Why does God >insert your grievance here<....?

[Tippaporn]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:53 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Fun fact: I was a big fan of Ayn Rand at one time. Her direct and somewhat extreme right wing economic views and opinions on personal freedoms and approach to life were refreshing in The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged got a bit much and I saw that you need a heart and being so hardcore is in the end not a good way to treat fellow humans.

 

I haven't read any of Rand's works.  I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting.

 

On 1/27/2024 at 7:53 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Ask yourself : if you showed her the Seth stuff what would have she said. Doesn't mean it's wrong but see how it appears to others when by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best.

 

To be honest, I already know the answer.  She would react no different than anyone on this thread would react.  The Seth material either fits into ones current world view, their belief system, or it does not.

 

". . . by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best."

 

I admit I laughed as I read that.  I laughed because subjective reality, though it's existence is undeniable, is given scant credibility.  It's not r-e-a-l like objective reality is.  And that is the fallacy which most have adopted as their "truth."  Subjective evidence cannot be accepted as r-e-a-l evidence because only objective evidence can be real.  The truth is, and this is a truth I understand full well that you may never accept, Fat, that the objective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of subjective reality.  Science is attempting to take that truth and reverse it by saying that the subjective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of objective reality.  Which is only a natural consequence when holding the erroneous belief that objective reality is all the exists.

 

I understand full well, therefore, that the implications of what I claim would then force unimaginably massive changes in ones thinking.  So many currently held beliefs, belief being an idea considered to be "true," would have to be discarded whilst new ones take their place.  In the interim people would literally be lost as to how to act and what to think as their current beliefs which comprise their world views are in the most practical terms the modus operandi by which people act and interpret the data of life.  There are few, very few, who are willing to do that work of massively changing their ideas to conform to actual reality rather than a fictitious one.  As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix.  So it is for most.  I ain't gonna change that. 

 

Edited January 28 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

22 hours ago, fusion58 said:

He didn’t explain anything.

 

In fact, he denied right from the outset that the burden to prove the existence of a god or a supernatural realm was his - even though he was the one making the claim.

 

You should be asking yourself why you’re casting your lot with such an intellectually dishonest person.

 

How is it that such a simple point is so difficult to understand by some people?  You can explain it in a thousand different ways, and even explain the reasons to them of why they don't get it and what it is which blocks their understanding, and they still look at you cross-eyed. 

 

fusion58, sooner or later you'll need to learn to think outside of your box.    Of course you may well be perfectly happy living within it's narrow and limited confines.  And perfectly safe, too.  The unknown reality which exists outside of your comforting box is a very scary place.  For some people stretching their minds is painful. 

 

Edited January 28 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I haven't read any of Rand's works.  I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting.

 

Ayn Rand was another crackpot.

Her core message was that altruism was bad and unfettered self-interest was good.

Total bs.

 

Edited January 28 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix.  So it is for most.  I ain't gonna change that. 

Funny, because I always interpreted that scene as choosing to stay as the body-mind personality instead of transcending the ego and awaken to the true Self, with the red pill being a symbol for introspective practice. 

But this interpretation would be at odds with your belief, since you don't believe in transcending the ego. Right?

 

Now look what I have to do...chasing you down in this sandbox thread...the ts ts.

Edited January 28 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Ayn Rand was another crackpot.

Her core message was that altruism was bad and unfettered self-interest was good.

Total bs.

 

 

I'd have to read her works to determine that for myself.  Nobody has everything right.  They're spot on at times and at other times way off the mark.  Everyone is a mixture of having some things correct and some things wrong.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Funny, because I always interpreted that scene as choosing to stay as the body-mind personality instead of transcending the ego and awaken to the true Self, with the red pill being a symbol for introspective practice. 

But this interpretation would be at odds with your belief, since you don't believe in transcending the ego. Right?

 

Now look what I have to do...chasing you down in this sandbox thread...the ts ts.

 

Just taking care of the odds and ends first. 

 

My reading of that scene was that world which was the truth of the matrix sucked and he'd rather eat a fictitious steak than the slop in the real world, even whilst knowing the steak was not real.

 

Edited January 28 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Just taking care of the odds and ends first. 

 

My reading of that scene was that world which was the truth of the matrix sucked and he'd rather eat a fictitious steak than the slop in the real world, even whilst knowing the steak was not real.

 

Exactly, meaning this reality is a dream. Or in vedantic terms, relative reality as opposed to absolute reality. 

