Did Jesus Exist?

[Iacchus]

That the Universe was not founded on meaningful exchange in no way implies that meaningful exchange. Similarly if it were the case that the Universe had been founded on meaningful exchange (and I have no conception of what that is actually supposed to mean) that would imply neither the impossibility of meaningless exchange or no meaningful exchange.

No, since the Universe was not founded upon anything "meaningful," it precludes the possibility of any "meaningful exchange."

That you think differently from "a majority of people" in no way excuses you considering them a joke. I certainly do not have to excuse you for treating them as if their beliefs are a joke.

And do you pass off what I have to say as merely a joke? Or, pass it off as someone who is under a delusion? If not, then you're the exception to the rule.

 

[Iacchus]

This, from the man who has scores of posts explaining "the moment"?

LOL It is really very amusing to watch you try to logically address somebody's arguments, Iacchus. It makes me understand why you so seldom do that, and prefer to ask silly questions instead.
You have been asked, over and over again, to explain some of the things you say. What sort of acknowledgement are you looking for?

I am not "it." Which isn't to say "it" has not gone unexpressed, however.

 

[Pahansiri]

Yes, but is everything you say more than just a mantra? ... which, doesn't mean anything really.

This statement is meaningless. I have not posted any mantras. Please post what I said that means nothing.


I wrote You must define what you mean by “ are we hare by chance”. If you mean did a god decide he wanted to create beings, then no it does not seem logical to me as I see no evidence but if any arises and proves there is a god or god then I shall change my mind.
You responded.

What other alternative do you have though, besides that which is wholly arbitrary?

Why can not you answer a question, make some attempt to interact and exchange ideas not just answering a question with a question..

It is the same alternative that you believe defines the existence of God.

And where I come from, when someone starts a conversation with "my friend," without any consideration for who they were talking to, we would ask that they drop the "pretense."

How do I not have any consideration for who I am talking to. What do you mean by this?

What do you mean that I do not have any thought for who you are? You are a human being posting at a discussion board just like all the other beings here.

And is there anything about the human mind which does not entail belief? As you have reminded me several times already, life is just an illusion.

You must show me where I said life is an illusion? Reality is an illusion. “life” if you mean what is these bodies is in reality an illusion but like Einstein said Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one .

As to is there anything about the mind that does not entail belief, you could be right but unlike God it has facts to support the mind, i.e. you and I are speaking to each other right now.

** Note see how this is you ask questions I answer as to what I believe. I ask questions I get no response… Come on, this is fun to answer what is asked.

A law? Upon whose authority?

Go out side, throw a rock in the air over your head. You will see both the law of gravity and cause and effect. Make it small rock I do no wish you hurt. No need for these laws to have a God. May there be a god or gods behind them, could be but no proof of such.

Rebith? What do you mean? Reincarnation? Are you saying reincarnation does not ultimately entail an afterlife?

No not “Reincarnation” we Buddhist believe in rebirth, when I, Pahansiri/Mark B dies there will be no Pahansiri/ Mark B to be found anywhere. We believe that the true nature of mind never dies, was never born never created. Like energy an matter it only changes form, much as you believe about God.

Just what I believe.

Yet if karma is responsible for everything as you say,

Where did I say that?????????????? PLEASE post my words.

“Karma” we believe is not a thing,. A person, a God it is as I said we believe simply a law, what is.. Nothing personal. If I do something there will be a effect.

Everything which exists, must somehow "register" with everything else that exists.

MUST? Are you saying everything, you, me, a rock, a fish, a planet 20000000000 light years away are all aware of each other?

So, to suggest something is unknown and will remain uknown is simply not so. There are always ways to detect it.

PLEASE show me using my post where I said something will remain unknown.

Because unlike the salmon which swims upstream, we have no point of origin.

Like the salmon, which swims upstream. Reality is there is no salmon, which swims upstream or swim or river or water. The physical “reality” is there is a salmon, which swims upstream, but the true reality is there is nothing that is in and of its self, self. The river, water is not in and of itself water.


If “ we HAVE to have a point of origin why not God?

And you might want to consider how much of this is your own projection ...

How?

But apparently you must believe in some greater good in the Universe. How so? To simply pass it off as "karma" explains nothing.

What do you mean greater good? And no I pass karma off for anything but cause and effect.

I wrote But as I have said I have answered all your questions, you almost none of mine and mostly you only return personal attacks and name calling.

You responded

Except that I am not it. I am not the answer. I need my own personal space.

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying or how it is relevant to what I said.


If you need your own personal space, if you are bothered that people at a site that is a skeptics site will not believe you and blindly accept what you say as truth, then stop doing this to yourself and simply move on. There must be sites where you can find like minded people.

That doesn't make any sense in the least, unless of course you believe in an afterlife.

