Could there be a deeper truth about ourselves that always escapes perception? — Gregory

Maybe there is, maybe not. Evidence points to the fact there is. But the point is, through millennia people have asked that question....but that question maybe the wrong question. Under the conditions, the right question seems to be, since we aren't able to see or understand the thing-in-itself, how can that change.

I see you have been doing some research, good.

I will take a stab at your questions (Both numbered as well as the ones in the paragraph):

The thing-in-itself is important for those that want to know the truth of that thing, or any thing, for that matter..

The thing-in-itself will always escape perception, if that perception is colored or biased in any way.

Right relationship can't be a result of an academic analysis of books, obviously. It will depend on the application of wisdom in one’s life and living.

To continue from what one said few posts up:

Looking at the subject matter so far, it seems the quest to discover if there is anything sacred, has it's foundation in wonder, curiosity, and joy. Like a discoverer who has seen the signs and is looking for the source. That quest has nothing to do with the fear based endeavors, of thought trying to find security in it's own creations. Whether the creations are secular, religious, or some other kind.

If you cannot accept any of the options given then go ahead say your last word, and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Continue, oh seeker, supreme authority of misanthropic paradox, sensitive to the slightest gestures of of a benign skepticism.

You didn't even clarify whether you accept you're making a naturalistic fallacy.

If everything of and by man is to be rejected, and you are a man, then whatever you are peddling, by your own admission, ought to be rejected. Why do you get a special exemption? Perhaps because of the immense esteem/hubris your grant yourself. You're permitted to insult but cannot stand any reciprocation of insults, even if it is a kind absurd light-hearted play. Chill out dude. You're just like everybody else. You eat, shit, and use up a lot of energy for the sake of farting around. You clitty clack on a keyboard/computer manufactured in China. You pay your bills and your taxes. You read stuff written by others and write back because you're looking for somekind of bond/connection. You have time to kill.

Same old song and dance. — Nils Loc

Well, one cannot expect integrity from someone like you, but be careful, you might choke on so much scat coming out of your mouth.

You seriously don't expect me to explain my actions to you, do you? Sorry, won’t do it. My actions are on record. I am not going to play this game you want to play. You are too small for me to indulge. But if you still want to pursue this further I will definitely give you the option to meet me at a more neutral place. The options I gave to that other troll is now being given to you. But, unfortunately, I am 100% sure you cannot take me up on it. Clearly you lack the spine and the intestinal fortitude for that kind of thing. However, I am willing to be proven wrong.

But to anyone (without any history of bullying or trolling) sincerely interested, who have the social skills to ask courteously as a normal person would, even if they are obsessed with the author as you two seem to be, I will direct them to the body of evidence previously mentioned. Wherein they can see and verify for themselves, the credibility (or its lack), of your continued failed attempts to vilify(the scat that you keep pulling out of your fanny) the author. Let them do evidence based comparisons. If they have any clarifying questions I may entertain them, and help them through that body of evidence. But such an inquiry needs to be evidence based, not any fictitious sissy rants coming from insecurity.

P.S. you can also reach out to me in PM with your grievances. I am curious to see how deep your conflict and neurosis go. But that’s not what you will do, right? You would rather play this game.

If you think it's not interesting who shows up and contributes to this thread, then you shouldn't be interested in Tiff's comment, nor should you be interested in making any response to it, let alone this one. Perhaps your praxis is passive-aggressiveness, though. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, his-her (@praxis ) obviously is that. But clearly it's more than that. Did you know he-she loves yellow turds? We were talking about it yesterday. Apparently he-she subscribes to the philosophy of the turd, But besides all that it seems attempts at bullying behind anonymity seems to be another practice of our praxis. Wherever there is turd to be stirred, you will find our praxis practicing the art of turd stirring.

That's right! Simple and clear enough isn't it? Course that valuation does not apply to any serious and sincere seekers. That special (and accurate) valuation is reserved for wannabe bullies and trolls like you.

P.S. You should have tagged me instead of posting the above slyly. I guess the trolling fun is wearing off huh.

I have never been part of this thread (circus) but as a token for the departed member will say:

can both testify that he is a calm poster. — Protagoras

I will second the above. I will call him a 'good' guy.

The irony of a forum full of people debating and talking about ethics, empathy and human rights,and then only two people showing any courage to say," hey this is not right. We can see he wasn't an emotional poster".

Or are all your ethics abstract?
It's how you treat issues like this that expresses your character. Otherwise you are just talkers and echo chamber partisans. — Protagoras

The above is a good post.

