Do you believe in God and why

[scorecard]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:50 PM, DaRoadrunner said:

We are the highest form of intelligent life on the planet, yet we did not create everything we see around us, so who did? There has to be a creator.  Take a look at the human genome, it’s too complex to have just happened by accident.

 

Having said that, I look at life and consider that perhaps God has a sick sense of humour…. as do many who post here!

 

Guru Rajneesh said... "Life is a lemon, squeeze the whole juice."… Not bad advice that.

 

(Looking at some people’s behavior, - I use the words “intelligent life” with considerable reservation!)

Take a look at the human genome, it’s too complex to have just happened by accident.

 

But is it true that nature is so powerful it can create new scenarios and adjust 'things / life' that need adjustment?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm not arguing for or against the Catholic church but only arguing for honesty.

IMO the Catholic Church was always a political entity ( it does after all have it's own "country" ), but it carries the seeds of it's own destruction within it. Any organisation that tries to force it's employees to go against the genetic imperative of reproduction is in for trouble.

In the times before society became "moral" ( or at least pretended to be, as in Victorian times when an exposed woman's ankle was titillating, but prostitution  was rife ) I assume they just ignored the celibacy directive. These days the church is consumed by exposed historical sexual obscenities against young boys.

IMO unless the church sees the light and changes to allow marriage, in the long run it is doomed.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

Take a look at the human genome, it’s too complex to have just happened by accident.

 

But is it true that nature is so powerful it can create new scenarios and adjust 'things / life' that need adjustment?

The question is surely "what designed nature", which to me is "God".

 

Nothing that has been created by man happened by "magic", so why is it that people that don't believe in God must believe that the universe happened from nothing ie "magic"?

[save the frogs]

On 2/9/2024 at 7:56 AM, Sunmaster said:

Yes, great quote.
Quoting Osho is a bit "dangerous" due to his excentric lifestyle, but his teachings are always very profound. 

 

 

Yeah, Osho has a long beard and a funny hat, so he must know what he's talking about?

 

What is "real human nature"?

 

This guy who murdered his whole family was narcissistic, self-centered, grandiose, envious, manipulative, had a sense of entitlement, believed himself to be special, and lacked empathy.

And he was impulsive, irresponsible, and violent. 

 

I'm not convinced that most people are a couple of meditation sessions away from being "enlightened". 

 

Only when gurus are trying to sell books is everyone just a meditation away from being enlightened. 

 

Not in the real world. 

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Have you found a new victim yet whose throat you will try to ram your idealogy down?

 

 

Here's how I see it, Frogs.  The No. 1 commodity in this world is ideas.  Everyone is constantly in the market buying and selling them.  Some people buy ideas without ever looking at, or examining the product.  Others go about in the market with the old adage "Buyer beware" firmly in mind.  So take Sunmaster and myself.  He's trying to sell me his ideas and I'm offering my ideas to him to buy.  He doesn't like my ideas and I don't like his.  I'm asking him all sorts of questions about what he's selling.  I'm asking questions because I want to know about the product before I buy so I can determine for myself if it's a quality product.  Now if he can't answer questions I have which point out the defects in his product then I'm going to be awfully wary.  On the other hand, he doesn't ask me any questions about my product.  He simply refuses to buy.  If I show him some of the features of my product as enticement, show him why it's quality and then ask him to show me where he thinks it might be damaged goods he doesn't.

 

In any case, Sunmaster is trying to get me to buy his product.  I'm trying to sell mine to him.  He's insistent and so am I.  Yet only one of us is trying to ram their product down the throat of the other?  My response? 

 

So why do you accuse me of ramming my ideology down the throat of Sunmaster but you don't perceive Sunmaster ramming his ideology down my throat?  Well, that's simple.  You like Sunmaster but you don't like me.  That would be the truth, right?  So I become the obnoxious salesman in your eyes.  Can it be any other way? 

