It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Its an unfair attack; I see your reasoning. These are very esoteric abstract concepts. These are ideas needed more to be *listened* to rather then be blanketed and thrown in the dustbin.

I'm not tossing them out. I am just saying that they can not be proven so, anyone who thinks they can logically argue them is mistaken.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Its an unfair attack; I see your reasoning. These are very esoteric abstract concepts. These are ideas needed more to be *listened* to rather then be blanketed and thrown in the dustbin.

I'm not tossing them out. I am just saying that they can not be proven so, anyone who thinks they can logically argue them is mistaken.

I can or think I can outsmart the argument.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I am not asking you to agree with me but be open to the possibility that I am right and argue my claims using your own points. But you haven't done that.

Yes you are. That is why it is so important for you to get me to define what I mean by DE and self inquiry. You want to "prove" that I don't know what I am talking about in order to be able to say that that is why I don't agree.

What is not a baseless opinion to you? If something has good logic behind it then it is worth considering. Now you are right that logic can seem true to oneself, but that's why it's about discussing the logic with each other.

You answered your own question. When you insist on using your own definition of terms, you may as well just dismiss the concept that "we are discussing the logic with each other".

Same here, and you are right. They don't deal with your points directly. I am saying take a peak beyond the points you've given and actually start discussing points. Maybe then we'll learn something after all this time.

Discussing baseless points will teach us what?

It is someones fault we haven't been progressing at all. And if you've kept things in circular logic like you've done, then no wonder.

Sounds like you don't know what circular logic is. I am not applying circular logic. We are going around in circles but that is not what that term means.

I am saying, stop making the same points and discuss something new. It wasn't very helpful until now.

When the point is that everything you are saying is baseless, what is left to discuss?

originally posted by: daskakik
I am just saying that they can not be proven so, anyone who thinks they can logically argue them is mistaken.

I don't want an argument.
You made a statement:

originally posted by: daskakik
The realiziation that I am not my thoughts and the loss of importance that these had.

And I want to understand what you mean - that is all.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
And I want to understand what you mean - that is all.

I man exactly what those videos you are always posting mean.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes you are. That is why it is so important for you to get me to define what I mean by DE and self inquiry. You want to "prove" that I don't know what I am talking about in order to be able to say that that is why I don't agree.

Just because someone asks another for more clarity on what he knows and means by what he says doesn't automatically make me want to prove you wrong. I am open to being wrong and if you answered those questions, I would know where you would stand, making the discussion more fruitful.

You answered your own question. When you insist on using your own definition of terms, you may as well just dismiss the concept that "we are discussing the logic with each other".

I use the definition as they are most commonly used. In some cases maybe not, that's why I ask for more clarity on what you mean by what you say. Which you haven't given.

Discussing baseless points will teach us what?

What is an opinion with base then? Give me an example.

Sounds like you don't know what circular logic is. I am not applying circular logic. We are going around in circles but that is not what that term means.

Indeed, but we are going around in circles because no matter what logic goes behind my points, I am always accused of "that's just your logic". That is not how a discussion between a christian and atheist typically goes.

When the point is that everything you are saying is baseless, what is left to discuss?

As I said earlier, what is an example which is not a baseless opinion to you?

If everything I say is baseless just because it's from my point of view then we obviously won't get anywhere. I am trying to say things that can be known with certainty. That can be verified by you. Not just opinions without any sense behind them.
Based on you, scientists are all baseless with their opinions because they only see things from their point of view and may be flawed.

When I say that all we can experience is here and now, that is a true claim. Every one can verify it and it is flawless. It's true whether people deny it or not, and I needed no scientific back up to prove it.
I say things which I know for sure, and which can be proven by other people themselves, not just me.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Just because someone asks another for more clarity on what he knows and means by what he says doesn't automatically make me want to prove you wrong.

Why not just accept that I might actually understand what you are talking about and leave it at that? It's not like that would make a difference to the points I am bringing up.

Which you haven't given.

Untrue, definitions have been linked in the thread and I am not the only one who has brought this up.

What is an opinion with base then? Give me an example.

There's more than 60 pages of me, as well as others, doing this.

Indeed, but we are going around in circles because no matter what logic goes behind my points, I am always accused of "that's just your logic". That is not how a discussion between a christian and atheist typically goes.

Red herring. The way discussions go between christians and atheists has nothing to do with your understanding of what circular logic means and why it does/doesn't apply in what you pointed out.

If everything I say is baseless just because it's from my point of view then we obviously won't get anywhere. I am trying to say things that can be known with certainty. That can be verified by you. Not just opinions without any sense behind them.

And I have done this but you don't want to accept that I have which also will get us nowhere.

