[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / doomer / fast / fur / leftpol / mde / vg / xivlg ]

/b/ - Anime/Random

ここから入らんとする者は一切の希望を放棄せよ
Winner of the 68rd Attention-Hungry Games
/d/ - Home of Headswap and Detachable Girl Threads

January 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Just 🐝 yourself. Rules.

File: 19e88076ecde18d⋯.jpg (23.3 KB, 392x522, 196:261, joshua.jpg)

 No.8655517

Why are evolution deniers so much like unshaven gorillas? Could they be the missing link between man and ape?

 No.8655522

it could be because biological evolution is not something that we as humans are able to actually witness/observe over one lifespan

or it could be because youre a gay


 No.8655525

File: dc3ae6f723c4c7c⋯.jpeg (12.38 KB, 300x225, 4:3, download (14).jpeg)

Whatever. But what interests me more is, why do people think that the bible being mythology gaurantees that Darwinism is a fact?


 No.8655538

>>8655522

Several new species have evolved in my lifetime.


 No.8655539

>>8655525

that is an unanswerable question my son, as it deals with stupid people who don't understand things do not work in a shitty triad made up by some shitty nigger and then misinterpreted by another shitty nigger who spawned a bunch of shitty niggers that, to this day, are incapable of understanding their own shitty nigger religion

christians also have this problem, but really i dont blame them, as information preservation is still being improved upon


 No.8655540

>>8655517

That's not an evolution denier, dude; you're looking in a mirror.

BTFO


 No.8655549

[aa]Aphorism viii. By the Law of Analogy the Manifest Cosmos may be known. “Ex Uno disce Omnes”—From One know All. Like unto a World‑Brain is the Cosmos. Its brain‑substance is the Substance‑Principle; its thought‑energy is the Motion‑Principle; its Mind is the Consciousness‑Principle. Its will is the Cosmic Will. Its spirit is the Cosmic Spirit. Its laws are the Seven Laws. Its Sovereign is The Law.]/aa]

http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1909arcaneteaching.pdf


 No.8655550

>>8655525

Stop for a moment and consider who you're talking to, there:

You're talking to people who believe, "First, there was absolutely nothing then it all exploded and over the course of millions of millennia it all somehow mysteriously assembled itself from random chaos into organized systems of stars, planets living creatures and the well defined forces of physics.


 No.8655551

Aphorism viii. By the Law of Analogy the Manifest Cosmos may be known. “Ex Uno disce Omnes”—From One know All. Like unto a World‑Brain is the Cosmos. Its brain‑substance is the Substance‑Principle; its thought‑energy is the Motion‑Principle; its Mind is the Consciousness‑Principle. Its will is the Cosmic Will. Its spirit is the Cosmic Spirit. Its laws are the Seven Laws. Its Sovereign is The Law.]

http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1909arcaneteaching.pdf


 No.8655558

Aphorism ix. In the World‑Brain of the Cosmos arises and is manifested all natural phenomena. All natural phenomena is but the perpetual action and reaction; combination and re‑combination; distribution and redistribution; of the Three Principles, in the World‑Brain, by the Cosmic Will. As in the human brain material changes of form, shape, combination, character, and degree, result from mental activities—organic structural changes accompany mental states—states of consciousness are embodied in forms of material brain substance—so in the World‑Brain, by the Cosmic Will, do Thoughts become Things; Desires take on Material Form; Ideas become Manifested; Mental Images become reproduced in the Material and Physical Forms, Shapes, and Appearances. Mental States precede Material Form—Mental Images precede Materialization.


 No.8655559

>>8655551

"First there was absolutely nothing and then it all exploded."


 No.8655560

Aphorism x. What men call “Matter” is but the countless centres produced by Will in the Substance Principle, through the action of the Motion Principle. What men call “Force and Energy” is but the action of the Motion‑Principle upon the Substance‑Principle, induced by the Will. What men call “Thought” is but the action of the Will upon the Consciousness‑Principle, employing the Substance and Motion‑Principles in the operation. In every action of the Cosmic Will all Three Principles are employed and involved, in varying degrees and combinations. The Will is the Motive Power behind all manifestation in the World‑Brain of the Cosmos.


 No.8655564

>>8655559

This is about natural law philosophy and has nothing to do with Christianity which is where the retarded big bang theory came from.


 No.8655567

Aphorism xi. The Cosmic Will, as the World‑Brain, seeking Consciousness through its appropriate Principle, manifests the natural phenomena of the universe. From a state of Unconsciousness, through many stages of Semi‑Consciousness—through many degrees of Simple Consciousness; Self‑Consciousness; Super‑Consciousness; and states still higher in the scale, undreamt by mortal mind, on toward the highest states of Cosmic Consciousness—Spirit conscious of Itself; the Cosmic Will proceeds. Consciousness, in all of its phases, proceeds through Change—Consciousness depends upon Constant Change. Consciousness always produces Activity, and manifests Motion. Consciousness always manifests objectively in Change and Motion in Substance—in substantial shape and form. In this, then, is to be found the explanation of the phenomena of the involution and evolution of the Cosmos, with all the incidents thereof—in this is found the answer to the Ultimate “Why.”


 No.8655578

We are apes. We think we're better, but no not really. Yesterday's stick is today's nuclear weapon.

I think the deniers don't like it because it hits too close to home.


 No.8655581

weak bait

we all know earth is 6000 years old


 No.8655592

>>8655578

No the only reason people deny evolution is some American retards decided that the Bible was against evolution and the Bible being "infallible" they came up with some other idea.


 No.8655598

>>8655592

wait just a minute there, you cant go and pinpoint the cause of an issue

you have to write a series of novels that drone on about how shitty everything is, and somewhere in there allude to something that doesnt relate to the problem except in very specific circumstances

that's how everybody in the 1800's did it and it's the only answer ill accept


 No.8655788

>>8655567

What's your opinion on that kind of writing, anon?


