Never trust someone who has found the truth?

a reply to: Profusion

People who are searching for the Truth are completely blind. But if they say they're searching for it, at least they're honest. But they can't help you take a single step towards clarity and wisdom. Yet, because they are honest, they have a chance to discover it for themselves.

People who know the Truth would never announce it, but if they're firmly established within it, their presence and/or method of disillusion will illuminate the sadhguru within you, which will announce itself. This is unmistakeable. Only this inner one is the true guru. There are no human gurus, only human pointers.

Blind people masquerading as masters and calling themselves gurus, excel, among other things, in the art of complex philosophic teaching. Which gives the appearance of knowledge, but does nothing but birth new questions within you. All while requiring trust and belief in the teacher who wants to be followed.

Real masters excel in the art of practical, simplistic disillusion, which gives inner discovery, and requires neither trust nor belief. This one does not particularly want to be worshipped, noticed or followed.

a reply to: Profusion

A truly smart person would treat the person and the information by the merit each deserves.

Wisdom knocks quietly....listen carefully.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you don't have any evidence that any atheist has "claimed to know the secrets of the Universe."

No, they do.

ETA: By claiming a thing isn't true one has to assert that is isn't true everywhere, otherwise its a false claim. Again, how could you know that something isn't true any everywhere? You can't even see one tiny fraction of one spectrum with your eyeballs.

I guess I'll do it again. Atheism is not the position that God does not exist. It is a position of disbelief in the claim that Gods do exist.

Well as long as you put it like that, yes everyones entitled to their beliefs.

But thats not very scientific is it?

It is not even a belief, it is a reluctance to accept your claim. I just don't believe you and the other people who make extraordinary claims.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

A tesseract is just a geometric shape.

Whoops, no its not. Its a representation of some -'thing' that has no shape. Just like a 2d flatlander has no realm of understanding for the concept of 'up'.

You have now invented some Thingthat has no shape. And also 2d "flatlanders". These things are hypothetical Tools used to portray hypothetical scenarios where other dimensions may exist. So in this fantasy, this geometric shape is in fact a tool used to portray an idea, but that does not mean that these things exist or that there are multiple dimensions, and certainly not that you have some special knowledge of how to interact or manipulate anything otherdimensional. Pondering anything is a good brain exercise. But tesseracts are actually just geometric shapes.

It seems you just take any hypothetical scenario that a scientist might make and you run with it to all of the most inappropriate conclusions.

Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

The world is one big ball of smoke and mirrors. And based on all the 'knowledge' humanity has been fed, only a small portion of it truly makes any sense at all.

Scientists state that in order to make 'contact with aliens' for example, the only language they would truly understand would be one of the Scientific variety. Therefore as most here are aware, binary comes to mind, zero point is another, the golden mean/ Phi/Pi, yet another.

If all things are made up based on that assumption by highly intelligent minds in the Scientific community, would it not make even half sense that humanity, or what thinks it'self as humanity, would be induced by a holographic type subliminal creating reality as it goes along? And like a Hypnotist, David Blaine for an example, and can make you believe what you think you 'See' is real, when in fact it is only a suggestion to the mind that it's even taking place.

And being that the mind is a powerful tool which can induce the subconscious, simply by being hooked up and fed images that make you create reality, like running ten miles in your head and having it effect your entire being in real time. Or being told your arm is burning and thus, you have now created a burn mark on your arm based on your Belief that it could burn you, therefore it did. Was it real? You saw the effects so therefore you believe it is real. But reality is subjective based on what an individual or a group mind believes.

If you remove that equation, belief, all you have left is nothingness. Which in my opinion is closer to the truth than anything i've come across.

a reply to: Profusion

It’s not important to know the ” full truth” it’s no such thing.

Its only vital to find the truth of your own predicament in your given time and place.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you don't have any evidence that any atheist has "claimed to know the secrets of the Universe."

No, they do.

ETA: By claiming a thing isn't true one has to assert that is isn't true everywhere, otherwise its a false claim. Again, how could you know that something isn't true any everywhere? You can't even see one tiny fraction of one spectrum with your eyeballs.

I guess I'll do it again. Atheism is not the position that God does not exist. It is a position of disbelief in the claim that Gods do exist.

Well as long as you put it like that, yes everyones entitled to their beliefs.

But thats not very scientific is it?

It is not even a belief, it is a reluctance to accept your claim. I just don't believe you and the other people who make extraordinary claims.

"Not believing" is its own form of acceptance in, whatever. It shouldn't be about beliefs anyway. Whether its the origins of life according to evolution theory or genesis of life according to religious theorists, its just belief. They are both missing the mark.

imo

a reply to: intrptr

You are the one sharing your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Evolutution theory has nothing to do with the origins of life.