I believe the mind, its true nature was never born, never dies. I do NOT believe I am this body. I do not believe I am this what we call “ordinary mind” the conditioned mind of this life.

If I do not believe my true nature dies there is no after life for it. If you mean my mind moves on after this carcass dies, then yes.

No, I just don't take them seriously, because we have no grounds for holding a conversation.

Then what are you doing here? Leave unless you are just here to preach.

They won't take me seriously you see, because they insist that there are no grounds to take things seriously.

You don’t take them seriously and you are good, they don’t take you seriously and they are evil, lost fools.

See where I am going with this?

You will not listen to anyone who does not believe as you do, you say they will not listen to you. You are good and they are bad???

Perhaps we need to just exchange ideas not preach and expect people to simply believe what we say because we say it.

And yet they are very serious about it (as if I were the one who was under a delusion) when they do. Now isn't that weird?

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

This is meaningless.

Why? Can you see you simply make a statement but offer no supporting logic or facts. Why do you believe what I said is meaningless?

What is kindness, if it's nothing more than a reaction to environmental stimulus? Nothing, really. It's just something to be "explained" away, like everything else.

Why? We see the effect of hate, anger, prejudice etc and we see the effect of loving kindness, being kind for no other reason but to be kind to wish for no “reward”. As I said if there is nothing after this I know the good effect of being kind, happiness in the here and now.

Well, there are those folks who need a reason for what they do.

That is for them I have control over no one but me. Being kind and helpful to others is its own reward. I believe.

I have something to say which, for the most part goes unacknowledged. And no, it has little to do with "believing" me.

Then why get angry if it has nothing to do with you? Yes you have something to say and so does everyone. Talk f God goes unacknowledged? I don’t agree with that. But can not you see you are at a site where most people do not believe as you do? What was your reason to come here, really? To “convert” right?

So are we/they wrong for not simply being converted or is the mistake in believing people would simply follow what you said as truth and give up what they believe?

And have you heard of the expression, "quality versus quantity?" Which of course has no significance in a world devoid of meaning.

Who believes in a world of no meaning?

 

[Iacchus]

Then why get angry if it has nothing to do with you? Yes you have something to say and so does everyone. Talk f God goes unacknowledged? I don’t agree with that. But can not you see you are at a site where most people do not believe as you do? What was your reason to come here, really? To “convert” right?

Or, perhaps agitate. Sort of like the clothes in a washing machine.

So are we/they wrong for not simply being converted or is the mistake in believing people would simply follow what you said as truth and give up what they believe?

If it wasn't for certain things that have happened to me, I wouldn't have anything to say. It's as simple as that.

 

[Pahansiri]

Or, perhaps agitate. Sort of like the clothes in a washing machine.

Sadly for you it seems mainly you are the one being agitated. A self inflected wound..

If it wasn't for certain things that have happened to me, I wouldn't have anything to say. It's as simple as that.

While I would never minimize your experiences or condone others doing just as I do not condone your minimizing theirs/ours.

Why do you believe your experiences are move valid then others?

You said this is not about you but clearly it is.

By the by you are still 0 for 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in answering questions. Ok maybe there is one ) too many.

 

[Iacchus]

Sadly for you it seems mainly you are the one being agitated. A self inflected wound..

Again, you should be careful about what you project. If that's all you're looking for is anger, that's all you're going to find is anger.

While I would never minimize your experiences or condone others doing just as I do not condone your minimizing theirs/ours.

Well, perhaps I just don't appreciate your sense of humor then?

Why do you believe your experiences are move valid then others?

Because I was there. They weren't.

You said this is not about you but clearly it is.

Why should I speak about anything other than what I know? I cannot speak for you or, anyone else.

By the by you are still 0 for 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in answering questions. Ok maybe there is one ) too many.

Or, perhaps it would be best if I didn't respond at all?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Or, perhaps it would be best if I didn't respond at all?

Sounds like a good idea for a poll..


Now; Jesus, did he exist or not?

 

[Pahansiri]

Again, you should be careful about what you project. If that's all you're looking for is anger, that's all you're going to find is anger.

Well, perhaps I just don't appreciate your sense of humor then?

Because I was there. They weren't.

Why should I speak about anything other than what I know? I cannot speak for you or, anyone else.

Or, perhaps it would be best if I didn't respond at all?

Again, you should be careful about what you project. If that's all you're looking for is anger, that's all you're going to find is anger.

Now I would ask you to post any example of anger in my post, name calling or personal attacks but we know that is fruitless for 2 reasons,
1- there is none tp be found.
2- You have never posted anything from my post to support what you say I have said or done..

Well, perhaps I just don't appreciate your sense of humor then?

if you are suggesting I have minimized your experiences I would need you to post from my post/words where that is the case. If you can prove this to be the case I will apologize. I will not start apology speech..lol

I wrote Why do you believe your experiences are move valid then others?