 No.8655832

>>8655788

It's true, coherent, and clear.


 No.8655839

why is this thread even still up? What's the point? I'd think all of the arguments that could possibly be made would be made by now (even taking into account how brain dead stupid Zoomers are.)


 No.8655843

File: 012b096b4782890⋯.jpg (719.53 KB, 1308x1758, 218:293, Basic_evo_full_4.jpg)

>>8655525

The two are unrelated, Darwin was even a Christian when he came up with evolution I think and while the clergy was worried with it at first most realized it didn't change much. Evolution isn't a fact any more than mass attracting mass is a fact, the evidence just seems to point that way. Gravity could very well be caused not by mass for whatever reason but a being with psychic powers fucking with us.

>>8655592

Be glad at least the commies gave up on lysenkism. Although they're now back on denying genetics and don't even have something to replace it with so maybe it's worse.


 No.8655944

>>8655522

Except it is. You've even got new species popping up under observation.


 No.8655968

>>8655843

Can you prove that the evidence even points that way. As an atheist, I don't see any circumstantial evidence for it. Most people seem to think that disproving the fairty tales of the bible proves or suggests that Darwinism is correct when that's, of course, absurd.


 No.8655972

>>8655968

The validity of the two are unrelated. They must both be examined with different evidence, because their claims/conclusions are different.


 No.8655981

>>8655522

<I failed highschool biology

Stop, my distain for niggers can only be so great.


 No.8655982

>>8655839

lol boomers day of the pillow soon


 No.8655986

>>8655968

Name one "fairy tale" in the Bible that has been disproven. I'm waiting…


 No.8655992

>>8655972

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying, but good luck convincing the majority about this.


 No.8656028

>>8655986

Alright, here's two easy ones.

Two human beings are the father and mother to all humans.

An ancient man built a boat containing two of every kind of animal to ride out a worldwide flood.


 No.8656035

>>8655986

That wasn't my point. We can't disprove Hansel and Gretel or Snow white and the seven dwarfs either. I was saying that nearly all believers in Darwinism rely on the bible being false to argue in defense of their theory, which is absurd.


 No.8656036

>>8655986

The whole Book of Exodus is a fiction


 No.8656054

>>8656035

>nearly all

Substantiate your claim.

>believers in Darwinism

Firstly, the vast majority of our understanding of Biological Evolution came from discoveries made after Darwin's time. He was an important pioneer in his day, but not the single pillarstone you seem to have in mind. Secondly, it does not require belief in any capacity to accept the reality of Biological Evolution - but only a simple observation of natural phenomena. Do you know what Evolution is, in the Biological sense?


 No.8656067

>>8656054

Yes, I know all about his collaborators, but that's irrelevant; The theory is called Darwinism.


 No.8656072

>>8656067

Back in the 1800's, sure. Today, it is referred to as Evolutionary Developmental Biology, to more accurately describe our current understanding.


 No.8656075

>>8656067

Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you know what evolution is in the biological sense?


 No.8656076

>>8656054

Maybe by the retards who believe in it. Darwinism is as retarded as creationism, and both were taught in the classrooms of the western world.


 No.8656081

>>8656075

My anonymous understanding of that term provides no evidence for the proponents of that theory, and it's irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you folks, like so many of you have been telling retarded christians for so long in regards to creationism.


 No.8656089

>>8656081

The definition matters because once it's defined, it's plain as day why it's a fact of reality. Biological Evolution is change in allele frequency by descent with inherent modification in a given population of living organisms. Are you seriously arguing that the fact that population genetics change over time is as retarded as the fairy tale of a worldwide flood orthe story with snakes that talk?


 No.8656096

>>8656089

>Are you seriously arguing that the fact that population genetics change over time is as retarded as the fairy tale of a worldwide flood orthe story with snakes that talk?

Yes, I am. Because the same people who believe in Darwinism are the same kind of people who believe in creationism; both groups believe whatever those cocksuckers in the school system happen to teach. Unlike most people, I actually study science, so not everything with a science sounding vocabulary convinces me that it's actually based in fact. I actually do critical thinking, unlike Creationists or Darwinists.


 No.8656104

>>8656096

Whatever my dude. You have a nice life.


 No.8656113

>>8656096

>i'm educated because my special ed school told me so!

when you die, the world average IQ will go up two points.


 No.8656119

>>8656113

You're a retard without reading comprehension. My previous comment strongly implied that faith in teachers is foolish, so your retort is absurd.


 No.8656122

>>8656113

Also, that's not how IQ averages work, retard.


 No.8656123

>>8656119

you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.


 No.8656129

File: 0ea112efe41e1b6⋯.jpg (190.48 KB, 762x785, 762:785, 0ea112efe41e1b6f52d4c643b2….jpg)

>>8655517

>Why are evolution deniers so much like unshaven gorillas? Could they be the missing link between man and ape?

Why do so many atheists and evolution believers turn out to be perverts, fags, pedophiles, sexual harassers, rapists, baby murder apologists, advocates for bigger government and more taxes, vile attackers of pro-life people, Marxists and Communists, racists, drug addicts, mass murderers, etc.?


 No.8656130

fucku


 No.8656136

>>8656129

>Why do so many democrats turn out to be perverts, fags, pedophiles, sexual harassers, rapists, baby murder apologists, advocates for bigger government and more taxes, vile attackers of pro-life people, Marxists and Communists, racists, drug addicts, mass murderers, etc.?

fixed because true


 No.8656139

>>8656129

You forgot preachers, priests, politicians, teachers, another 1000 names, all humans, whatever they touch becomes corrupted.

To Children everything is a ghost, and they don't know that humans are perverted degenerates until it fuck them in the ass.


 No.8656140

>>8656139

>whatever they touch becomes corrupted.

that's jews, son

it's the only thing they do.