[save the frogs]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I'd have to read her works to determine that for myself.  Nobody has everything right.  They're spot on at times and at other times way off the mark.  Everyone is a mixture of having some things correct and some things wrong.

 

And some people are deliberately putting out garbage information to confuse people. 

 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Exactly, meaning this reality is a dream. Or in vedantic terms, relative reality as opposed to absolute reality. 

 

But no less real.  Just as dreams are real. 

 

Tippaporn:  1

Sunmaster:  0

 

     

 

Me and you have to get on the pitch to settle this once and for all, Sunmaster.  Or maybe a game of horseshoes.  Great beer drinking game. 

[Tippaporn]

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

And some people are deliberately putting out garbage information to confuse people.

 

I would not recommend anyone make self-depreciating comments.  Especially on a public forum. 

 

Not everything you post is garbage information, Frogs. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I haven't read any of Rand's works.  I've come across some of her most well known quotes and if they smack of truth then they're worth quoting.

 

 

To be honest, I already know the answer.  She would react no different than anyone on this thread would react.  The Seth material either fits into ones current world view, their belief system, or it does not.

 

". . . by your own admission the evidence is subjective at best."

 

I admit I laughed as I read that.  I laughed because subjective reality, though it's existence is undeniable, is given scant credibility.  It's not r-e-a-l like objective reality is.  And that is the fallacy which most have adopted as their "truth."  Subjective evidence cannot be accepted as r-e-a-l evidence because only objective evidence can be real.  The truth is, and this is a truth I understand full well that you may never accept, Fat, that the objective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of subjective reality.  Science is attempting to take that truth and reverse it by saying that the subjective world that you know is dependent upon and a result of objective reality.  Which is only a natural consequence when holding the erroneous belief that objective reality is all the exists.

 

I understand full well, therefore, that the implications of what I claim would then force unimaginably massive changes in ones thinking.  So many currently held beliefs, belief being an idea considered to be "true," would have to be discarded whilst new ones take their place.  In the interim people would literally be lost as to how to act and what to think as their current beliefs which comprise their world views are in the most practical terms the modus operandi by which people act and interpret the data of life.  There are few, very few, who are willing to do that work of massively changing their ideas to conform to actual reality rather than a fictitious one.  As illustrated in the movie series, The Matrix, the character Cypher would rather return to the matrix than know the truth of the matrix.  So it is for most.  I ain't gonna change that. 

 

Thanks. I think that is where it does hit a bit of a dead end because of the subjective objective issue. I tried to fix that by noting that, if it is observable only subjectively, then maybe the results rather than the phenomenon itself, could be observed objectively, but if that's not possible, then hard to take it further unless one commits to some super deep dive. It seems that you should be able to take some bit of the findings into the objective world as evidence but if not then fair enough. 

A brief comment on the covid stuff that had been provided separately: 

I don't think Fauci noted you'll be safe with the vaccine is the same as saying it will prevent it - it made sennse to say safe when the unvaccinated were dying in such large no's at the time and the vaccinated were not. He didn't appear to use the word prevent. 

The Biden comment you provided, which I recall, is a perfect example of what I was saying - that some politicians misspoke - the reaction to his comment that the vaccine prevented covid was immediate and scathing - from social media and a range of medical sources including the CDC - saying his comment was not correct. It shows that the statement that the vaccine prevented covid had clearly not been treated as a scientific truth at that time. Broadly or otherwise.

 

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

But no less real.  Just as dreams are real. 

 

Tippaporn:  1

Sunmaster:  0

 

     

 

Me and you have to get on the pitch to settle this once and for all, Sunmaster.  Or maybe a game of horseshoes.  Great beer drinking game. 

 

The dream is only real in relative terms. When you are in the dream and believe it to be real, it will appear real to you and you won't question any impossibilities or incongruous elements in it. Then, when you wake up, you realize that the waking state is "more real", simply because more of your awareness is now shining its light upon this waking environment, which is consciousness itself.

 

Transposing this to the ultimate reality, you see that this makes sense. Awakening to your true nature allows consciousness to self-reflect by an even greater amount of awareness, thus making it even more real than our waking state.

 

Sure, this everyday reality we're living in feels real enough and it too is made of consciousness manifested. But to call it the same as absolute reality would be a mistake.

Laurence Fishburn docet. 

Edited January 28 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks. I think that is where it does hit a bit of a dead end because of the subjective objective issue. I tried to fix that by noting that, if it is observable only subjectively, then maybe the results rather than the phenomenon itself, could be observed objectively . . .