Did a man create these paragraphs? Do we conceptualize these sentences? Does the blanket statement apply to the author's creation, as special authority for others to follow?

So if we're being prescribed a non-conceptual invitation to pure experience, or meditative sense awareness, what more?

Why isn't the divisive, demeaning, confrontational tit-for-tat, to and from the author, an indicator of fears/neurosis all around. — Nils Loc

In interest of any reader i think a response is due to the above. The author has never felt the need to explain his actions and will not start now. The author’s actions are a matter of record and can be traced back by anyone interested in doing so, including his interactions with the human counterparts of this , of which you are a good example. Likewise the conduct of the author (and how he has dealt with attempted bullying and continuous trolling), by the two of you, can be measured by the same evidence. It can be verified, whether, the author is in the habit of exercising authority, or rather, in the habit of adding disclaimers (in his posts) of claiming no authority. Which is completely out of norm in this forum. Author is the only one here that adds such disclaimers, which is a testament to the author's character.

That being said,you (not “we”. We is for cowards in this particular context, and I, know you are in the habit of using this pronoun for reasons that should be quite obvious), aren’t being prescribed anything. It seems y’all are deluded in your worth. Let me clarify in a simple way, your value is less than TP for OP. So unfortunately, OP doesn’t care to prescribe anything to anyone. He hasn’t seen anyone worth that trouble.

As to some of your questions regarding the subject matter being discussed, the author had made it very clear, in the first couple of days of joining this forum; he isn’t interested in educating the clueless. Surely that will also apply to clueless spineless trolls such as yourself. However, in author's succeeding posts or in his answers to others, you might have noticed how easily your clueless objections have been refuted or answers have been given. Now keep in mind I am not demeaning you or anyone else, just stating facts. Facts which can be verified by the same body of evidence mentioned in para one. Unlike your buddy, you know the yellow belly @praxis ,who seems to take great pride in silencing starwmans, yours truly however deals with facts. Everything he has said and is saying, can be corroborated by evidence.

Please don't feel bad or get all neurotic about it. Things happen and people get outclassed. There is always that someone who is going to be better. You cannot fight facts. And you shouldn't. Otherwise you will never be anything more than an insecure, reactionary, petty opportunistic troll. Comprende compadre? You feel me? :-) Good! Now get over it. I am sharing these facts of life with affection. Feel free to disregard them.

Now if you will excuse me, i have things to attend to, with my usual silence.

To continue a bit from what was said in OP and to finish what was said to @180 Proof :

The investigation into the possibility of anything sacred cannot be undertaken from a fearful heart and a conflicted mind. It seems to OP, that investigation can only begin when the heart is free from the fears generated by self-interest, and a mind that has been cleared of conflict.

Such a heart-mind, full of wonder, and perhaps joy (Absence of fear), exhausting the frontiers of reason yet unable to locate the source of what it's experiencing, is drawn to such a search like a moth is drawn to the flame. It is possible for the seeker to end like the moth. But on closer scrutiny it will be revealed that the ending may have already happened, when the heart became free, and the mind got cleared (as mentioned in previous para)

But such an investigation into the possibility of the sacred isn't within the filed of thought. Which means such an investigation isn't possible in, or by, anything man has created. Because everything man has created is born of divisive thought and it's fears/neurosis. Whether it's religion, the sciences, the arts, politics, society, economics, the beautiful chair, or weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but you broke your sacred covenant of silence again. Please try harder — praxis

Like this response, the previous response was also well noticed. The point about the involvement/sponsorship of the central committee in your trolling had to be made.Hence that post Not because one expects it to change, that would be silly. But simply to make y'all aware, that yours truly knows exactly what's going on. Likewise, the reason for this post is to add the finishing touches on the point (since one is dealing with amateurs that have to be spoon fed)) that you are still outclassed in every possible way, irrespective of your belated emoticons, which actually work against you, every time the joke gets clearer. So my dear little yellow-belly, the point is, you two became less than a 2 dollar hookers (no offence to that group, merely using it as a comparison) when you started following me around. By trying so hard, you lost before you began.

But again, maybe you can change that. Come see me sometime, if you can make yourself. Go ahead and have your last word, try again.