 No.8656142

>>8656136

Democrats = Atheists and Evolution Believers

You cannot be a Republican if you deny the existence of God and do not believe every word of The Bible.

Only Republicans can make America great.


 No.8656143

File: c4e8c0b978db8ce⋯.jpeg (42.82 KB, 500x388, 125:97, 8chrs23.jpeg)


 No.8656145

File: 093b427731554c6⋯.jpeg (42.41 KB, 500x388, 125:97, 8chrs22.jpeg)

>>8656142

Moron detected.


 No.8656157

>>8656129

>>8655517

My question is why does the world "evolution" trigger Christians, and why does "Bible" trigger fedoras?

There are plenty of theories going around about how they can work together, ya know.


 No.8656163

>>8656143

>>8656145

Are you that spammer on /n/?


 No.8656167

File: 9d926eb3ac6892c⋯.gif (1.47 MB, 500x282, 250:141, ya.gif)

>>8656163

I don't do spam, you do.


 No.8656169

If you mean 'Neo-Darwinism' OP, I refute it and I'm certainly no gorilla. Clean-shaven, expert military marksmen, currently top of my degree program in Uni with a 98.3 cumulative. AMA.


 No.8656170

>>8656123

Go fuck yourself, cocksucker. Do you have an actual rebuttal or are you just some random, mindless autist wasting my time here?


 No.8656186

>>8656123

>believes things just because the retarded school system teaches it to him

Fucking asshole


 No.8656190

The phenomenon of evolution is in front of your face. But the theory that currently we stemmed from a course of natural evolution from monkeys is retarded.

Like when a scientist says a Faraway star is X amount of degrees hot or the atmosphere of a distant moon has such and such a composition. Like ooooooo Kay i guess I'll just take your word for it.


 No.8656195

>>8656190

This. Some form of evolution is taking place, but it's not that retarded Darwinian theory.


 No.8656198

>>8656195

you're retarded


 No.8656205

>>8656198

Because I don't assume that things are true just because I'm taught them in the same way that believers in creationism and Darwinism do? You'll have to do better than just call me "retarded".


 No.8656218

>>8656190

>Like ooooooo Kay i guess I'll just take your word for it.

If you had a fucking brain, you would try figuring it out for yourself instead of typing this retarded sarcasm, and I even agreed with the first part if your comment.


 No.8656221

>>8656205

then provide a better theory, faggotron

>inb4 le Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics


 No.8656223

>>8656205

Stubborn and retarded.

Go talk to someone with an education.

Like a PhD Scientist at a local university.

Then go talk with a Priest, you will run to the shower to wash the crud off.


 No.8656225

Don't bend over in front of the priest.


 No.8656237

>>8656221

>then provide a better theory

That's not a rebuttal. I'm not the one putting theories forth and claiming that they're gospel truth. No pun intended. The school system has its dick so far up your ass and you don't even realize it.

>>8656223

>Go talk to someone with an education.

>Like a PhD Scientist at a local university

Argument from authority fallacy. You lost me on the priest comment, but whatever.


 No.8656239

>>8656237

>I'm not the one putting theories forth and claiming that they're gospel truth

But Darwin's Theory of Evolution is empirically proven


 No.8656245

Darwin's theory has been supported by a lot of evidence. Lamarck's Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics has been disproved. This was done in two major ways. The first is by experiment. We have seen through many real examples and observations that changes that occur in an animal during life are not passed on to the animal's offspring. If a dog's ears are cropped short, its puppies are still born with long ears. If someone exercises every day, runs marathons, eats well, and is generally very healthy, the fitness is not passed on and the person's children still have to work just as hard to get that fit and healthy. These and other examples show that Lamarck's theory does not explain how life formed and became the way it is.

The other way that Lamarck's theory has been proven wrong is the study of genetics. Darwin knew that traits are passed on, but he never understood how they are passed on. During the time when Darwin's first book first came out, Gregor Mendel, who discovered genetics, was just starting his experiments. However, now we know a lot more about genetics, and we know that the only way for traits to be passed on is through genes, and that genes can not be affected by the outside world. The only thing that can be affected is which gene sets there are in a population, and this is determined by which individuals die and which ones live. This is the other way that we have learned that the fruits of an animal's efforts can not be inherited by its offspring.


 No.8656246

File: 36de9990552899a⋯.jpg (35.7 KB, 219x350, 219:350, 5a3dktntcwtt.jpg)

>>8656237

you…wooo


 No.8656247

>>8656239

Yeah okay. Whatever.


 No.8656252

>>8656246

You guys actually are as mentally challenged as Christians.


 No.8656267

>>8655517

What is this fucking look? I see it all the time with retarded sports fans - backwards cap, goatee, and jock rap


 No.8656268

>>8656245

And yet, did the panda bear not evolve to eat bamboo because that was all it could reach? No, it was through generations of poor decisions and laziness that has resulted in one of nature's biggest, fattest failures. Evolution may be true, but you cannot deny that long-term behavior across multiple generations influences the development of a creature.


 No.8656269

>>8656267

>What is this fucking look? I see it all the time with retarded sports fans - backwards cap, goatee, and jock rap

limp biskit 1997 look


 No.8656278

>>8656252

We have humor.

Why Metamorphosis Does Not Disprove Evolution

As an credible biologist today would tell you, there’s no accepted explanation for the process of metamorphosis fitting into the theory of evolution. The closest thing to a universally accepted response is that 280 million years ago a chain reaction of mutations occurred that now account for 40%-60% of the species development processes around the world.

The reason that metamorphosis does not disprove evolution isn’t rock solid evidence. It isn’t from a lack of effort; scientists have been tackling the question for centuries and continue today to understand it. No, the real reason that metamorphosis does not disprove evolution is because it would cause a cataclysmic demolition of the most commonly accepted worldview. Today’s society isn’t ready to abandon evolutionary theory any faster than 16th century society trying to abandon the Ptolemaic model of geocentrism.