 

In truth, neither I nor Sunmaster are trying to ram anything down anybody's throat.  That's only your distorted perception.  All in all, people really, really hate when someone confronts them with truth about themselves which they're unwilling to accept.  You're such a one, Frogs.  I've know that about you for a long, long time.  I'll let Jack tell you.

 

 

[save the frogs]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, that's simple.  You like Sunmaster but you don't like me.

 

No, no, no. 

You have self-esteem issues?

Nobody dislikes you. We just don't necessarily agree with much of what you say. 

True, I only commented about you. And that wasn't fair. 

I'll get to Sunmaster later to even things out.

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the Catholic Church was always a political entity ( it does after all have it's own "country" ), but it carries the seeds of it's own destruction within it. Any organisation that tries to force it's employees to go against the genetic imperative of reproduction is in for trouble.

In the times before society became "moral" ( or at least pretended to be, as in Victorian times when an exposed woman's ankle was titillating, but prostitution  was rife ) I assume they just ignored the celibacy directive. These days the church is consumed by exposed historical sexual obscenities against young boys.

IMO unless the church sees the light and changes to allow marriage, in the long run it is doomed.

 

Sexuality is a part of human nature.  The Church's demand for celibacy is backfiring for it's too great a demand to ask.  The Church is in essence trying to deny priests and nuns their own nature.  A bad idea.  A very bad idea.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

 

No, no, no. 

You have self-esteem issues?

Nobody dislikes you. We just don't necessarily agree with much of what you say. 

True, I only commented about you. And that wasn't fair. 

I'll get to Sunmaster later to even things out.

 

 

Then you like me. 

 

BTW, who is "we?"  There aren't two people in the world who share the same set of beliefs.  There is no "we."

 

Aside from the "we," you have to realise and admit that as much as you reject my ideas I reject yours.  On the basis that they make no real sense nor can the mechanics be shown.  The difference is that I can explain my ideas thoroughly whereas you and others can't.  Most people simply say "I believe in <insert belief>" but when asked to explain why their beliefs makes sense, and especially the mechanics to show precisely how their beliefs work, there's dead silence.  By asking question you find out very quickly that there's no depth to what they believe.  I, on the other hand, can take you down to whatever depth you can handle and show you the mechanics of the ideas.  How they actually work in the real world.

 

There are simply not many who have the interest, the curiosity, or the willingness to explore ideas different than their own and to find out whether those ideas truly have any validity.  Neither are they willing to examine their own currently held beliefs to see if they have validity.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The question is surely "what designed nature", which to me is "God".

 

Nothing that has been created by man happened by "magic", so why is it that people that don't believe in God must believe that the universe happened from nothing ie "magic"?

That's an interesting question. I personally do not believe in God, but I also do not believe that the universe was created from nothing.

 

The hypothesis that the current universe began with a 'Big Bang' is no more than an extrapolation of our current scientific theories, which are always open to questioning, and many theories have eventually proven to be at least partially wrong, throughout the history of scientific enquiry.

 

For example, a theory might be well-established within the limited scope of human activity, at a particular time, and might seem to work perfectly well in practice. However, there is usually a margin of error in our calculations. If that margin of error is too small to quantify, and/or too complex to quantify, then we cannot know if the error exists.

 

An error which is too tiny to measure on a human scale, and is therefore considered to be non-existent, might be very significant on a cosmic scale where huge distances, huge quantities of energy and mass, and huge time-scales are involved.

 

I should also add that the hypothesis of the Big Bang does not state that the universe was created from nothing. A 'singularity' is not nothing.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

 

"Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state."
 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That's an interesting question. I personally do not believe in God, but I also do not believe that the universe was created from nothing.

 

The hypothesis that the current universe began with a 'Big Bang' is no more than an extrapolation of our current scientific theories, which are always open to questioning, and many theories have eventually proven to be at least partially wrong, throughout the history of scientific enquiry.

 

For example, a theory might be well-established within the limited scope of human activity, at a particular time, and might seem to work perfectly well in practice. However, there is usually a margin of error in our calculations. If that margin of error is too small to quantify, and/or too complex to quantify, then we cannot know if the error exists.

