The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

Like most of your posts, that's completely unresponsive.

So, once more, would you care to address why Tong showed particles (quarks) in his presentation if he didn't believe particles existed?

Convention.

He didn't negate the existence of particles.

Of course he didn't: "There are no particles in the world" isn't negation. Is it? Must be a mis-speak, or double-speak, brain fog, slip of the tongue, etc.... That can only mean he is a Trump supporter, LOL., like 'fake news'. Or that he was high on pot,,,or mebbe.....like, he really meant what he said?....Noooooo!

For many years people believed everything was made up of atoms. Then we discovered that atoms were not the basic building blocks but were themselves comprised of even smaller things like proton and neutrons. Then we found that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks (particles). All Tong was doing was stating that even quarks (particles) are not the basic building blocks - energy fields are.

Oh, really? Is THAT all? How uninteresting and trite.

Hence, at the most basic level, we are made from energy fields.

Right! What I've been saying all along. Hey, NOW you're on to something!

I'm not the only person in this thread who has tried to explain this to you.

Or am I the one who posted the Quantum Fields video in the first place in order to point out that very fact , along with the fact that these fields are in the Quantum Vacuum, which, according to Tong, said is 'absolutely nothing'. So what is the Universe composed of again?

 

[godnotgod]

You seem to be forgetting why you brought up the Zen metaphor up in the first place.

We were arguing over your use of the analogies, eg burning hand or fingers on the stove and your escaped prisoner of Plato's Cave and seeing the sun for the first time.

I criticized both of these examples as limited and flawed, plus both of them were just normal experiences or normal reactions, not "mystical experiences". My points were that neither of them have anything do with "transcendence".

That's when you brought up me attacking the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon.

Right. You know, there are treatments for such kinds of rabid addictive behavior patterns which can be broken. Who knows? You may even get that one in a million opportunity to catch a glimpse of The Moon. One glimpse, and you will never return to your prior addiction Every time you see a pointing finger, you will intelligently just turn away, your nose proudly pointing skyward. "Thanks, but no thanks" you will declare. 'Bin der, dun dat'.

 

[godnotgod]

Is the Universe an absolute?. No.

Yes.

Does the Universe represent a totality of all matter and energy that we know of? Yes.

No. It IS Everything, known and unknown.

Do we know if anything exists OUTSIDE of our Universe? No.

There is no 'outside'.

Why can't we just say that everything that we know or don't know exist, have existed, or will exist, whether inside or outside this Universe, and just call it an Absolute?

Because that implies the existence of other absolutes, which are relative.

Your use of the word represents the unbound and the infinite.

Yes, that is The Absolute, as in:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass [ie 'the mind'] of Time, Space, and Causation" (brackets mine)
Vivekendanda

"Now Swami Vivekenanda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
(edited)

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

But you're not actually allowed to post "whatever you desire."

Of course not! Let's not be silly, OK? 'Whatever you desire', '(providing you obey the rules)'. Get it?

You are proselytizing and being off-topic in a thread about the watchmaker argument. Not once have you discussed the original topic. All you ever did was shift the topic into being about your worldview and philosophy.

Nope. We have never left the topic. All of my input is an extended response to subduction's post about the scientific method. Go to page 6 to see how everything is still linked to the topic.

 

[godnotgod]

It isn’t a “scientific approach”.

The hallmark of science is not just about knowledge, but how to objectively testing that knowledge, godnotgod.

Science require both knowledge and testing, not one or the other.

If you only have knowledge, but no testing or no verification, then that’s merely you expressing your opinion, that’s all. Opinions come in a dime a dozen.

And if you do testing, without knowledge, then you are not understanding the purpose of the phenomena.

Saying “I neither believe, nor I not-believe” isn’t scientific at all, it just a statement, that you haven’t decided yet.

There are only two main types of question natural science are interested in, the WHAT and the HOW.

Some generic questions a scientist may ask:

• WHAT is this phenomena?
• WHAT are the properties or characteristics of that phenomena?
• HOW does it work?
• WHAT use can it have?
• HOW would you use it?

The last two questions are concerned with possible applications.

There are no WHO questions.

And the WHY questions are secondary, and to me not at all important because once, once you have understanding of WHAT and HOW, the WHY have already being answered.