It’s common for Creationists to point to Charles Darwin’s own words and apply them to metamorphosis.


 No.8656287

>>8656239

>But Darwin's Theory of Evolution is empirically proven

no it isn't. there are an abundance of holes in this theory. it simply has the weight of the biological community behind it because of philosophical and historical context.

find out what the word 'proven' means in a scientific context anon. gravity is proven, common descent isn't even remotely proven. and even in the case of gravity scientific conjectures are always provisional, dependent on continuing validation.


 No.8656296

>>8655517

>muh it's only a "theory" argument

I hate this shit because I know they hear it from some lowIQ pastor or some shitty facebook meme. It's only a "theory" in their head is the same as "it was only one dude's idea about something that might sort of work"

I'm not some pure "I fucking love science" faggot who thinks that just because someone in a labcoat said something, it automatically makes it right, but what about the fossil evidence? We can clearly see gradual changes in species as they change over time. What about the bird beak experiments? Evolution was witnessed real time when a group of birds was released onto a series of small islands they couldn't fly between and over the course of a few generations, the shape of the beaks of the birds changed according to the food sources in the area. Evolution is a logical concept, but it's not Judeo-Christian enough I guess.


 No.8656308

>>8656287

Common Descent is proved by genetics and phylogenetic synapomorphy. There is no explanation for shared genetic material that is not evidently Common Descent.


 No.8656366

>>8656278

Who mentioned metamorphosis? Are you drunk?


 No.8656370

>>8656296

>I fucking love science" faggot who thinks that just because someone in a labcoat said something, it automatically makes it right

You just described yourself.


 No.8656403

>>8656287

>it simply has the weight of the biological community behind it because of philosophical and historical context

This


 No.8656446

>>8656370

>Thinking God is an Abrahamic concept


 No.8656449

>>8656446

What are you talking about?


 No.8656625

File: 2e0aea09ae81ff7⋯.jpg (164.25 KB, 1280x913, 1280:913, 1.jpg)

File: ab7ff23b6b413e5⋯.jpg (183.78 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, 2.JPG)

File: 0fcfb1de0be96d5⋯.jpg (110.99 KB, 800x993, 800:993, 3.JPG)

File: 2b7cf5d3416054b⋯.jpg (113.77 KB, 800x853, 800:853, 4.jpg)

File: b695d54b0bfc969⋯.jpg (64.99 KB, 563x600, 563:600, 5.jpg)

>>8656190

>But the theory that currently we stemmed from a course of natural evolution from monkeys is retarded.

There's no such thing as a theory that we came from monkeys, the theory is that we and several other apes came from a primitive type of ape. Monkeys are something different. Apes and monkeys split around 20-30 million years ago.

If you look at bone structures over the ages you'll see there's a clear lineage that slowly morphs more and more into human form.

#1 is 4 million years old, #2 is 2.8 million years old, #3 is 1.9 million years old, #4 is 600k years old and #5 is 120k years old.


 No.8656629

>>8656028

>Two human beings are the father and mother to all humans.

>An ancient man built a boat containing two of every kind of animal to ride out a worldwide flood.

That OT stuff is to be taken as poems not literally.

Also pretty sure Adam and Eve came out of the Garden of Eden and encountered other humans.

As for that boat. You could think of it as a boat that just carries genetic material from which the animals can be reconstructed, a big dna bank, instead of an actual boat with each animal. Or you can think of it as spiritual.

Anyways, you'll have to try harder to debunk the Bible, and not by pointing at poems that aren't to be taken literally.

Here is one I can think of. In Proverbs I think it is, Solomon asks, can a man walk on coal?

The answer is; yes. Anyone can. Don't even need some kind of special circumstances for it, it's just physics.


 No.8656630

>>8656625

Oh whoops, I posed the wrong image at the fifth. It was a Neanderthal skull, but I seem to have lost the file.


 No.8656631

>>8656625

>Apes

>Monkeys

Resorting to semantics is kind of pathetic. And, in this case, it's kind of analogous to distinguishing between a spider and a tarantula.


 No.8656633

>>8656036

Hmmm I remember watching a documentary about that which a Portuguese friend showed me.

I think the problem is that Americans are literalists. They think of things as "literal" and can't comprehend non-literal forms of communication. People for ages had no problem understanding the Bible until literalism took over.


 No.8656635

>>8656631

>tfw no tarantula gf


 No.8656639

>>8656631

>And, in this case, it's kind of analogous to distinguishing between a spider and a tarantula.

No, that's not a good analogy. Tarantulas are a type of spider, but apes and monkeys are two different things under the category of primate.

It's like calling a fox a wolf.


 No.8656641

File: 5145b10d4b3d64f⋯.jpg (493.32 KB, 1280x1127, 1280:1127, ugu~.jpg)

>>8656635

feels bad man


 No.8656643

>>8656096

>I actually do critical thinking, unlike Creationists or Darwinists.

Okay so what is your alternative called then? Personally I believe in this: http://montalk.net/science/163/intelligent-design

(please actually read this btw, it's rather short, don't just go by the title of my url it's actually suggesting an alternative to the popular theories of intelligent design and darwinianism)


 No.8656644

>>8656123

The anon you're responding to actually seems much more intelligent than you and your meme-spouting.


 No.8656646

>>8656639

When I was a kid, people, along with the scientific community, were claiming that there was a definite difference, and then they reversed themselves on it.


 No.8656647

>>8656631

I find it funny that as you keep posting it becomes more and more obvious you don't really know what you're talking about


 No.8656649

>>8656129

>includes "racists" in there

lol cuck


 No.8656654

>>8656643

As I said, I do critical thinking. I'll look at it, despite the title. Also, I'm not sure about an alternative. So much time and resources have been squandered promoting both Darwinism and Creationism.