Based on you, scientists are all baseless with their opinions because they only see things from their point of view and may be flawed.

Guess you don't know how science works either. I think I now see why this thread has gone the way it has.

I say things which I know for sure, and which can be proven by other people themselves, not just me.

Christians say things that they know for sure and which can be proven by other people themselves, not just them.

And you think what about their reasoning?

a reply to: daskakik

Why not just accept that I might actually understand what you are talking about and leave it at that? It's not like that would make a difference to the points I am bringing up.

I don't want to assume what you know. If I know what you know about SI and DE then what I would be saying would make more sense, but you have no idea what I'm talking about it seems but you pretend you do. So we could relate to each other more on what we know and what we can discuss but it seems that's not your motive.

Untrue, definitions have been linked in the thread and I am not the only one who has brought this up.

My point was you were unclear and vague about them.

There's more than 60 pages of me, as well as others, doing this.

What is a baseful opinion. Example please.

Red herring. The way discussions go between christians and atheists has nothing to do with your understanding of what circular logic means and why it does/doesn't apply in what you pointed out.

My point is that discussions between a christian and a athiest involve points which are backed by why one thinks they are right. Your, really doesn't.

Guess you don't know how science works either. I think I now see why this thread has gone the way it has.

So you just assume something out of your head like that? That sentence has nothing to do with what my point was.
To me it appears that all your doing is saying that people have their own views of things, and how you can't change that. I argue, you can if you discuss the points, then it's possible. But you continue saying, "no that's just your opinion".

Christians say things that they know for sure and which can be proven by other people themselves, not just them.
And you think what about their reasoning?

No they can't. They are blind assumptions. Saying all we experience is this moment is true. Is it not? Can this logic be refuted? I don't think so. It's foolproof knowledge. And it's true whether people deny it or not. It's not like I'm giving blind assumptions about the nature of reality like religious people do.
A christian doesn't really know if god exists or not, they just believe it blindly.
The example about the moment I gave can be verified directly and not assumed.

I'm not tossing them out. I am just saying that they can not be proven so, anyone who thinks they can logically argue them is mistaken.

Why are they mistaken? Is this always the case?

a reply to: Andy1144

Oh no, if you pray the right way and ask from the heart you too can experience god.

But, only if you do it right.

Sounds a lot like what you are saying to me.

a reply to: daskakik

Which proves you have no idea what self inquiry and DE is. But you pretend you do. And I really have no idea why it sounds like that to you. Maybe your just trolling.

But answer my last question if you can.

a reply to: Andy1144

It's a given, when you talk about things that can't be proven.

Especially when your main argument is that words and thoughts are not reality. Worldplay and ideas is all you have left and you shot them down.

a reply to: daskakik

Can the example I gave about experiencing the moment be solid proof that it's true? Can this be proven?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Can the example I gave about experiencing the moment be solid proof that it's true?

No, because then you have to accept religious folks expereincing what ever they think they experience as solid proof.

Can this be proven?

No, all you can have is people that agree with you and those that don't. Opinions all the way around.

a reply to: daskakik

Especially when your main argument is that words and thoughts are not reality. Worldplay and ideas is all you have left and you shot them down.

You said that thought aren't you. "I realized I wasn't my thoughts." So then all I am saying is, that the identity you thought yourself to be was an illusion, not what you think it was.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You said that thought aren't you. "I realized I wasn't my thoughts." So then all I am saying is, that the identity you thought yourself to be was an illusion, not what you think it was.

Has nothing to do with the point you are replying to.

a reply to: daskakik

All we experience, is this moment is true. Just because some people agree or disagree doesn't change it's validity.

It isn't assumed, but can be verified directly.

No, all you can have is people that agree with you and those that don't. Opinions all the way around.

Then science can't be proven either by that logic. Nothing can because there is bound to be someone who disagrees with it.

a reply to: daskakik

Has nothing to do with the point you are replying to.

It does because you were basically saying that I am not making any sense calling thoughts non reality. I was saying that there actually is and gave an example.

originally posted by: Andy1144
All we experience, is this moment is true. Just because some people agree or disagree doesn't change it's validity.

It isn't assumed, but can be verified directly.

Missed it by this much.

Then science can't be proven either by that logic. Nothing can because there is bound to be someone who disagrees with it.

Not the way you are trying to prove things. Scientific method was devolped to exclude the individual scientists opinions. Double blind research being an example.

But, even if what you say was true. It still doesn't mean that you can prove anything by posting ideas on the web.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It does because you were basically saying that I am not making any sense calling thoughts non reality. I was saying that there actually is and gave an example.

Since that is not what I am saying then, no.