The WHY is mainly important for those who are in social science or in philosophies.

Your approach has nothing to do with science, so don’t pretend that it does.

My approach is the attitude of 'I neither believe, nor not-believe'. That is how science and the mystic should position themselves. In Zen, we call this attitude 'no moving mind', leaning neither to the left, nor to the right. This is freedom. Just see what is. Nothing less; nothing more.

Did you know that Zen and Buddhism are called 'the science of the mind'? You see, the Buddha wanted to know how an ordinary man could become a Buddha. The metaphor for the process is dough baked into bread. So the Buddha repeatedly put the 'dough' into the 'oven' to watch how it became 'bread' over and over and over again, until he realized his own Enlightenment. IOW, he already had what he was seeking, but he could not know this until the mind was completely stilled, until he achieved 'no moving mind'. That was the moment when he came to see things as they are.

 

[Darkstorn]

Of course not! Let's not be silly, OK? 'Whatever you desire', '(providing you obey the rules)'. Get it?

I get it. But what I don't get it is why you're breaking them if you seem to understand their meaning.

Nope. We have never left the topic. All of my input is an extended response to subduction's post about the scientific method. Go to page 6 to see how everything is still linked to the topic.

That's not the original topic. The original topic is the watchmaker argument. The rule is very clear: And you are deviating from the original intent and content of this thread. Judging from your response, you even do it on purpose.

Not to mention your posts have nothing to do with the scientific method either except 30 or so pages ago when you were trying to shoot said method down and replace it with your strawman version.

There being a direct line from subduction's zone's posts to yours messages means nothing. That's how most off-topic discussion starts. You're still not back to the original point. And you're not talking about the scientific method at all either.

Not to mention you once again conveniently ignored an important point: You are also proselytizing. That's another rule you're breaking.

You're essentially making the claim that everything you always say is automatically on topic because there's a linear line of discourse.

Off-topic posting only happens randomly rarely. In that rarely people enter a topic and say something entirely random in comparison to every other post.

Yours are off-topic because you replied to a post in this thead and then made the thread be about your philosophy. By your admission, you started doing this in page 6.

How many pages of entirely off-topic posts must a thread endure before you start considering it rule breaking? Right now it seems that easily over half this thread is entirely off-topic.

Over 30 pages of it now. Versus around 6 for the original topic.

Not to mention the special pleading based proselytizing you did. How do you rationalise that? Lemme guess:

"It's not proselytizing when it's the truth."

Everyone else is also being off-topic and that includes me. I'll stop responding after this post. Everyone should do the same.

The original message of this thread is lost. I think it should be locked. But barring that, stop feeding his habits people.

 

[gnostic]

Right. You know, there are treatments for such kinds of rabid addictive behavior patterns which can be broken. Who knows? You may even get that one in a million opportunity to catch a glimpse of The Moon. One glimpse, and you will never return to your prior addiction Every time you see a pointing finger, you will intelligently just turn away, your nose proudly pointing skyward. "Thanks, but no thanks" you will declare. 'Bin der, dun dat'.

Again, just more of dishonest straw man.

 

[godnotgod]

I get it. But what I don't get it is why you're breaking them if you seem to understand their meaning.



That's not the original topic. The original topic is the watchmaker argument. The rule is very clear: And you are deviating from the original intent and content of this thread. Judging from your response, you even do it on purpose.

Not to mention your posts have nothing to do with the scientific method either except 30 or so pages ago when you were trying to shoot said method down and replace it with your strawman version.

There being a direct line from subduction's zone's posts to yours messages means nothing. That's how most off-topic discussion starts. You're still not back to the original point. And you're not talking about the scientific method at all either.

Not to mention you once again conveniently ignored an important point: You are also proselytizing. That's another rule you're breaking.

You're essentially making the claim that everything you always say is automatically on topic because there's a linear line of discourse.

Off-topic posting only happens randomly rarely. In that rarely people enter a topic and say something entirely random in comparison to every other post.

Yours are off-topic because you replied to a post in this thead and then made the thread be about your philosophy. By your admission, you started doing this in page 6.