 

All subjective phenomenon produce objective results.  The problem is in connecting the dots.  I've said before that what an idea is is just as little understood as what consciousness is.  An idea is not physical.  It's purely subjective.  And yet thoughts - thought technically being the process of mentally entertaining an idea - produce physical effects.  That is something which is not well understood at all.  Ask anyone if their thoughts have physical effects and most would say "no."  On the other hand, people do at times recognise the connection between their thoughts and the physical results which they then experience.

 

But because the idea, or the thought of the idea, is purely subjective and the physical result is objective then it's often impossible to say that the two are linked or to show how they are linked via physical evidence alone.  For instance, you've probably experienced thinking of someone in particular and that someone appears in your experience soon after, either through a physical meeting or a communication of some type or another.  The association between your thinking of that person and them appearing in your experience may immediately come to mind.  As you become aware of that connection then you attempt to explain it, to rationalise it.  And what most people do via rationalisation is to dismiss it, or pass it off to chance or coincidence, and then fail to see the true reality of the idea producing a physical result.  And good luck trying to convince another that the thought produced the result.  For though the physical evidence of the person appearing in your experience is concrete, valid and acceptable evidence there is no evidence which links to the thought.  Good luck to me trying to convince you that that is what happens all the time with everything. 

 

If you want to know what the crux of the problem of understanding truly is it is this:  people do not possess consciousness but rather they are a consciousness.  A particular type of consciousness we call human.  Since so little is understood of what consciousness is and what it's properties are then it would be true to say that we don't really know who or what we are.  And I'm not referring strictly to the reflection in the mirror.  Since we don't understand what consciousness is then we can't begin to even consider what it's capabilities are or what effects it produces in our world.  It is said, and said truly, that without any true and comprehensive knowledge of what consciousness is then it is literally impossible to understand and make sense of the world we find ourselves in.  The quest for this type of knowledge begins with understanding what consciousness is.

 

Now I've said many times that I'm not religious but I was raised a Catholic.  I do recognise that there is wisdom to whatever extent in all religions.  As long as it's truth I care not what it's source.  So here is one truth which comes from the Bible:

 

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

-- Matthew 7:7-8

 

Anyone who wants to understand what consciousness is simply needs to ask and then frickin' knock on the mental door.  Everything necessary to bring about what you seek to find will then occur.  But you have to allow it and then work for it.  Don't want to do it?  No problem.  You stay where you are. 

 

50 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

. . . then hard to take it further unless one commits to some super deep dive.

 

Now that's a perceptive observation.  Since I was a kid I understood that life is both mysterious and baffling.  Mysterious in the sense of wonderment and baffling in the sense that events "happen to you," which confounds you as to why they've happened.  Everyone has at one time or another repeated the well worn phrase "sh!t happens" when something has gone south on them.  I used to think the old phrase to myself, "if it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all."  When I was 13 I determined to understand why sh!t seemed to happen to me.  Religion didn't have any answers.  Science didn't have any answers.  So I looked elsewhere.  But I was adamant that I would not go through my entire life believing in a bunch of answers given by my parents, my teachers, religion, science nor anyone else that weren't true answers because none of what they claimed to be answers worked.  I had enough intensity of desire to know that a "super deep dive" was not at all a deterrent for me.  That rolled right off my sleeve.  And I worked and worked and worked at it.

 

Just like anyone who, for example, wants to make money and decides to open a business, then to be successful one is required to take every single step that is needed to make that successful business a reality.  Don't want to take the necessary steps?  No problem.  But you won't have a successful business.  It's the same with my line of endeavour.  If it takes reading, testing out ideas in the real world, or whatever, then I'm willing to do whatever is necessary and so I reap the rewards.  My life then doesn't just "happen to" me.  I create my life consciously and deliberately.  Of the vast quantity and quality of ideas which exist I'm picky about the ones I choose.  For most folks they are not so discriminate in choosing what they believe and so from the morass of oftentimes conflicting beliefs which they've picked up through their journey in life, uncritically and unexamined for the most part, life then appears to "happen to" them.  And they are stumped as to why.

 

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A brief comment on the covid stuff that had been provided separately: 

I don't think Fauci noted you'll be safe with the vaccine is the same as saying it will prevent it - it made sennse to say safe when the unvaccinated were dying in such large no's at the time and the vaccinated were not. He didn't appear to use the word prevent. 