You wrote

Because I was there. They weren't.

You were there to see their experiences and they were not?

You really do not believe your experiences are more valid then others do you?

Why should I speak about anything other than what I know? I cannot speak for you or, anyone else.

Really? Read what you wrote above as to the experiences of others v/s yours.

What I meant by “You said this is not about you but clearly it is.” Is this is all ego based, you are angry people will not believe what you say. You are taking this or making this personal. This is a discussion board people discuss things and do not always agree. Less so when it is a septic board by nature and someone comes to it telling them there is a God and NO he will not prove it because he just said it was true so it HAS to me. “ so shut up and drink the Kool_aid”…lol

Or, perhaps it would be best if I didn't respond at all?

So fat you are batting 1000 if that is your goal.. Trust me I understand that no one can answer a question if they do not know the answer. Maybe that is the problem, I don't think so as I said I think you have a lot to share, but nothing to demand or force.

 

[Iacchus]

so shut up and drink the Kool_aid”…lol

Listen, a**hole ...

 

[Pahansiri]

Listen, a**hole ...

No, you have no anger...
OK listen to what? You never finish a thought.

 

[Iacchus]

Now; Jesus, did he exist or not?

Yes, I believe He did.

 

[Throg]

No, since the Universe was not founded upon anything "meaningful," it precludes the possibility of any "meaningful exchange."

This doesn't follow either. Regardless of whether or not you believe in evolution of any sort (genetic, molecular, ideological) it represents a logically coherent mechanism by which meaning might emerge from meaninglessness or order from chaos.

And do you pass off what I have to say as merely a joke? Or, pass it off as someone who is under a delusion? If not, then you're the exception to the rule

I do not pass off what you say either as a joke or a delusion. If I did, I would not take the time to argue with you. On what basis do you posit either the rule or that I am the sole exception?

 

[Throg]

Or, perhaps agitate. Sort of like the clothes in a washing machine.

Are you actually suggesting that you are analogous to the clothes - a collection of dirty cloth or did you mean to imply that you are analogous to the washing machine, a wholly deterministic mechanism for imprecise agitation. I suspect that you are analogous to neither but have a tendency to choose poor analogies which serve to further obfuscate your position.

I agree with Pahansiri that you seem to have some interesting ideas to share with us but that you persist in employing rhetorical tactics that prevent us from sharing. Since you are apparently familiar with the Freudian idea of projection, would you consider what Freud might have made of your tendency to obscure the expression of the very concepts which you profess to consider the most importent*.

Why should I speak about anything other than what I know? I cannot speak for you or, anyone else

You are doing precisely that when you suggest that any statement by Pahnarsiri is an incidence of projection.

*Please note that I am not putting forth Freudian theories as a sound model of human psychology, merely one that there is seems reason to believe is consistent with your model of psychology.

 

[Iacchus]

This doesn't follow either. Regardless of whether or not you believe in evolution of any sort (genetic, molecular, ideological) it represents a logically coherent mechanism by which meaning might emerge from meaninglessness or order from chaos.

Yes, but look at the growth of a tree. It starts out with something as simple as a seed or, that which predates the seed (prior to pollination), and yet goes on to evolve into this advanced structure we call a tree. Now, are you willing to suggest that the information which tells this tree how to develop -- and, in fact evolve -- did not predate the growth of that tree? Well, guess again ... while it may take thousands of years for it to fully develop. So, why shouldn't the Universe be viewed as a seed or, cosmic egg, with all the necessary elements to sustain it's growth, prepackaged into the design? Indeed, why should the dominoes fall any differently from the course that outlines the way they should fall? Is there any way that we can change the contingency between the past, the present and future? No. Because it's all part of the universal design.

I do not pass off what you say either as a joke or a delusion. If I did, I would not take the time to argue with you. On what basis do you posit either the rule or that I am the sole exception?

Well, take a look at any of your typical lifegazer threads, and see who's not associating mental illness with whom.

By the way, I have very few problems with lifegazer's philosophy, albeit he appears a bit rough around the edges at times. Of course I believe John the Baptist, if you're willing accept that such a person ever existed, was known for his rantings and ravings as well ... i.e., "some mad man out in the wilderness."

 

[Iacchus]

Are you actually suggesting that you are analogous to the clothes - a collection of dirty cloth or did you mean to imply that you are analogous to the washing machine, a wholly deterministic mechanism for imprecise agitation. I suspect that you are analogous to neither but have a tendency to choose poor analogies which serve to further obfuscate your position.

Without agitation, how would the clothes come clean?

I agree with Pahansiri that you seem to have some interesting ideas to share with us but that you persist in employing rhetorical tactics that prevent us from sharing. Since you are apparently familiar with the Freudian idea of projection, would you consider what Freud might have made of your tendency to obscure the expression of the very concepts which you profess to consider the most importent*.