How many pages of entirely off-topic posts must a thread endure before you start considering it rule breaking? Right now it seems that easily over half this thread is entirely off-topic.

Over 30 pages of it now. Versus around 6 for the original topic.

Not to mention the special pleading based proselytizing you did. How do you rationalise that? Lemme guess:

"It's not proselytizing when it's the truth."

Everyone else is also being off-topic and that includes me. I'll stop responding after this post. Everyone should do the same.

The original message of this thread is lost. I think it should be locked. But barring that, stop feeding his habits people.

Where is the proselytizing if there is no doctrine to proselytize about? Which doctrine am I trying to convert anyone to?

I am not in control of any thread. As far as I am concerned, the theory behind the watchmaker argument is dead, since it is a flawed argument from the get go. But if you have anything new to say about it, why rant and rave about 'hijacking', and just spit it out. I just don't see anything more that can be said about it specifically. So here we are discussing the offshoot of that dead horse. A dead topic cannot be hijacked. We're just in the lounge area after the killing has taken place. Truth is, you just don't like the fact that I have something valid to say that exposes your silly materialist paradigm, so you would rather see the thread shut down to stop the voices in your head. So here you are, throwing a tantrum.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, just more of dishonest straw man.

You're just making excuses to stay inside Plato's Cave, where it is nice and comfy, and gives you that nice fuzzy feeling of thumb-sucking security. You know. The one that says you are on the 'right' side, exactly like the one the theists get by thinking they are on the right side. Neither of you wants to venture out of your comfort zone. The light of day would be too harsh.

 

[Darkstorn]

Where is the proselytizing if there is no doctrine to proselytize about? Which doctrine am I trying to convert anyone to?

Quoted from:

RF Rules

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

Examples:

They are indoctrinated by Western science, which says that chi is not provable via scientific means, science being the only valid form of knowledge, in the eyes of the West.

When you awaken from a dream, you know it to be a dream just by the very act of awakening. The mystical experience is an awakening of a much higher nature.

It's baggage that you only see the world in terms of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, which serve to reinforce that very baggage as being the correct view.

You can always leave your fixation on those delusional dancing cave wall shadows called Reason, Logic, and Analysis, and go outside the cave to see the Sun for yourself.

That last one is a pretty good example of trying to pull people away from "reason, logic and analysis." But this is the real icing on the cake; You actually proselytizing while talking ABOUT proselytizing:

You seem not to get the difference. Proselytizing involves belief in a doctrine that cannot be demonstrated to be true. I am telling you that you can demonstrate the authenticity of the mystical experience by experiencing it directly yourself. Belief is not a part of the experience.

That's the beauty of language: You didn't leave anything to doubt, or to interpret. You simply proselytized.

I am not in control of any thread.

No, but you are in control of your own actions:

4. Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam
Soliciting or advertising for any content outside of the forums, whether your own or that of another person or group, is prohibited, and may be deleted by the staff on sight. This rule applies to any content area of the forum, including but not limited to the chat room, forum posts, profile information, private conversations, and signatures. Special exception may be granted to promote content in keeping with the mission of RF, but requires advance permission from the RF staff.

Spam or off-topic content is also not allowed on the forums. This includes (but is not limited to) posting links or images without discussion-promoting commentary, having a signature that violates signature size guidelines, posting surveys without permission from the RF staff, posts that deviate significantly from a thread topic or its intent, repetitious non-conversational posts, and any other habits deemed spammy by the staff.

Once again quoted from:

RF Rules

As far as I am concerned, the theory behind the watchmaker argument is dead, since it is a flawed argument from the get go.

So that gives you the right to ignore the topic because... ?

But if you have anything new to say about it, why rant and rave about 'hijacking', and just spit it out. I just don't see anything more that can be said about it specifically. So here we are discussing the offshoot of that dead horse.

I'm ranting because the thread is already dead and nothing will fix it except starting it again and excluding you from the discussion. It should be locked. All my posts are equally off-topic to yours.

And you see nothing wrong? You think it's justified, perhaps. And maybe you're right, the watchmaker argument could be a dead horse. That changes nothing. And that's what you need to understand: You are literally trying to rationalize and interpret here where all you need is to READ and NOT interpret anything. I should not be having to quote the forum rules to you, you should have read them yourself and understood them by heart when you joined this forum.