 

An error which is too tiny to measure on a human scale, and is therefore considered to be non-existent, might be very significant on a cosmic scale where huge distances, huge quantities of energy and mass, and huge time-scales are involved.

 

I should also add that the hypothesis of the Big Bang does not state that the universe was created from nothing. A 'singularity' is not nothing.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

 

"Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state."
 

While I believe in the Big Bang, the material in the Big Bang came from somewhere. I also believe that like the Matrix in the movie, this universe is just the latest in an unlimited number of universes that were born, expanded, consumed by black holes and reborn in the next Big Bang.

The question that unbelievers are unable to answer is where did the material for this ( and all the preceding universes ) comes from? Ergo they must believe it came from nothing, by magic, and if there is magic at work, there must be a magician- God.

 

If I ask the question why? the best answer I can give is that God is waiting for the perfect universe to occur. For sure humans prove that this version is a fail.

[thaibeachlovers]

57 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You like Sunmaster but you don't like me.  That would be the truth, right?  So I become the obnoxious salesman in your eyes.  Can it be any other way? 

Unless he knows you personally, he can't not like or like you. He can like or dislike what you write though, which might or might not be the "real you".

No one can tell if they would like or dislike me from my posts, as my posts are not the "real me", but they are my "on line persona", which is not to say they are untrue; they are, but I don't say that sort of thing to people I know. Especially so as no one I know is interested in the sort of things I write about on here. Also, the things I dream about, but would never confide in a living soul are completely different from anything I say or write.

So, one could say that I have 3 different "me's", depending.

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

There is no evidence, whatever, bible or stone writings etc., or whatever:

 

- That god or jesus ever actually existed.

- That jesus was from virgin birth and/or from non-consentual sex.

- That jesus was reborn 3 days after he died.

- That the disciples parted rivers and/or provided food from nothing for thousands of people.

 

Further: the bible does NOT mention anywhere anything about homosexuality or TV activity. 

 

_ 

 

 

Without even getting into details like virgin birth, etc.... perhaps the entire concept of "savior" is completely fabricated.

 

There's no such thing as a savior.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

@save the frogs

 

My 11-uear-old daughter has taken to football.  She loves the sport and we encourage her.  We've bought all of the equipment for her.  Now she wants to a good footballer.  But she has much to learn.  I teach her and as she tries dribbling techniques, for instance, and they are at first difficult for her because she's never done them before then she can quickly become frustrated at her failed attempts and then wants to quit.  That's all very natural of people.

 

Becoming good at anything requires effort but it's not effort that is beyond anyone.  Becoming good at anything requires tenacity, discipline, and the desire becomes the driver.  If there's insufficient desire then the outcome is guaranteed; you won't be good at it.  The challenge is no longer seen as a challenge but as a problem.  And problems are rarely if ever fun.  On the other hand, if the desire is great then the outcome will also be guaranteed; you will excel.  The challenges are something to look forward to and they are never seen as problems.  They will be fun and invigorating.  You actually look forward to them.  And the greater the challenge the more fun it is.

 

So it is with knowledge.  The ideas, whilst new, need to be worked at.  They require effort.  Understanding may be difficult at first and it can become frustrating when the understanding doesn't come immediately.  Many simply quit at that point.  So that I don't have to repeat the same, I'll insert the second paragraph here, or simply ask that you reread it for all of that applies here as well.  And to a tee.

 

The Physical Universe As Idea Construction.  The concept describes how we create our experience.  Nothing in this world exists without first existing as an idea.  We use ideas to create a three dimensional experience the same as an artist uses paints to create a two dimensional painting.  Our ideas are the artist's paints.  The ideas are not us just as the paints are not the artist.  From all of the ideas which are within existence we pick and choose those we wish to adopt as "true."  Those then become our beliefs.  The beliefs we adopt may be true or they may not be true.  But as we employ them they will produce a three dimensional effect, just as any brushstroke will produce a result on a canvas.  The idea manifests itself according to it's own nature, just as a particular hue of paint is it's own nature.  We then experience the creation we've produced using our chosen ideas just as the artist experiences his creation using the colours which he's chosen.  Both we and the artist are either pleased with the results or not.  If not pleased then we swap out the idea which produced the displeasing result and used another to see if that one would please us.  The artist does the same as he chooses another colour to see if that's pleasing to him.