 No.8656657

>>8656647

I was a different anon, so obviously you don't know what you're talking about.


 No.8656668

>>8656647

Not sure what you're finding funny. You sound butthurt that someone, other than some christfag, doesn't believe in your sacred cow religion of Darwinian evolution.


 No.8656673

>>8656668

Ah, the old "ur butthurt" excuse. That's an old one but I'll admit it's one of my favorites.


 No.8656674

>>8656169

>Clean-shaven, expert military marksmen, currently top of my degree program in Uni with a 98.3 cumulative. AMA.

Are you redpilled and would you take one of my daughters and make sure to treat her right and have many children by her?


 No.8656677

>>8656170

> Do you have an actual rebuttal or are you just some random, mindless autist wasting my time here?

He's a mindless autist. Just like the idiots in the philosophy thread about the self spewing insults instead of actual arguments.


 No.8656682

>>8656673

You assholes have your own form of religious dogma. You say shit like, "Darwinism is an empirical fact that can't be questioned". You scumbags are like the assholes saying, "it's written in the word of god and can't be questioned". You're both retards.


 No.8656683

>>8656237

He's not wrong to ask you to provide a better theory. Anyone can say "you're retarded" and "that's not true" but if they fail to provide their alternative theory, they're a nigger.

You can just link to a site, mention an author, or something; something that represents your view on the subject.

If you don't and just say people are wrong and don't explain what is the correct view you aren't really adding much to the advancement of human knowledge.


 No.8656687

>>8656245

> We have seen through many real examples and observations that changes that occur in an animal during life are not passed on to the animal's offspring.

Bullshit; viruses causes changes to an organism during its life and those changes can be passed onto its offspring.


 No.8656689

>>8656683

It's not demanded that I provide a theory; that's not how logic works. We're discussing the already existing theories that are put forward as infallible. What you are asking is a straw man.


 No.8656692

File: 033b2d0d11a4888⋯.jpg (75.89 KB, 400x500, 4:5, Francis Parker Yockey.jpg)

>>8655517

This is the most interesting anti-evolution argument I've ever heard/read. I can't say if it's right or not.

>The system shows its provenance as a product of the Age of Criticism in its teleological assumptions. Evolution has purpose — the purpose of producing man, civilized man, English man — in the last analysis, Darwinians. It is anthropomorphic — the ―aim of evolution‖ is not to produce bacilli, but humanity. It is free trade capitalism, in that this struggle is economic, every man for himself, and competition decides which life-forms are best. It is gradual and parliamentary, for continual ―progress‖ and adaptation, exclude revolutions and catastrophes. It is utilitarian, in that every change in a species is one that has a material use. The human soul itself — known as the ―brain‖ in the 19th century — is only a tool by which a certain type of monkey advanced himself to man ahead of his fellow-monkeys. Teleology again: man became man in order that he might be man. It is orderly; natural selection proceeds according to the rules of artificial breeding in practice on English farms.

>…

>As a factual picture, this is easier to refute than it is to prove, and factual biological thinkers, both Mechanists and Vitalists, like Louis Agassiz, Du Bois-Reymond, Reinke, and Driesch rejected it from its appearance. The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species ―evolving‖ into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species ―adapting‖ itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which ―adaptation‖ then resulted in more ―fitness‖ for the ―struggle for existence,‖ and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.

>Darwinians cannot get over these facts by bringing in great spaces of time, for palaeontology has never discovered any intermediate types, but only distinct species. Nor are the fossil animals which have died out any simpler than present-day forms, although the course of evolution was supposed to be from simple to complex Life-forms. This was crude anthropomorphism — man is complex, other animals are simple, they must be tending toward him, since he is ―higher‖ biologically.

>Calling Culture-man a ―higher‖ animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme.

>If this picture of the facts were correct, species ought to be fluid at the present time. They should be turning into one another. This is, of course, not so. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of individuals, engaged in a race to reach — man. But the ―struggle,‖ again, is quite inconclusive. The ―lower‖ forms, simpler — less fit? — have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain in the same form they have had for — as the Darwinians would say — millions of years. Why do they not ―evolve‖ into something ―higher‖?


 No.8656693

>>8656692

>The Darwinian analogy between artificial selection and natural selection is also in opposition to the facts. The products of artificial selection such as barnyard fowls, racing dogs, race horses, ornamental cats, and song-canaries, would certainly be at a disadvantage against natural varieties. Thus artificial selection has only been able to produce less fit life-forms.

>Nor is Darwinian sexual selection in accordance with facts. The female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other.

>The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over the ―millions of years‖ necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did this process start? For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.

>Actually all the technics of Darwinian evolution are simply tautological. Thus, within the species it is individuals which have a predisposition to adapt themselves that do so. Adaptation presupposes adaptation.

>The process of selection affects those specimens with definite aptitudes which make them worthy of selection, in other words, they have already been selected. Selection presupposes selection.

>The problem of descent in the Darwinian picture is treated as finding the interrelations of the species. Having assumed their interrelationship, it then finds they are interrelated, and proves the interrelationship thus. Descent presupposes descent.

>The utility of an organ is a way of saying it works for this species. Utility thus presupposes the existence of the very species which has the organ, but lacking that organ. The facts however, have never shown a species to pick up a certain missing organ, which seemed necessary. A Life-form needs a certain organ because it needs it. The organ is utile because it is utile.


 No.8656696

>>8656625

uhhh 4 and 5 are the exact same picture are you trying to le trick me here?


 No.8656705

>>8656654

Okay tell me when you're done.

