IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say. — Frank Apisa

I do mind, because for me to think that a conversation is worthwhile, I need to know that you can think about things off-script.

You need to be able to think about whether you'd say that you're aware of or that you experience knowing . . . for example.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say. — Frank Apisa


I do mind, because for me to think that a conversation is worthwhile, I need to know that you can think about things off-script.

You need to be able — Terrapin Station

If you cannot use the words I use when commenting on my comments...and prefer to make up words of your own...

...you are NOT commenting on what I wrote.

If you are not commenting on what I wrote...why the hell involve me?

Quote what I say...and comment on that.

Don't make crap up.

If you think I am being unfair by asking you not to make stuff up...not much I can do.

So it would follow that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, right?

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


So it would follow that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, right? — Terrapin Station

I hope not, Terrapin.

I enjoy our conversations.

Here...let me make a modified version of the post that seems to have caused a problem.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I am using the word "know" here in the same way I would be using it if we were having coffee at a cafe'...and I said, "I know my name is Frank Apisa"...or..."I know the capital of England is London"...or "I know 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10."

Now...what problems do you have with that.

Just that...just what I wrote...not any interpretations or modifications of what I wrote. If you are unclear on anything...ask. But please, only ask if something truly is unclear to you...rather than just to try to fuzz up the issue.

What I'm trying to explore is why you'd think that I don't know the true nature of reality.

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


What I'm trying to explore is why you'd think that I don't know the true nature of reality. — Terrapin Station

For starters, I will acknowledge it is a guess, Terrapin.

Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I hope that gives you a clue as to why I guess YOU do not know.

Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence. — Frank Apisa

Right. So what would be interesting to me is to figure out why you would say this.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence. — Frank Apisa


Right. So what would be interesting to me is to figure out why you would say this. — Terrapin Station

Allow me a question, because what would be interesting to me is to figure out why YOU would think anyone with a brain would say anything differently.

So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Do you KNOW, for instance, are there any gods involved?

Are there no gods involved?

Is what we humans call "the universe" all there is?

Is there anything within the thing we humans call "the universe" that humans do not know...or CANNOT ever know?

So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa

Via observations and reasoning basically.

(I don't want to answer more than one thing at a time, because I want to focus on stuff so that we make progress with it.)

Terrapin Station
8.4k

So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa


Via observations and reasoning basically.

(I don't want to answer more than one thing at a time, because I want to focus on stuff so that we make progress with it.) — Terrapin Station

Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa

Yes. Many aspects of it.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa


Yes. Many aspects of it. — Terrapin Station

Either the answer is "YES"...without that qualifier...

...or it is "NO."

Which is it?

For instance...are there any gods involved in the REALITY...or are there none?

Either the answer is "YES"...without that qualifier... — Frank Apisa

It's not just yes or no, because we're not just talking about one thing/one aspect.

For instance...are there any gods involved in the REALITY...or are there none? — Frank Apisa

The whole way this conversation started was with my response to this.

No. Obviously there are no gods. The entire idea of gods is as absurd as anything you can imagine.

— Terrapin Station

So...you know there are no gods.

Tell me...do you spend any time on the Frying Pan?

No idea at the moment what that's a reference to (the "Frying Pan").

On your home page, you mention that you are a NYC guy.

Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street.

Never visited it?

You mean as a thought or an obsession sort of thing that is happening with this thread?

Wallows
7.5k
You mean as a thought or an obsession sort of thing that is happening with this thread? — Wallows

???

I'm trying to draw out the motivation behind or driving this thread...

Wallows
7.5k
I'm trying to draw out the motivation behind or driving this thread... — Wallows

I think Gnostic Bishop was attempting to find out how people feel about the prospect of death...and pt it into the "are you happy about the prospect" form.

Some of us answered...and once that happened, it ran dry. And as often happens in these situations, it is now on a (perhaps appropriate, perhaps not so appropriate) tangent.

It not me trying to pick anyone out or the OP in particular. You see Abrahamic religions in generally occupied with this... obsession?

On your home page, you mention that you are a NYC guy.

Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street. — Frank Apisa

Ah--no, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not much of a bar person.

Hi, already shared with you the essence of Christian mysticism. I can't bid against myself, I can't advance a bid against a bid which has not been beaten.

Regards, Happy Easter, my High Holy Day.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

On your home page, you mention that you are a NYC guy.

Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street. — Frank Apisa


Ah--no, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not much of a bar person. — Terrapin Station

Understood!

I'm trying to draw out the motivation behind or driving this thread... — Wallows

I was kind of hoping some Christians would argue for their desire to live eternally but it seems that most do not want that any more than the rest who suspect that there is nothing else after death.

That or they just do not believe in it any more than they really believe that their satanic god is good.