All this just shows your irreverence for anything but your own woo.

Normally when people talk about their ideas, they make their own thread. Not hijack another. No matter how dead you consider the subject to be. You might have excuses as to why you think it's okay to ignore rules. But that's all they are. Excuses.

Oh and i forgot i said i wouldn't respond. But you obviously are not understanding what i'm saying, either because you don't care about my views, or you don't care about the forum rules. Anyway, if the latter, well, those rules are there for you to read. Try it.

Truth is, you just don't like the fact that I have something valid to say that exposes your silly materialist paradigm, so you would rather see the thread shut down to stop the voices in your head. So here you are, throwing a tantrum.

You just can't help yourself.

 

[gnostic]

You're just making excuses to stay inside Plato's Cave, where it is nice and comfy, and gives you that nice fuzzy feeling of thumb-sucking security

Again, more dishonest straw man.

If this is how mystics treat non-mystics, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that mysticism might get a bad rap.

But I don’t think it is mysticism itself is the problem. No I think it is you, your rabid attitude.

 

[Darkstorn]

No I think it is you, your rabid attitude.

You should consider using the report feature. No point in addressing proselytism disguised as an ad-hominem / bullying. Let the mods deal with that kind of behavior. I haven't reported him yet, but when he goes THAT far off the handle, i think it's the only course of action.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Look, forget the metaphor, as you don't get it anyway.

Quite simply, we look for the keys to the true nature of reality outside our own nature, when we already are in possession of those keys. Instead of looking to SEE that we are none other than the very reality we seek, we create a subject/object framework and see ourselves as 'independent observer' of a Universe 'out there', apart from ourselves, an impossibility. It is this mentally contrived framework which prevents us from experiencing the fact of our Oneness with the Universe. You always talk about dishonesty, but it is dishonest to think that we are separate conscious observers of an unconscious and dead universe.

Why should I defend the obvious?

What metaphor are you referring to? Comparing looking for lost keys to looking for our true nature outside of our own nature? This is not a metaphor, this is an analogy of complete nonsense. But to conclude that we are already in possession of those keys without knowing it, and therefore, already in possession of the reality we seek, takes nonsense to a new level. This kind of pseudo-sophistry, should only be used in the WWE by Bray Wyatt for entertainment only. Let me just simplify a few things,

1. We are trapped within our subjective perspective, and can't ever see outside of it. This can't change anymore than we can swap our senses.
2. Our reality is limited by this perspective. Therefore our reality will always be subjective.
3. We can never directly observe our objective reality, unless we could see our reality from outside our reality. This is impossible
4. Those claiming they can, are delusional, or lack the ability to critical think, using the logic of inductive and deductive reasoning.
5. Nothing can circumvents the natural laws and nature of the Universe. If something did, our entire Universe would collapse.
6. The only two things that makes us human from any other species, is that we can delay gratification(sacrifice now, for a heavenly reward later), and the ability to synthesize two opposing ideas. All other human features are found in other species(language, self-awareness, etc.).
7. Consciousness is a process within a physical brain, not a process independent of a human brain. It is not a separate entity.
8. If any true psychics, clairvoyants, psychic healers, or telepaths did exist, the entire human race would become extinct. The physical laws would collapse. No one would die, everyone would be rich, everyone would know the future, and all natural resource would become unsustainable.
9 There is no such thing as an ultimate consciousness, which can either exist outside of consciousness, or is the sum of all consciousness (collective). Neither, has any rational basis to believe exist.
10. Claiming that something IS true by default, because the only evidence IS supernatural and metaphysical, is the most obvious of all con jobs.

Since you claim that there is no way to determine if anything you claim is correct, then I'll ask again. What would be the practical application of your beliefs? How does your metaphysical beliefs benefit society. Also, you do not need to defend the obvious. But I wouldn't call "oneness with the Universe", "mentally contrived framework", "Ultimate consciousness, Ultimate reality", and most other things out of your mouth, as being obvious. Extraordinary claims, DO require extraordinary evidence. But of course, this is obvious, right?

I think the author of the post, made the most ungracious of exits.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes.



No. It IS Everything, known and unknown.