Btw I believe evolution is driven by sexual selection, viruses, and by NON-RANDOM mutation. I believe mutation (outside of gene damage from radiation and toxicity) is actually a guided, self-refining process akin to an AI. I think that when there is a persistent desire in a species to adapt to something or obtain some new trait, it will arise faster than pure randomness would allow for. I do believe in natural selection too but the rate at which many species can adapt suggests to me there is intelligence involved in the process. I also reckon that the evolution of bacteria plays a big role in the evolution of higher organisms such as humans. I suspect there are all kinds of interactions going on that allow for a species like humans to adapt faster than normal and not die out. You'd think all complex life would get wiped out by less complex and faster reproducing forms of life regularly but it doesn't happen and I suspect it's because of our own bacteria allies. I'd like to see studies done also where DNA samples are taken of humans and other animals when they are infants and again later in life to see how much they have changed due to viruses and other factors.


 No.8656711

>>8656689

Not shit the theories are infallible is there anyone here that actually is saying there models of evolution are infallible? I don't think that's even a discussion.

Also I don't think you mean "logic" I think you mean "the formalities of discussion". I can demand you provide sources all I want.

Logic deals with stuff like deduction, induction, abduction, inference, etc.


 No.8656713

>>8656689

>What you are asking is a straw man.

A strawman is where I put forward your supposed argument and attack it but it's not your argument I'm attacking but one I substituted in place of your argument (or lack thereof).


 No.8656715

>>8656692

>Evolution has purpose and direction

<said no Evolutionist ever


 No.8656721

>>8656692

>Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species ―evolving‖ into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable.

Not true intermediate forms were found.


 No.8656727

>>8656713

No. You're committing a straw man by claiming that I need to create a theory in order to refute the two mentioned and existing theories – Darwinism and Creationism, and pretending that my lack of a theory refutes my argument that both said theories are most likely false.


 No.8656728

>>8656692

>>If this picture of the facts were correct, species ought to be fluid at the present time. They should be turning into one another. This is, of course, not so. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of individuals, engaged in a race to reach — man. But the ―struggle,‖ again, is quite inconclusive. The ―lower‖ forms, simpler — less fit? — have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain in the same form they have had for — as the Darwinians would say — millions of years. Why do they not ―evolve‖ into something ―higher‖?

Literally nobody believes that evolution must lead to man. Fuck look at abbos. They're clear evidence of a species of man becoming more and more degenerate over time, less and less sentient. Many animals in Australia have smoother and smoother brains and in general there is a tendency on that continent for animals to evolve to be very stupid as to conserve energy.


 No.8656738

>>8656727

>No. You're committing a straw man by claiming that I need to create a theory in order to refute the two mentioned and existing theories

I didn't claim that. You're legitimately strawmanning me right now. I want you to provide your theory. Period. I don't care about you "refuting" anything.

>– Darwinism and Creationism, and pretending that my lack of a theory refutes my argument that both said theories are most likely false.

Where even is your argument that they are false?

Also how can you say something is false without having a standard of truth to compare it to?

It's like when atheists say god isn't real. Well, then provide something else that observes and explains all manifest phenomena better than god, and back that shit up. Atheists can tear down various mythologies about god all day but they'd be much more interesting if they could provide their own theory.


 No.8656741

>>8656727

Darwinism is mostly true and creationism is mostly false in my opinion.

We need a synthesis of the two.


 No.8656788

>>8656741

>We need a synthesis of the two

No. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There could be a billion theories on the descent of man. What are the chances that one of these two theories happen to be the correct one when both are mainly mutual antagonists to one another?


 No.8656791

>>8656692

>>8656693

Reading this, it is apparent the author either doesn't understand Evolution or how it works, or is outright deceptive in their intent.

First basic argument

>why don't we see evidence of things turning into radically different things in the fossil record? If Evolution were true, we be finding half-pig half-eagle transitional fossils

The author doesn't realize that if we were to find such a thing, it would debunk Evolution and undo all our understanding of Biology. The author, along with everyone else who wants to discuss evolution, ought to learn about phylogeny and the Law of Monophyly - every new species is merely a modified form of their older ancestral clade, and not a fundamentally different thing from said ancestral clade.

The second general argument

>artificial selection yields traits that are unfit for natural settings

Yes, but artificial selection and natural selection enact the same fundamental mechanic of selective pressures which both yield evolutionary change as defined in its simplest terms as "change in allele frequency by descent with inherent modification in a given population of living organisms". This argument does not refute evolution, it supports it. The only thing this refutes is the author's mischaracterization of evolution as something with a goal or vision in mind.

A little tidbit

>why do some specie today have the same traits as their ancestor did 20 million years ago? If evolution were true, they'd be changing into something else by now

These specie are in fact subject to evolutionary development by virtue of being alive. They do undergo change over time, but because the niches they have found themselves in enact certain selective pressures, these changes are weeded out if they undermine what is working for them. Take a look at crocodilians. They've looked basically like they do today since millions of years ago, yet they've still undergone changes since then. Their ancestors were once much bigger, for instance. The point being that even if something looks unchanging, it usually isn't.


 No.8656801

>>8656788

Also, I should have made clear that a synthesis is even more absurd than choosing one or the other.


 No.8656805

>>8656738

>atheists say there is no god

Some are anti-theist sure, but that doesn't define atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods - not the claim that there are no gods.


 No.8656806

>>8656801

>>8656788

Sigh this is sophistry. A synthesis would be better. You remove the known short-comings of each theory and combine the facts that still stand up to scrutiny in one new theory. You then work on that theory more and refine it too. Yeah it won't likely be 100% exact to what the final truth will be but we'll get closer and closer.


 No.8656812

>>8656806

What if both were false? They're only two of billions that may exist if everyone truly had an open mind. A synthesis of two false theories would be beyond "sophistry".


 No.8656813

>>8656791

>These specie are in fact subject to evolutionary development by virtue of being alive. They do undergo change over time, but because the niches they have found themselves in enact certain selective pressures, these changes are weeded out if they undermine what is working for them. Take a look at crocodilians. They've looked basically like they do today since millions of years ago, yet they've still undergone changes since then. Their ancestors were once much bigger, for instance. The point being that even if something looks unchanging, it usually isn't.