Their religiosity has nothing to do with a god and has everything to do with their appeasement of the tribal natures.

Regards
DL

Hi, already shared with you the essence of Christian mysticism. I can't bid against myself, I can't advance a bid against a bid which has not been beaten. — Daniel Cox

Right over my head. I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Regards
DL

You're not alone, I get that quite a bit.

Hi, Certain words are required to transfer meaning, but we can use other words to convey the same meaning, so let me give it a try. You're asking me about my religion, and yes, you're right in your response, right about me claiming to be not 'a' Supreme Being, but 'the' Supreme Being. This is called Christian Mysticism, it's kind of the claim of mysticism across the board. Every religion pretty much has a mystic branch that involves mystical oneness.

We're all one with God, that's kind of the theory or belief. John chapter 17. 1 John 4:20, James 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 13.

The phrase "I can't bid against myself" means that I haven't been outbid. Apparently you haven't looked into mysticism before. How can a person outbid mysticism with naturalism? How can one try and top mysticism with "Everything is natural." There is something mystical about that claim, naturalism.

How can one try and top mysticism with "Everything is natural." There is something mystical about that claim, — Daniel Cox

As you say, things can be said in various ways and yet mean the same thing.

I do not see a conflict between mysticism and nature. That is why I describe myself as an esoteric ecumenist and naturalist. As a Gnostic Christian, I happen to use the more mystical natural Jesus and his way to the only salvation possible. That of the way we think.

I don't think we have an argument other that the use of terms like supreme. In a divine council, no one is supreme till supremacy is granted by others. It is not a title one can give ones self.

English is a poor language. I prefer my French. It is a cleaner language to use.

Regards
DL

This fellow, Hindu Harry, I've been chatting with on a thread I started, "The Verificationist Fallacy" was saying the exact same thing as you. You both have a relationship with the word "naturalism" I do not.

Just for something to talk about, look at how people who deny God, people who claim to be "atheists" say, "Atheism is simple, it's the denial of the deity claim, but I'm an atheist-agnostic." If you follow a rigorous theory of truth, the correspondence theory for example, then the claimed adherent's position is 100% incoherent.

You can't be something waiting for someone else to say something to you (or me) in a predesignated way that activates the first party as the only premise doubling as their conclusion. That's a bit jumbled, but you get what I mean I hope.

For instance, for clarity, I could say to them, "I'm a Glibglabberist, I deny the atheist claim, and the atheist-agnostic claim. I'm underrepresented in prisons/jail, I'm more moral and we Glibglabberists are the intelligentsia. We score higher on IQ tests and tests regarding emotional well being." "Atheists rape children."

Naturalism is a faith statement. We're jiving 100% except on that word. I think it has something to do with so many people putting stock in "naturalist" scientists like Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking; Dennett, Sam Harris and the like. I think, kind of know, all God deniers are morons. If you look carefully at their arguments you'll see the incoherence I referenced above.

Mysticism & naturalism are diametrically opposed, they're enemies. Here's an argument I would give to the God deniers when Google + was alive:

Evidently, you are not aware of the proof technique in logic called Proof by Contradiction or, in other words, an indirect proof. This particular technique of arguing is also known as Reductio ad Absurdum, which is a valid form of deductive reasoning that dates back to the ancient Greeks.

Basically, according to this proof technique whenever there are only two alternatives, in this case supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) and naturalism (atheism), it is not necessary to directly prove either one of them. By proving that either one of them is false, then it follows that the other is true. Of course, in this case, in regards to supernaturalism and naturalism, this type of proof is not and cannot be a strictly deductive type, but rather an inductive.

Note that it has already been established that naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy. But, because naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy, it follows that naturalism (atheism) must be false. Therefore, supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) is true by Reductio ad Absurdum or, in other words, an indirect proof. Again this is not a strictly deductive type proof, but rather inductive.

The only fully consistent alternative to belief in God, properly understood, is some version of "materialism" or "physicalism"or (to use the term most widely preferred at present) "naturalism"; and naturalism--the doctrine that there is nothing apart from the physical order, and certainly nothing supernatural (a transcendent reality).

You're one of the only people I'm talking to here, and in general, one of 4. So, I really look forward to your next message.

Best regards (that's cool!),
Dan Cox

Dan, In this piece, you highlight one of the reasons I so often rail against the use of descriptors...because they often have different meanings to different people. For some people, descriptors can have different meanings in at different times or in different contexts.

Some descriptors, in my opinion, are virtually useless because of that.

Atheism, agnostic atheism, naturalism, supernaturalism and the like just do not truly mean anything.

Best to thoroughly describe a position...and then use the descriptor as a shortcut in other parts of a commentary.