This is hilarious. An example of a Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is all right as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.

So, between now and Zen you might find a clue.

 

[Throg]

Yes, but look at the growth of a tree. It starts out with something as simple as a seed or, that which predates the seed (prior to pollination), and yet goes on to evolve into this advanced structure we call a tree. Now, are you willing to suggest that the information which tells this tree how to develop -- and, in fact evolve -- did not predate the growth of that tree?

Yes and no. The question is simplistic, even if we treat it purely in terms of embryology and by beginning with the seed rather than some primitive cosmic ancestor of the seed you place yourself in a starting position which you seem to thing favours your analogy but really doesn't.

Very briefly, the DNA of the seed does not contain a blueprint for the adult tree, but "instructions" for the replication and differentiation of the cells of the seed. As cells are replicated, these instructions in conjunction with environmental influences and influences you may or may not want to consider environmental at the level of DNA replication and the imperfect realisation of the DNA "instructions" produce the adult tree. The shape of the adult tree was not predictable in any great detail from the DNA of the seed. It is the emrgent result of a certain amount of "chaos".

If we consider the case of a primitive ancestor organism of the seed, it becomes even clearer that there was no "plan" for the eventual emergence of the adult tree. A long series of unpredictable errors in DNA replication and combinations of parental DNA lead us from single-celled organism to mighty oak. We can go back further, if you like, to ancestors without DNA - prions, perhaps or back further still to the atomic components of organic molecules combining according to no plan as they happened to get close enough in the course of time to form electro-chemical bonds. We could go back further to examine the sub-atomic pre-cursors of those atoms, but I would hope you get the point. There is nothing in the form or substance of a tree that implies that it did not emerge from chaos.

So, why shouldn't the Universe be viewed as a seed or, cosmic egg

Why should it?

Is there any way that we can change the contingency between the past, the present and future?

I just don't know what you're trying to say here. What contingency are you talking about?

No. Because it's all part of the universal design

That looks a lot like an assertion. So you can answer questions. How about answering this: Why, do you say it is all part of the universal design?

Well, take a look at any of your typical lifegazer threads, and see who's not associating mental illness with whom

I have spoken out against the irrational and utterly appaling treatment of lifegazer in the threads to which you allude and I am not the only one to have done so. You have still not justified your assertion that I am the only one that does not treat you as a joke/delusional.

Without agitation, how would the clothes come clean?

This does not address the weakness of your analogy.

So, between now and Zen you might find a clue

I am quite familiar with Zen koans and their purpose. They are an extremely inefficient way to share knowledge or understanding and you have simply evaded the issue of your apparent hipocrisy in accusing Pahansiri of projection.

If you are willing to engage on a useful level to actually discuss your beliefs or even to justify your assertions then why not do so. If you are not might I refer you to the story of the three billy goats gruff that you might find a clue.

 

[Iacchus]

I am quite familiar with Zen koans and their purpose. They are an extremely inefficient way to share knowledge or understanding and you have simply evaded the issue of your apparent hipocrisy in accusing Pahansiri of projection.

If you are willing to engage on a useful level to actually discuss your beliefs or even to justify your assertions then why not do so. If you are not might I refer you to the story of the three billy goats gruff that you might find a clue.

I am not interested in knowledge. It preoccupies us away from the presense of the moment, and it's sole use (or, so it would seem) is to make us seem knowledgable.

 

[Mercutio]

I am not interested in knowledge. It preoccupies us away from the presense of the moment, and it's sole use (or, so it would seem) is to make us seem knowledgable.

This would make an excellent disclaimer for your posts, if this is indeed the case (and not merely what you are saying to get out of the corner Throg has helped shown that you have painted yourself into). Why don't you put it into your sig, instead of that silly sentence currently there?

 

[Throg]

I am not interested in knowledge. It preoccupies us away from the presense of the moment, and it's sole use (or, so it would seem) is to make us seem knowledgable.

Apparently you are not interested in politeness either since you choose to ignore those parts of post to which you cannot respond with a facile question or vaguely connected aphorism.

Apparently you are not interested in honesty since you have repeatedly made assertions throughout this thread which can only be seen as claims to knowledge.

 

[Iacchus]

This would make an excellent disclaimer for your posts, if this is indeed the case (and not merely what you are saying to get out of the corner Throg has helped shown that you have painted yourself into). Why don't you put it into your sig, instead of that silly sentence currently there?

And what is it they say? "Knowledge is not wisdom?" Hmm ... Maybe that would be better? I myself prefer clarity of mind over knowledge. At least you know -- or, have a better idea of -- what you're looking at.

But then again, maybe you are being serious ... Are you? ... And, since I'm really not looking to make excuses about what I know, or don't know, maybe I will? Will at least give it some consideration. Thanks.