Interesting fact: some species as "evolutionary fossils" such as certain species of sharks that haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years and others are "evolutionary unstable" in that they rapidly are changing all the time. Some genomes are just more stable than others.


 No.8656817

>>8656805

>Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods

That's agnosticism not atheism.

>not the claim that there are no gods.

That's precisely what atheism is though.

The only atheist I can think of right away that actually tried to prove shit was Karl Marx with his theory of Materialism.

Most self-described atheists though don't have a clue about anything.


 No.8656825

>>8656817

>that's agnosticism

Wrong. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of the existence of gods - usually referring to whether or not we can actually know a god exists. A-theism is the lack of belief in a god or gods by definition.


 No.8656830

>>8656812

What constitutes "false" to you? You act like theories are either "true" or "false" when in actual fact they are made up thousands of different claims that either true or false. So a theory can be partially false and partially true.

Synthesizing theories isn't "beyond sophistry" it's what we do all the fucking time to advance human knowledge. All that we know today is the product of a synthesis of previous human knowledge where we discard the wrong parts and include the correct parts. Sometimes we wrongfully discard something too or reach a same conclusion but by a different process (aka the reasoning given for why something was true was wrong, but the truth itself was right just caused by a different process).

Anyways you're just being a faggot whose whole argument amounts to "but things could be wrong". No shit. Everything we know could be wrong. Now lets actually try to make our best guesses… and if you're not interested in that then just stay out of the argument because you're not adding anything constructive.

You are engaging in destructive skepticism and not constructive skepticism.


 No.8656834

>>8656817

>Most self-described atheists though don't have a clue about anything

Different anon here. I kind of agree, actually. I keep my own atheism to myself, and even pretend to be a believer at times. There's really not much to gain by proclaiming your atheism in the real world. Most atheists are kind of simple.


 No.8656835

>>8656825

agnostic (ăg-nŏsˈtĭk)►

n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

n. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

n. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Agnostic&ia=definition

atheist

n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Atheist&ia=definition


 No.8656844

>>8656830

What if the premises of those two theories were 100% false? It almost seems as though modern man has become lazy and would rather extrapolate on two obsolete theories rather than create new ones.


 No.8656846

>>8656825

Atheism IS the claim that there are no god(s).


 No.8656848

>>8656835

You just proved me right, friend. Disbelief = lack of belief.


 No.8656858

>>8656834

So you're an atheist eh?

Do you believe in the law of polarity?

Also if you need me to clarify as to what the law of polarity is I can do so for you. Basically, that everything has its opposite.

See also: http://www.kybalion.org/kybalion.php?chapter=X

Do you accept this axiom? I want to hear your answer to this question and we shall proceed to the next step.


 No.8656861

>>8656830

>you're just being a faggot whose whole argument amounts to "but things could be wrong". No shit. Everything we know could be wrong

It's better than your retarded argument that both happen to be true, except one is more true than the other. There's as good of a chance that I'm the reincarnation of Genghis Khan than that bullshit.


 No.8656865

>>8656848

I agree and I redact this statement ( "That's agnosticism not atheism." ) but I standby "That's precisely what atheism is though." still as the definition says Atheism is also one who denies the existence of god(s).


 No.8656873

>>8656858

Somehow no, but I could be very wrong. It just seems to me that in infinity there would be some things that are so unique that there is no opposite for it.


 No.8656886

>>8656861

>It's better than your retarded argument that both happen to be true, except one is more true than the other.

Specific claims in the theories are true and other specific claims are false.

e.g. of a claim in Darwinism that is false: "Random" mutation

e.g. of a claim in Darwinism that is true: heritability of traits

e.g. of a claim in Creationism that is true: intelligence being involved in the process

e.g. of a claim in Creationism that is false: arbitrary fiat of god creating each individual uniquely

Synthesis: we drop the claims of "randomness" and the arbitrary fiat and accept the heritability of traits and the involvement of intelligence in the process of mutation

I say creationism is more false because if we go through it, point by point, claim by claim; most of their shit is demonstrably wrong. While Darwinism holds up to scrutiny better.

>There's as good of a chance that I'm the reincarnation of Genghis Khan than that bullshit.

Before you make claims about probability you need some way to calculate your probabilities otherwise you're full of shit.


 No.8656889

>>8656846

Wrong. If you can't even get a basic definition right, then there's no use having a discussion with you because you're either A) Uninformed and therefore your ideas are faulty and aren't worth discussing, or B) You're being deliberately disingenuous in an attempt to undermine legitimate positions because you're already aware that the side you've taken is invalid and require a means to pretend to destroy positions that in actuality you can't even scratch.

So which is it?


 No.8656894

>>8656791

Well, it's the last bit I found interesting. For he is right that a wing, for example, is absolutely useless to an organism if it were to come incremental. A wing has to come fully developed or not all.


 No.8656895

>>8656873

>It just seems to me that in infinity there would be some things that are so unique that there is no opposite for it.

Hot and cold. Infinite and finite. Absolute and relative. All and nothing. Positive charge and negative charge.

Everything, absolutely everything, is manifested in pairs.

Can't you accept this?

Aside from "the all" which is opposite to nothing (paradoxically) and is therefore one there are no exceptions to be found to the rule. Also since the all does have an opposite (aka nothing) is still doesn't really violate the law of polarity.

Can you accept this yes or no?


 No.8656900

>>8656865

It says "disbelieve OR denies the existence of god(s)" which means that atheists don't have to claim that there are no god(s) as you were implying.


 No.8656907

>>8656889

>Wrong. If you can't even get a basic definition right

It's no my definition, see: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Atheism&ia=definition

or: https://www.wordnik.com/words/atheism

atheism (āˈthē-ĭzˌəm)►

n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

n. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

>So which is it?