 

None of the above is bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, ambiguous, or beyond understanding.  Understanding it fully, however, requires effort.  Now reread the second paragraph.

 

There is, however, another major problem which the analogy of my daughter's desire to be a footballer does not cover.  That problem is one where everyone already settled upon their ideas of how the world works.  The above concept does not fit that current world view.  And so more often than not it gets rejected whilst there is never an effort to understand it.

 

So when you say that you do not agree with the ideas I present then I would say to you that the reason you don't agree is not because the ideas are bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous.  It's because you have a lack of desire to understand them.  And that lack of desire stems from the fact that since you've already settled upon your ideas of how the world works then from the perspective of those ideas the ideas I present do indeed seem bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous.

 

Now, if you will please do explain your ideas of how the world works and we will quickly test and see if those ideas are bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous or not.  I'll challenge you, Sunmater, Red Phoenix or any other to put your ideas up for examination and testing and you can do the same with mine.  May the best, or true ideas win.  So far @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix have quit.

 

This post is not an indictment of you, Frogs.  The best I can do is to speak honestly, and excuse me if brutally so at times, and it's up to you to either accept or reject that I am simply being honest as best I can or that I'm indicting you.

[save the frogs]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Physical Universe As Idea Construction.  The concept describes how we create our experience.  Nothing in this world exists without first existing as an idea.  We use ideas to create a three dimensional experience the same as an artist uses paints to create a two dimensional painting.  Our ideas are the artist's paints.  The ideas are not us just as the paints are not the artist.  From all of the ideas which are within existence we pick and choose those we wish to adopt as "true."  Those then become our beliefs.  The beliefs we adopt may be true or they may not be true.  But as we employ them they will produce a three dimensional effect, just as any brushstroke will produce a result on a canvas.  The idea manifests itself according to it's own nature, just as a particular hue of paint is it's own nature.  We then experience the creation we've produced using our chosen ideas just as the artist experiences his creation using the colours which he's chosen.  Both we and the artist are either pleased with the results or not.  If not pleased then we swap out the idea which produced the displeasing result and used another to see if that one would please us.  The artist does the same as he chooses another colour to see if that's pleasing to him.

 

None of the above is bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, ambiguous, or beyond understanding.  Understanding it fully, however, requires effort.  Now reread the second paragraph.

 

No, that comment is not nonsense.

But neither does it interest me.

It's painfully obvious to me that something exists first as an idea.

I don't feel the need to spend countless hours in abstract thought about this.

It simply doesn't interest me and I think there are more important things to spend time thinking about.

Also, a conversation about Big Bang has started up again. How many times has that been discussed? And ... nobody knows how the Universe started. So that topic is boring to me as well. 

 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster  @Red Phoenix

 

Are you guys willing to examine your own currently held beliefs to see if they truly have validity or are you happy to just accept them regardless of whether they have validity or not?  To examine them carefully and thoroughly takes guts because you may find them flawed.  And then what do you do?  Give them up and start from scratch?  Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! 

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

No, that comment is not nonsense.

But neither does it interest me.

It's painfully obvious to me that something exists first as an idea.

I don't feel the need to spend countless hours in abstract thought about this.

It simply doesn't interest me and I think there are more important things to spend time thinking about.

Also, a conversation about Big Bang has started up again. How many times has that been discussed? And ... nobody knows how the Universe started. So that topic is boring to me as well.

 

There you go, then.  You've just admitted it.  I've told you before, you have no interest in knowing anything other than what you already know.  When I told you that the first time you balked.  Now you're admitting that it's true.  So that begs the question, what the hell are you doing on this thread then if not to engage in different ideas, ideas other than your own? 