There is no 'outside'.



Because that implies the existence of other absolutes, which are relative.



Yes, that is The Absolute, as in:

"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass [ie 'the mind'] of Time, Space, and Causation" (brackets mine)
Vivekendanda

"Now Swami Vivekenanda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."
(edited)

The Equations of Maya

I can't argue that when you use the word, "absolute" to include everything that we know, don't know, can't know, will know, all things physical, non-physical, all things existing in time(past present, and future), the supernatural, all ghosts, myths, the metaphysical, every possible dimension, including infinity and beyond, time before time, every universe that is possible and even those that are impossible, everything that I can think of and not think of, everything we can see and can't see, all Gods(past, present, and future), and all actual and virtual particles. As you can see, not exactly limiting. In fact, it can never be fully defined.

Rather than wasting my time arguing the obvious flaws here, maybe you can think of another absolute that actually challenges the laws of nature from being violated. You Remember, things like Gravity, Relativity, Conservation Laws, Laws of Thermodynamic, Laws of Motion, Temperature, Entropy Cause and Effect, and the Speed of Light? Also, does "nothing" mean the absence of absolutely everything? Shall we say the "nothingness" is also an absolute? Or is it just a part of everything? This is becoming more and more absurd. Obviously the relative "other" is all things that are, "not absolute". Therefore, simply calling everything that is everything, an absolute is just being intellectually dishonest. And is certainly not the scientific absolute I was asking for.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, more dishonest straw man.

If this is how mystics treat non-mystics, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that mysticism might get a bad rap.

But I don’t think it is mysticism itself is the problem. No I think it is you, your rabid attitude.

Did you mean 'avid'?

 

[godnotgod]

You should consider using the report feature. No point in addressing proselytism disguised as an ad-hominem / bullying. Let the mods deal with that kind of behavior. I haven't reported him yet, but when he goes THAT far off the handle, i think it's the only course of action.

For a thread that's been 'hijacked' by me, there certainly is a huge amount of interest and response to my input, including yours. I can hardly keep up.

 

[godnotgod]

Quoted from:

RF Rules

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

That last one is a pretty good example of trying to pull people away from "reason, logic and analysis." But this is the real icing on the cake; You actually proselytizing while talking ABOUT proselytizing:

No. Proselytizing would be: "there is a God; just believe"
Going outside the cave to SEE the Sun, rather than to BELIEVE that is is real, cannot be proselytizing. Urging someone to experience something firsthand for themselves is not a belief. The experience of seeing the Sun is an EXPERIENCE which is verified as true via the experience itself.

No one is trying to pull anyone away from reason, logic, and analysis. I use them myself. If you had been paying attention, you would have noted that I said that the mystical experience is TRANSCENDENT OF reason, logic, and analysis. I never said to discard them as invalid. But they are incapable of understanding that which is outside of their spheres.

If someone says to another: 1+1=3, and he is corrected, is correcting him proselytizing for the doctrine of mathematics, with an attempt to convert?

That's the beauty of language: You didn't leave anything to doubt, or to interpret. You simply proselytized.

Again, the experience is verifiable. If you are in the basement, and I say it is raining outside, all you need do is go upstairs and outside to verify my claim. No brainer. It's not like saying that there is a God, and you better believe it or else.

No, but you are in control of your own actions:

I should hope so.

So that gives you the right to ignore the topic because... ?

.

Everyone is ignoring it, because there is nothing more to be said about it. If you have nothing more to say about it, then leave the thread. Others here seem to want to have a discussion with me, and I try my best to respond to them, even to you.

 

[Darkstorn]

No. Proselytizing would be: "there is a God; just believe"

Once more, quoted from: RF Rules

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

Going outside the cave to SEE the Sun, rather than to BELIEVE that is is real, cannot be proselytizing.

So, like i proposed earlier, your argument is "i'm not proselytizing because my religion / philosophy / worldview / doctrine is the truth."

Which is the same as stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact. So your disagreement about your proselytizing ends up being proselytizing itself...

Next you'll just hand wave that away by saying your whatever isn't any of those things "because it's the truth."

Urging someone to experience something firsthand for themselves is not a belief.