The Biden comment you provided, which I recall, is a perfect example of what I was saying - that some politicians misspoke - the reaction to his comment that the vaccine prevented covid was immediate and scathing - from social media and a range of medical sources including the CDC - saying his comment was not correct. It shows that the statement that the vaccine prevented covid had clearly not been treated as a scientific truth at that time. Broadly or otherwise.

 

You and I have completely different beliefs around Covid and the mRNA shots.  Your set of beliefs create the only conclusions which can be drawn from that set of beliefs. The conclusions are almost predetermined.  My set of beliefs draw different conclusions based on my set of beliefs.  No matter what facts, evidence, or interpretations are yours they will be in conflict with mine.  And vice versa.  On this subject we will, therefore, have to leave it as is and simply agree to disagree.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

 

The dream is only real in relative terms. When you are in the dream and believe it to be real, it will appear real to you and you won't question any impossibilities or incongruous elements in it. Then, when you wake up, you realize that the waking state is "more real", simply because more of your awareness is now shining its light upon this waking environment, which is consciousness itself.

 

Transposing this to the ultimate reality, you see that this makes sense. Awakening to your true nature allows consciousness to self-reflect by an even greater amount of awareness, thus making it even more real than our waking state.

 

Sure, this everyday reality we're living in feels real enough and it too is made of consciousness manifested. But to call it the same as absolute reality would be a mistake.

Laurence Fishburn docet. 

 

There's a video you had posted somewhere and the guy in it said "we need to understand the meanings of the words."  The common definition of the word 'real' is: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.  I'd use a different word than 'real'.  For saying that a dream or our physical life is not really real it implies that it's "imagined or supposed" and therefore not valid.  Physical existence has as much validity as inner existence but in different terms.  And those terms are the way reality manifests itself.

I need to make a poster sized copy of that Fishburne meme and hang it in my office. 

 

I do understand what you're saying, though, Sunmaster.  Your point is real valid. 

 

Tippaporn:  2

Sunmaster:  1

 

     

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Ayn Rand was another crackpot.

Her core message was that altruism was bad and unfettered self-interest was good.

Total bs.

 

I like the fact that she went there - for good and for bad. Keep in mind her communist past where she saw a lot of justifications for helping her fellow man which turned out not to work in terms of practical human nature.

What if self interest is everything that feels good for you and doing things for people feels good. Then doing things for selfish reasons might include helping people. Starting with the premise that you are doing things to help people because it's somehow objectively good is almost religious - doing what you want, which may include helping others, is doing something based on your human nature. Possibly the same outcome but how you get there in your mind is more logical and clear. 

Edited January 28 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Tippaporn:  2

Sunmaster:  1

 

I have the sneaking suspicion that you may not be the most impartial judge when keeping score. I could be wrong though...

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I have the sneaking suspicion that you may not be the most impartial judge when keeping score. I could be wrong though...

 

I'm only up one because I went first.  Which means that at best you can only catch up. 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I like the fact that she went there - for good and for bad. Keep in mind her communist past where she saw a lot of justifications for helping her fellow man which turned out not to work in terms of practical human nature.

What if self interest is everything that feels good for you and doing things for people feels good. Then doing things for selfish reasons might include helping people. Starting with the premise that you are doing things to help people because it's somehow objectively good is almost religious - doing what you want, which may include helping others, is doing something based on your human nature. Possibly the same outcome but how you get there in your mind is more logical and clear. 

Take it a step further, man.

Get into Aleister Crowley philosophy.

Do what thou wilt.

Do whatever the hell you want. YOLO. You only live once.

 

Edited January 28 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:00 PM, Sunmaster said:

(n+1)²

bad news, sunmaster.

you got competition.

Robert Sapolsky is working hard these days preaching his "No God, No Free Will, Life is Pointless" message.

Here he is on another channell with 4 million subscribers preachin' it for 2 hours.

And I thought your posts were long-winded.

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

 

 

Edited January 28 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

bad news, sunmaster.

you got competition.

Robert Sapolsky is working hard these days preaching his "No God, No Free Will, Life is Pointless" message.

Here he is on another channell with 4 million subscribers preachin' it for 2 hours.

And I thought your posts were long-winded.

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

 

 

My posts are longwinded? I think you're confusing me with someone else. 😄

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

And I thought your posts were long-winded.

My posts are longwinded? I think you're confusing me with someone else. 😄

 

Give credit to where it belongs, Frogs.  Verbosity is my middle name. 

[save the frogs]

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Give credit to where it belongs, Frogs.  Verbosity is my middle name. 

