suicidal. I did analyze suicide however when I was younger (17 or so). I concluded that the only thing we know for certain by living is that we will experience a great deal of pain before we die and that suicide would guarantee we did not experience all of that pain. However, that the act itself would cause immeasurable pain to others.

I have sense concluded that the entire meaning of life is indeed pointless.  But here we are nonetheless. So, we live.  The only point in living then would be to attempt to minimize the pain of living. And the only way I can see that we can do that is through our choices we make as we go through life.

Personally I rather enjoy being alive. Happiness is found in doing not merely possessing. Which is why we do things like build cabins and ponds. But in the end...like Solomon concluded. All is vanity. So, Solomon's ultimate conclusion was the only purpose of man is to obey God and keep his commandments. Didn't matter really though because Solomon still died.  The only real purpose therefore, as Sherapy pointed out is any personal meaning we give to it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

it was once millions of years ago a living organism

Talk to me ...more on that organism living millions of years ago. What's the strongest evidence you can give me to show that the creature lived millions of years ago? Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Talk to me ...more on that organism living millions of years ago. What's the strongest evidence you can give me to show that the creature lived millions of years ago? Thanks 

It involves different branches of science. Things you don’t understand, are intimidated by, are afraid of, and are clueless about.

You’re welcome.

So… that’s a no on having read Nietzsche and you telling Ajay you think Buddhism is demonic right? Oh and Hinduism too. 
 
I’m keeping  track of questions you are attempting to ignore. They’re starting to pile up. I wonder why.

EDIT: Nothing, Read? Just crickets from you? You’re so quiet.

Hey look at that! I finally figured out how to get you to stop preaching!

Edited by Antigonos
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Talk to me ...more on that organism living millions of years ago. What's the strongest evidence you can give me to show that the creature lived millions of years ago? Thanks 

Creatures which haven't existed for millions of years which are found in cherts which are Radiometric dated using argon dating.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Creatures which haven't existed for millions of years which are found in cherts which are Radiometric dated using argon dating.

I hope she has her dictionary ready, she’s going to need it.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Antigonos said:

I hope she has her dictionary ready, she’s going to need it.

Creationists keep using the C-14 argument not realizing it doesn’t work if it's no longer organic. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Talk to me ...more on that organism living millions of years ago. What's the strongest evidence you can give me to show that the creature lived millions of years ago? Thanks 

Start here and work your way up.

Then go to any natural history museum.

 

 

8EC56C0D-2767-48EF-90D2-3389D78B7962.jpeg

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Creationists keep using the C-14 argument not realizing it doesn’t work if it's no longer organic. 

They also don’t even understand what fossils are.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

They also don’t even understand what fossils are.

Exactly. Especially the various differences in them. 

Their knowledge is so limited in science it's actually a waste of time trying to explain it.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Exactly. Especially the various differences in them. 

Their knowledge is so limited in science it's actually a waste of time trying to explain it.

 

Yeah, I was going to say that. Absolutely agree.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the earth was covered by water. The aliens came. They dumped their septic tank in to the deep. Now here we are. They also planted all the fossils to mess with us. True story.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.