 

"It's painfully obvious to me that something exists first as an idea."

 

I'll be blunt in my honesty, so please forgive me, Frogs.  I don't believe you for a second. 

 

". . . abstract thought . . ."

 

There's another admission.  While the explanation of how we create with ideas isn't nonsense it is, however, abstract.    Nothing could be more straightforward. 

 

". . . I think there are more important things to spend time thinking about."

 

Yeah, like where your next meal is coming from. 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster  @Red Phoenix

 

Quitters.    Where do I send the first aid kits? 

 

[Sunmaster]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster  @Red Phoenix

 

Are you guys willing to examine your own currently held beliefs to see if they truly have validity or are you happy to just accept them regardless of whether they have validity or not?  To examine them carefully and thoroughly takes guts because you may find them flawed.  And then what do you do?  Give them up and start from scratch?  Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! 

My currently held beliefs are certainly flawed, but at least they are the product of my own experience and not some regurgitated second-hand knowledge. Think of your currently held beliefs like a dry, stale sandwich sold as if it were a prime cut steak, so to speak. 😄
 

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Also, a conversation about Big Bang has started up again. How many times has that been discussed? And ... nobody knows how the Universe started. So that topic is boring to me as well. 

Not that many times on here. The way the universe started is IMO entirely relevant as we that believe in God believe that God created the universe.

 

Feel free to not comment on something if it bores you.

[save the frogs]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So that begs the question, what the hell are you doing on this thread then if not to engage in different ideas, ideas other than your own? 

 

I posted some stuff which I find interesting in case anyone else might.

But the feelings are mutual.

Most of the stuff I post is stuff nobody cares about. 

 

If you think someone is going to cling to your every word, you're delusional.

I am aware that when I post something, most people might not care about it. And I don't care.

 

[save the frogs]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not that many times on here. The way the universe started is IMO entirely relevant as we that believe in God believe that God created the universe.

 

Feel free to not comment on something if it bores you.

 

Nobody cares what you believe.

People need something to back it up.

And nobody knows how the Universe got created. 

So why bother going around in circles? 

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster  @Red Phoenix

 

Are you guys willing to examine your own currently held beliefs to see if they truly have validity or are you happy to just accept them regardless of whether they have validity or not?  To examine them carefully and thoroughly takes guts because you may find them flawed.  And then what do you do?  Give them up and start from scratch?  Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! 

My belief comes from my Damascus moment. It doesn't require examination as it happened, and I accept it as my proof that God exists.

There is absolutely no way you can disprove my Damascus moment. I was not on drugs, I was not drunk, I was not tired, I was fit and healthy ( it was a long time ago ), I wasn't a believer, and I wasn't looking for it. I have never suffered hallucinations under such conditions before or since.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Nobody cares what you believe.

People need something to back it up.

And nobody knows how the Universe got created. 

So why bother going around in circles? 

and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it and you don't get to tell me what I can or can't post.

[save the frogs]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it and you don't get to tell me what I can or can't post.

 

Tippaporn started this childish game.

 

Guys, what about evolution? Has it been discussed on this thread yet?

 

 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

My currently held beliefs are certainly flawed, but at least they are the product of my own experience and not some regurgitated second-hand knowledge. Think of your currently held beliefs like a dry, stale sandwich sold as if it were a prime cut steak, so to speak. 😄

 

Ho, ho, ho.  Sunmaster makes his return.  Maybe.  We'll have to see. 

 

Goddamnit, Sunmaster, how can you invalidate the lived experience of physical reality?  You've "seen the light," only once and briefly so, you've interpreted as you do and do not even question that interpretation.  I've had my own "direct experience" but it's never led me to devalue physical experience.

 

Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own.