Experience something you have no evidence of, and are relying on special pleading. So yeah, doing what you ask of people demands belief in your truthfulness. But i'm not convinced you're speaking the truth.

The experience of seeing the Sun is an EXPERIENCE which is verified as true via the experience itself.

The "experience of seeing gods" is "verified true with the experience itself." It's the experience people doubt here. I.E I think you're delusional. I don't think you experienced what you think you did. I think you had preconceptions, experienced something, and then clouded that experience with those preconceptions. Everything you say so far seems to support this.

For one, your blending of eastern religions with new age "information" from esteemed people like Deepak Chopra.

Your worldview might be a hotpot of doctrines. But you add multiple doctrines together, it's still a doctrine. Just a very ill-defined one in this instance.

No one is trying to pull anyone away from reason, logic, and analysis. I use them myself. If you had been paying attention, you would have noted that I said that the mystical experience is TRANSCENDENT OF reason, logic, and analysis.

And i'm saying you putting it like that is proselytizing.

I never said to discard them as invalid. But they are incapable of understanding that which is outside of their spheres.

So you basically just use wordplay to say things slightly differently, but end up reinforcing what i said? Since you can't use them to apparently experience your claimed experience.

If someone says to another: 1+1=3, and he is corrected, is correcting him proselytizing for the doctrine of mathematics, with an attempt to convert?

That's again you making statements about your worldview / doctrine / philosophy being more correct than everyone else here.

So as far as the forum rule about proselytizing goes...

Again, the experience is verifiable.

Yeah, by having your exact mindset. Any other way, no dice. So... Why exactly do you keep thinking that your posts don't merely reinforce what i claimed? I mean, you're just trying to move the goal posts here and are STILL trying to "stealth" convert me to your religion.

If you are in the basement, and I say it is raining outside, all you need do is go upstairs and outside to verify my claim. No brainer.

So, if i say i did what you asked, and verified that your experience is merely you lying, you'd simply make the claim that i'm lying in return?

It's not like saying that there is a God,

and you better believe it or else.



I should hope so.

Sorry to crush your hopes. But that's exactly what you're doing, just minus the threats. Notice the forum rule doesn't imply any threats. That'd be covered by another forum rule. I think you should read them.

Everyone is ignoring it, because there is nothing more to be said about it. If you have nothing more to say about it, then leave the thread. Others here seem to want to have a discussion with me, and I try my best to respond to them, even to you.

I think you should check your ego. Everyone IS responding to you... And most are making the claim that you're wrong or that you lack evidence.

My major claim here is that you're being off-topic and proselytizing... And you somehow think making a long-*** post of you continuing said behavior somehow makes me wrong? That's some special conditioning.

 

[godnotgod]

My major claim here is that you're being off-topic and proselytizing... And you somehow think making a long-*** post of you continuing said behavior somehow makes me wrong? That's some special conditioning.

The matchmaker topic is dead, so why should you care what's being discussed after that fact, since you have no interest in what you think is 'woo'?

Not wasting any more time with your silly protest that's wasting everyone's time and efforts. All I am doing is pointing to the moon. If that is proselytizing in your head, I can't do anything about that. Seeing things as they are is the point. It is not a doctrine. It is not a religion. It is not a conversion. It is vision correction. That is all. If you don't see things as they are, then you see them as they are not. If you see a world you really believe to be material via the senses, and it is not real, and you are dreaming, then the only way to discover your delusion is to awaken. Awakening from the dream is not proselytizing or conversion to a doctrine or religion. It is Awakening. Some people don't want to awaken, like yourself, and will fight it tooth and nail to stay asleep. That is your choice. However, the rest of us who are awake have to deal with your actions based on your delusion. We have to deal with both those sleeping people who push their religious and their scientific dogma. The scientific dogma materializes as technology used for perpetual warfare for arms sales and market glut to keep the consumer buying their products.....and for the destruction of the environment for profit, such as Monsanto Corp. You will call this post proselytizing, which it isn't but that is your choice. I don't know what you plan to do about it, and I don't care. Unless this thread is shut down by administration, I will continue to post here, regardless of what you think. Otherwise, as I said, if you are through with input re: the matchmaker, you can also choose to just go away. That would be a good thing.

Cheers

 

[ecco]

...