I didn't say I was scared, only that "sacred" looks like "scared" to me. But thanks for the encouragement. — 180 Proof

Well,fear does make people hold on to their words and beliefs. Whether it's the belief of a religious god or some other kind of secular god. The OP and other threads have talked about it. So yes, fear is one of the contributing factor for beliefs. The OP is questioning if the mind can be free from such words and beliefs, religiously latched on to by both camps. Which (fear) is demonstrated in their self-labeling. Clearly one cannot look objectively if that freedom (from fear) isn't there. To clarify.

Whenever I see (not hear) the word "sacred", my brain reads it as scared. Must be a forty-odd year hold-over from being a teenage apostate / atheist — 180 Proof

It's surprising your 40 years of pursuing your belief hasn't freed you from that fear. Must be pretty deep.

Please don't be scared. There are other things to be scared of, than a word,

Ah, the sacred silence with which the covenant was broken. For a troll there is no more satisfying treat. Fear not though, this game grows old. — praxis

That's right. You two have been desperately trying to get that treat for over a month, and i gave you what you wanted, consciously and willingly, as a sample. In interests of doing a reality check. Should you two be able to get over your fear and want to test your mettle again, meet me in a place where your trolling isn't sponsored by the central committee and i will guarantee you the things i had mentioned in the links given above. Now go back to your scats and turds, yellow belly.

It's 100% yellow and 30% magenta, actually. Your Floridian thrift store monitor must be tweaked.

I was reading about a color theory the other day that claims black was the first recognized color by (wo)man. Allegedly, if you scan early texts black was the first color distinguished and mentioned. Next came white, then red, and so on. Blue was one of the latest, as I recall. Supposedly if you were to ask a primitive woman what color the sky was they would have said something like, "sky black". This in no way suggests that you are primitive. I'm sure that it's merely a coincidence. — praxis

If there is something sacred or transcendent, then it has to be primordial, and thus primitive. The primitive will have much less corruption and malfeasance than the modern. And this is no surprise when one looks at the expressions of such claimed modernity, in examples such as yourself. One wonders if in our haste to prejudicially define the words so as to use it weapons, we have the intended meanings confused. It certainly seems that way. Therefore I will take the word primitive as a compliment. One needs a primitive mind and heart, which are clear and objective, to see the signature of the sacred when one looks at the sky, and the work of the transcendent in the blooming of a flower. This para is perhaps an addendum to the OP.

Now coming back to you, clearly animal scat and human turd are sacred to both of you. This of course shows in both of your conduct. Conduct being an expression/measure of what/who a person truly is. So I will let you two run along and revel in your scats and turds. I am guessing you will apply your philosophical acumen to examining and analyzing the said, in context with your own lives. And of course when you come here you will be encrusted with them and share the philosophy of the turd with your fellow philosophers, as you seem to be doing. And form the obvious support, you seem to be at home with other turd-philosophy lovers.

In any case,come see me sometime, sissy. The offer we discussed here and here still stands. You still have both options available. The address to the other forum, or in 3D. You can also bring your bottom feeding girlfriend @Nils Loc to assist you. Now if you will excuse me I have to take a shower as my present business with the turd and the scat is over.

Note: The silence was broken consciously and the reality check was given willingly. No more.

I was wondering about the other sissy.i.e. you. When you would show up, considering the recent turn of events. Clearly you knew about them since you were doing your daily rounds.

But then i remembered you are an opportunistic troll (which is the worst kind of sissy), so it was just a matter of time before you would show up, lil fella.

That was actually a little funny. I didn’t think you had it in you. — praxis

Yes, i am showing you the joke that you truly are. Having fun? Could do it even more so and really quick, but unfortunately you couldn't take me up on the challenge, sissy. Your profile picture/thumbnail has the appropriate color, yellow.

Each time you post a brilliant insight the wise will show their support, of course. I was so inspired by your revelations that I immediately went out back, did my business, and then uploaded a shot of it to illustrate my appreciation and enthusiastic agreement with your address. What could be more human less sacred than human do-do?!

I apologize that this turd appears rather unfirm. I haven't been getting enough fiber of late. Last night I made grilled hamburgers, which are low in fiber. They were good though, seasoned with fresh basil and other herbs, an egg for firmness and to retain moisture, a bit of cheddar and parmesan cheese, and a splash of soy sauce. So you're looking at a little bit of that in the photo above. — praxis

While your capacity for wisdom has yet to be established (that claim was amusing though), but it’s quite obvious from the size of the turd your colon sphincters are slowly expanding, on account of the visits to yours truly.