If you are comparing a purely chemical origin such as abiogenesis, to the biblical account of god spoke and the world appeared as it is now with all of the animals and people as they are now, then i think abiogenesis has much more evidence and has a high degree of likelyhood.

originally posted by: Profusion
"Never trust someone who has found the truth, only trust those still searching for it."

I live by those words. What is your opinion of the quote?

Trust in percentages-

NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: intrptr

You are the one sharing your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Evolutution theory has nothing to do with the origins of life.

If you are comparing a purely chemical origin such as abiogenesis, to the biblical account of god spoke and the world appeared as it is now with all of the animals and people as they are now, then i think abiogenesis has much more evidence and has a high degree of likelihood.

Pffft, life was brought here.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: intrptr

You are the one sharing your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Evolutution theory has nothing to do with the origins of life.

If you are comparing a purely chemical origin such as abiogenesis, to the biblical account of god spoke and the world appeared as it is now with all of the animals and people as they are now, then i think abiogenesis has much more evidence and has a high degree of likelihood.

Pffft, life was brought here.

By whom?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: intrptr

You are the one sharing your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Evolutution theory has nothing to do with the origins of life.

If you are comparing a purely chemical origin such as abiogenesis, to the biblical account of god spoke and the world appeared as it is now with all of the animals and people as they are now, then i think abiogenesis has much more evidence and has a high degree of likelihood.

Pffft, life was brought here.

By whom?

By THE who Created the Ancient Star that made the Nebula that then built the SOL system...

No one can ever know the full truth about anything. Therefore, no one who claims to know the full truth about anything can be trusted.

That is a lie. There can be being who are connected directly into objective reality thru entanglement and have such senses that all is revealed to them and no subjectivity is allowed to cloud that being.

It is funny how beings with a mind who is limited by subjective interpretation of it's own unconscious stuck in the objective to subjective data degeneration are so sure they know how a being with full awareness of all data within the body including entangled particles would know and not know.

It is like ants saying they know all the limitations of a human consciousness while not having the same level of awareness as a human.

But you will not need to trust beings that have that level of awareness. They can prove what they are saying so no faith is needed.

originally posted by: Profusion
"Never trust someone who has found the truth, only trust those still searching for it."

I live by those words. What is your opinion of the quote?

(So, to criticize the quote will be equated with criticizing your life? Will self-defense be involved?)
The quote has obviously been uttered by someone who has not 'found/become the Truth', just as the utterer of; "it's the journey' that counts!" has never experienced the destination.
It sounds a bit like 'sour grapes' to me.
But I understand the intent of the quote.
'Truths found' are still features of Truth, which is ALL inclusive.

a reply to: WhiteHat

With that kind of reasoning I think you are already in the zone towards higher objective self awareness instead of subjective self awareness.

Even low level empaths keep their abilities secret since the majority of humanity is not able to handle even those low level abilities.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Profusion



Ummm...why not...you can at the very least trust that whatever truth they've found is true for them...

That's all that really matters...

Very retarded argument. Socrates et al would have a field day with you.

Many posters should just stay out of this section. Philosophy and Metaphysics doesn't mean you can just "say whatever you feel like." These are actual academic subjects that require a good bit of knowledge and background.

I'm not even comfortable throwing around "philosophical" argument on my own, unless I'm absolutely sure I'm right, so it's astounding that so many other people think they have the wherewithal and the right to.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Woodcarver

A tesseract is just a geometric shape.

Whoops, no its not. Its a representation of some -'thing' that has no shape. Just like a 2d flatlander has no realm of understanding for the concept of 'up'.

You have now invented some Thingthat has no shape. And also 2d "flatlanders". These things are hypothetical Tools used to portray hypothetical scenarios where other dimensions may exist. So in this fantasy, this geometric shape is in fact a tool used to portray an idea, but that does not mean that these things exist or that there are multiple dimensions, and certainly not that you have some special knowledge of how to interact or manipulate anything otherdimensional. Pondering anything is a good brain exercise. But tesseracts are actually just geometric shapes.

It seems you just take any hypothetical scenario that a scientist might make and you run with it to all of the most inappropriate conclusions.

You're right flatland doesn't exist. Neither do a point, line or plane. You can't be shown a picture of a tesseract because to us it is invisible. We have no realm of understanding for it, the best we can hope to do is explain it in terms of language.

Like everywhere at once or "Omnipresence".

I have a slightly different take on the OP.

I saw David Crosby playing, last year. As an intro to this song, he said "If someone tells you they know the TRUTH, walk away." Because, guaranteed, if they say that they want something from you.

a reply to: Phage





One way of understanding "truth"? Is that in 42 trillion years?


We will finally realize that we have absolutely no idea what we are talking about as to define it.

a reply to: Phage

I saw David Crosby playing, last year. As an intro to this song, he said "If someone tells you they know the TRUTH, walk away." Because, guaranteed, if they say that they want something from you.

Interesting take Phage, I'll remember that next time you try and explain the truth of something.