Actually, I can be verbose too.

You're lucky I'm busy.

It's better than having nothing to say maybe?

 

Edited January 28 by save the frogs

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, save the frogs said:

bad news, sunmaster.

you got competition.

Robert Sapolsky is working hard these days preaching his "No God, No Free Will, Life is Pointless" message.

Here he is on another channell with 4 million subscribers preachin' it for 2 hours.

And I thought your posts were long-winded.

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

 

 

The physical universe as idea construction.  Sapolsky provides a wonderful illustration of that concept.  Of all of the ideas which are in existence you pick and choose amongst them and, like a child playing with building blocks, you create an idea construction made up of those ideas which you've picked.  This is exactly what Sapolsky has done.  It is exactly what everyone does.  Without the slightest awareness or understanding of what they are doing.

 

But it goes further.  Any idea construction which people create for themselves they are able to make sense of.  And again, without the slightest awareness or understanding that what they've constructed makes sense only given those ideas which comprise their idea construction.  For as soon as other ideas are included into their idea construction then what once made sense become nonsensical.

 

And so Sapolsky illustrates perfectly that the absurd can and does indeed make sense.  Even if only within itself.  And that there is no limit to the numbers of people who can then also see and create Sapolsky's idea construction for themselves and so they all attract each other like magnets via their shared idea constructions.

 

If I were to attempt to get people to understand the mechanics behind it all, that the physical universe is an idea construction, that nothing in our world exists without first existing as an idea - an idea being subjective and thus the objective reality is sourced in the subjective reality - then I would appear as an idiot.  For given the idea constructions most have created for themselves my explanation makes no sense at all.  Sapolsky's ideas that there exists no free will and no purpose to anything matches more closely those idea constructions which most people have already constructed for themselves.

 

Therefore, I'm the loon in my rational and logical sanity whereas Sapolsky is sheer brilliance in his irrational and illogical lunacy. 

[Tippaporn]

55 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

It's better than having nothing to say maybe?

 

The truth of which is strictly for you to decide for yourself given your idea constructions.  Within them perhaps it's true. 

[save the frogs]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Therefore, I'm the loon in my rational and logical sanity whereas Sapolsky is sheer brilliance in his irrational and illogical lunacy.

Here, read this and then summarize it in 10,000 words or less.

 

This guy has "issues" with Sapolsky and his ilk.

 

 

 

[save the frogs]

This is DEEP and PROFOUND. 

 

ChatGPT - The Soul Eater.

 

Highly recommend. 

 

Stephen Fry reads letter by Nick Cave. How cool is that?

 

---------------------------

God makes the world in 6 days. On the 7th day, he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests the creation required a certain amount of effort on God's part. 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

@save the frogs

 

I know you enjoy a tune now and again.  Verbosity --> Sossosity.  The mind not always works in time-line linear fashion.  It's associative functioning works wonderfully well, too.

 

Sossity; You're A Woman from Jethro Tull's superb '70 Benefit LP.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Here, read this and then summarize it in 10,000 words or less.

 

Not possible.  No less than 100,000 words.  Sorry. 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This guy has "issues" with Sapolsky and his ilk.

 

Well, just goes to show not everyone is a lunatic. 

 

No need to read the book refuting Sapolsky's idiocy as idiocy needs no refutation.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is DEEP and PROFOUND. 

 

ChatGPT - The Soul Eater.

 

Highly recommend. 

 

Stephen Fry reads letter by Nick Cave. How cool is that?

 

---------------------------

God makes the world in 6 days. On the 7th day, he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests the creation required a certain amount of effort on God's part. 

 

 

Goddamn, that was good.  Not good, great!  Awesome.  Now I've always liked Nick Cave but I think I'm going to go out now and purchase every one of his albums in support of him.    Ah, were I able to take a complex subject such as ChatGP and AI and distill it down to it's essence in a mere short letter I'd hear the resounding shouts of jubilation and see the tears of joy issuing down the checks like rivers of every poster here.  Until that time, though, it's continued unbearable human suffering for you boys and girls. 

 

BTW, I downloaded that vid.  What a masterpiece birthed from the bottomless depths of human creativity and love.  Eternal thanks, Frogs.        I'll never speak poorly of you again.  At least I'll try my utter best, which may not be good enough. 

[Tippaporn]

That post, Frogs, deserves a tribute to Nick Cave.

 

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds with Cave and fellow band mate Blixa Bargeld in a duet on The Weeping Song, off of their '90 The Good Son album.