You see how this works? I own you, siisy. You will come running to me each time.

tik tok

Christianity gave West the idea that we are all one mystical body being showed mercy by God. However, karma applies perfectly to all good and bad acts. There is no room for mercy pushing aside justice in the name of pity disguised as love — Gregory

Nonsense. That's your idea of what Christanity gave. An incorrect and prejudicial idea like the one i had commented/corrected here

Now you are introducing another idea, the idea of karma, which is borrowed from Hinduism. Then admit to all the principles of Hinduisim.

Make up your mind. This kind of picking and choosing to build a shoddy blanket isn't a credit to reason or logic.This is not the way of the bear, but that of a weasel.

This is what happens when you deny a system of checks and balances, which one may hypothetically and loosely call God. The denial can occur because of many reasons. But some of the most common is a reaction to life experiences, and the allurement of no accountability. The latter is a very tempting proposition to many. They are now free (at least they think they are) to do as they like, rape, pillage, cruelty, violence etc. Or, if circumstances do not permit the prior then they will attempt to do that in other ways, like economically, socially, in business etc. So the bottom line incentive is an absence of accountability. One knows not many have examined this deeply, but this is so simple even a caveman/woman can see it. This isn't rocket science.

So for such people whose life is based on a lack of accountability, to say they will be self-accountable as in kindness and justice, ts laughable. Just some thoughts in simple language. No response sought or required. carry on with your beleifs.

Justice to all, mercy to none, kindness to everyone, love to those who are real — Gregory

Sounds like something from a hallmark card.

Etymology of Mercy: Read this

Kindness without mercy? Oh ok. And "love" ?....HA!

Family ties are weaker in the "Christian West" than anywhere else in the world — Echarmion

:up: If common knowledge isn't enough, a comparison of the FBI stats on crimes against family members may point it out.

I think Nietzsche was right. Mercy is a weakness not a virtue. — Gregory

Let me guess, cruelty and violence is a virtue for you.

Better luck next time.

What I mean by rigorous logic is reasoning without any fallacies. — Hello Human

Sounds good.

Up for consideration is the following simple logic, It's a basic observation, doesn't get more basic than this, that you do not have true ownership over yourself, your body, or 'life', Now use logic and relinquish the fallacious sense of ownership. And by extension the sense of ownership over everything else you think you "own".. Have the atheists and the theists use their logic (simple, not even rigorous), if you can. At the end of the day all your "love for wisdom" comes down to how well you can translate it in your living, doesn't it? Unless, the idea is simply to....well...the circus.

May i add ,"sock".

Even more neutralizing is to not make any moves. This also avoids moves that might be insults or might not be, like your last. Which then avoids being incorrect, also. — Bylaw

You are talking big for a new account. I don't recall asking you for advice. Don't be insulting by giving it.

The move is to neutralize all moves. A discussion is reserved for the serious and the sincere.

The "we", "us", and the "I" is the mind, or at least a major part of it, yes.

Like i said in that post, not interested in the god game. You will have to find someone else.

. But here we go again, with the title in praise of atheism, and I notice that a couple of others have remarked on your title too.So perhaps we really need to build a temple, and compose some hymns for the thread. — Jack Cummins

As a related point, i think you perhaps forgot to mention missionary work. You know the kind where they travel presenting their "evidence".

There is quite a lot of evidence on the existence/non-existence of God. And it is known as evidence. "They don't know anything" is thus a misstatement. — tim wood

The point is, i was clearing up the distortion to the word agnostic. As to your "evidence", you hold on to that, it will help support your beliefs. Or, you can present them in your battles with the theists,

the matter we embody is bound by limitations that the mind we embody is straining against. But this body was never supposed to mark the limits of our mind’s capacity — Possibility

How did this come about? What do you think is the resolution, if any?

:up:

Isn't what Banno said included in what you said? Although yes it's missing an essential part "and no good reason to think god exists" — khaled

The "essential part", as you call it, is the prejudicial part, a personal add on, which has very different implication than the actual definition.

Here I'm looking at atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists, and is contrary to the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist. — Banno

It would be nice to see some integrity in people, but perhaps it's too much to expect from the prejudiced.

You have incorrectly defined and characterized the agnostic view, clearly in a prejudicial way.

This is the etymology of agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" ,and can be seen here .

This is from Wikipedia: These are the first 2 sentences. "Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".

Therefore the true agnostic view is, they don't know anything about the existence or the non-existence of god.

So, show some credibility when you start these threads. In any case, i have no investments or interest in this silly "god" game, and will remove myself now.

Well, there ya go.

Let the sissies with the hissies use it, eh