 

Do you believe that, Sunmaster?  I do.  Physical experience, and that includes all of it - including reading books, allows for the valid experience of All That Is.  I resent any ideas which attempt to water down physical experience or any expression within it.  Or purports that knowledge on the physical level is less than knowledge gained via 'direct experience'.  No doubt they are different but each is equally valid.

 

Who the hell are you to say that our experience, my experience as a physical creature is invalid and meaningless?  When I say that your create your own reality via beliefs, granted I got that out of a frickin' book second hand, I've experienced that knowledge by putting into practice.  And you're going to tell me that's not valid experience?  That's daft.

 

I'll quote myself from my unanswered post to @Red Phoenix:

 

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's as if 'direct experience' and the 'knowing' which it imparts - and cannot be put into words - invalidates all physical experience and the 'knowing' which normal experience imparts.  Perhaps that is due to the fact that 'direct experience' often has an intensity and brilliance which is markedly different than that of our normal waking state.  And so it is then interpreted not only as superior but supreme.  And furthermore that knowing derived from 'direct experience' makes any other kind of learning, such as from books, useless, barren and futile.

 

You cheapen and devalue any knowledge gained from any experience other than the ultimate superior "direct experience."  You refuse to accept that they are equally important, valuable and valid.  Geezus Kerist.

 

I've resorted to mocking and shaming because polite conversation doesn't seem to work with you.  So please forgive me for beating you over the head.  Repeatedly.    If the pain of indignation is to much to bear then disappear.  Lick your wounds in private.  Else give me some of that German that's in you.  Throw in the Italian part, too.  I won't feel indignant and hurt over what you really think.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Who the hell are you to say that our experience, my experience as a physical creature is invalid and meaningless? 

You put those words in my mouth. I never said that our experience as a physical creature is invalid nor meaningless. Hence, your whole indignation is built on a faulty interpretation of what I said.

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Lick your wounds in private.  Else give me some of that German that's in you.  Throw in the Italian part, too.  I won't feel indignant and hurt over what you really think.

No worries, something is coming very soon. I woke up this morning at 4am with a fully formed idea and had to get up to write it down. I'm still working on it, but have to leave now and will be back this evening. Then I'll have to read it again and most likely rewrite it too. Some parts may be a bit too "in yer face" German, even for you. 555

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster  @Red Phoenix

 

Are you guys willing to examine your own currently held beliefs to see if they truly have validity or are you happy to just accept them regardless of whether they have validity or not?  To examine them carefully and thoroughly takes guts because you may find them flawed.  And then what do you do?  Give them up and start from scratch?  Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! 

My belief comes from my Damascus moment. It doesn't require examination as it happened, and I accept it as my proof that God exists.

There is absolutely no way you can disprove my Damascus moment. I was not on drugs, I was not drunk, I was not tired, I was fit and healthy ( it was a long time ago ), I wasn't a believer, and I wasn't looking for it. I have never suffered hallucinations under such conditions before or since.

 

I don't for a moment doubt your Damascus moment and certainly neither would I invalidate it.  But I'm sure that Damascus moment didn't enlighten you on all of life and reveal all answers to life.  It was proof of God's existence but in and of itself it didn't solve all of your earthly "problems."  Any and all of those problems are due to your unexamined beliefs.  These are two distinctly separate issues.

 

"I believe man is flawed and no good."  That, for instance, is a belief.  And an unexamined one, for if you were to seriously examine it you cannot but realise the truth is otherwise.  But the belief will produce the results which are it's nature.  And those results will be most unpleasant.  You simply cannot connect the dots as yet as to how exactly that belief plays out in your world.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You put those words in my mouth. I never said that our experience as a physical creature is invalid nor meaningless. Hence, your whole indignation is built on a faulty interpretation of what I said.

 

Oh come now, Sunmaster.  Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience.  It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe  That invalidates book learning as having any true value.  And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience.  So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth.  I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words.  You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times.  It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter.  How demeaning.  It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you.  And yet your ego is a portion of you.  How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

[save the frogs]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience. 

 

When you read sth that you also experience in real life, then its more powerful. 

But book learning is not useless.