I'm just going by the first definition that comes up when I search atheism but you seem to be using an alternative definition than the one which the web turns up first.


 No.8656908

>>8656886

>Before you make claims about probability you need some way to calculate your probabilities otherwise you're full of shit.

My comment was obvious hyperbole. There's no probability to outright fiction, which is what I believe both theories are. So anyway, good luck reconciling both theories, and good luck that either of the two are even based on actual fact.


 No.8656912

>>8656894

What are flying squirrels anon?

Also it's not impossible for a whole new kind appendage to appear all at once from a single mutation.


 No.8656914

>>8656895

>Can you accept this yes or no?

I could consider it. But I'm still not entirely convinced.


 No.8656917

>>8656900

>which means that atheists don't have to claim that there are no god(s) as you were implying.

Oh okay then. Well I accept that. The thing is agnostic better describes a person who just says on the question of god "I don't know" whereas atheist is better to describe someone who answer the question of god with "there is no god".

Also are you suggesting to me that someone can disbelief in a god and think there is a god at the same time? Because I think disbelieving god is the same as thinking there is no god. I don't see how it could be otherwise, unless cognitive dissonance…


 No.8656918

>>8656914

Okay fine. So I will narrow things down a bit.

Do you believe there is such a thing as "the relative"? Yes or no?


 No.8656922

>>8656894

For the purpose of flight, yes. But a half-wing is still a very useful appendage, and we find them on Ostriches for instance - and they certainly can't fly. Here's a decent video on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMuzlEQz3uo

But the "irreducible complexity" argument in a more general sense simply doesn't hold water. For instance, humans have GI tracts to remove waste products, right? But that doesn't mean there aren't perfectly functional, simpler means of waste excretion such as through pores or the like found in other organisms.


 No.8656924

>>8656914

If you will allow me I'm going to fire off a barrage of questions because this will take a long time to ask each one and then get response to each part individually…

Do you believe there is the finite?

Do you believe there is the temporal?

Do you believe there is the fallible?

Do you believe there is the dependent?

Do you believe there are falsehoods?

Do you believe there is the weak?

Do you believe there are the many?


 No.8656926

>>8656922

>But that doesn't mean there aren't perfectly functional, simpler means of waste excretion such as through pores or the like found in other organisms.

Fish release their urine into the water through their pores.

For a land animal that would create serious problems.


 No.8656927

>>8656917

Yes, someone could literally think there is a god, and at the same time lack belief in them. Depends on how you define "belief" but I mean it in the sense of worshipping.


 No.8656929

>>8656924

Different guy.

I have no belief in imaginary stories or your Pathology.


 No.8656932

>>8656926

There are organisms that exist outside of water that also possess simple means of waste excretion.


 No.8656933

>>8656929

So you don't believe there are temporal objects or that you are finite or fallible?

wow. That's quite amazing. Tell me more, faggot.


 No.8656935

>>8656918

>>8656924

Not necessarily. I'm not even a solipsist but I can't be certain that existence and the world are not a hallucination or that I'm not living in a simulation. So all of these concepts could be non-applicable.


 No.8656936

>>8656932

You mean amphibians right?


 No.8656941

>>8656936

I think we've established the point. Irreducible complexity isn't a real thing. Excreting waste through GI tracts and pores are both viable in an aquatic environment.


 No.8656942

>>8656935

None of the things I even described to you would be any less valid if the world was a "hallucination" or "simulation".

Also existence is the one thing you can be absolutely certain about. You EXIST. This is self-evident to all but NPCs. Don't troll me and deny you exist, you KNOW you exist. You don't know the exact nature of your existence and you may have (spurious) doubts that you existed one second ago or that you will exist one second from now but right now in this very moment you know with absolute certainty that you do in fact exist.

>So all of these concepts could be non-applicable.

Sigh. There comes a point where disbelief becomes stupidity and you've reached it.

If you want to "reserve some doubt" can you at least say something like "I'm 99.99% sure those things you said are valid"? Can you give it to me as a percentage?


 No.8656948

>Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection. Irreducible complexity is central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but it is rejected by the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.

Redpill us on "specified complexity"


 No.8656953

>>8656942

There was a philosopher from sometime BC who taught that we can't be certain of our existence. Everyone I brought this up to scoffed but I did not.


 No.8656954

>>8656933

>temporal objects in time.

You are pond scum, your question is imaginary, but I understand your fear.

You will die and become compost the end.


 No.8656956

>>8656907

These definitions are often the result of tampering, which does happen often. Fundamentalists do it to de-legitimize their opponents. The concept that it's a "doctrine" of any kind is ludicrous; There is no dogma or teachings, nothing sacred or untouchable. While it's not impossible to outright deny the existence of god(s) as an atheist, we've hit a wall because people have this silly idea that things are structured as:

Theist (Claims god exists) <-> Agnostic (Neutral) <-> Atheist (claims god does not exist)

This structure is false. It is not a gradient and there is no true "neutral". To see the true structure and thus see the actual definitions, you have to ask someone two questions:

1) Do you currently possess a belief in a god right this second?

This is a binary state. You either do, or you do not. If you do, you are a theist by definition. If you do not, you are an atheist, by definition. Remember that atheist is just theist with the A- prefix, meaning lack of, or without. It really is that simple, but because it's so simple, it's vague. You might say to yourself, "Hold on, what if I'm unsure or don't want to say right away. That's neutrality, right?". Not really. Now is the time we ask the second question, which helps us clear things up by qualifying the basic positions:

2) Do you believe it's possible to know of, or possess knowledge about, god?

This toggles the binary between gnostic (not the specific kind, the general term) and agnostic. Gnostic being the certainty of knowledgeably and agnostic being the opposite. This is why many atheists will constantly bring up that they're "AGNOSTIC ATHEIST", because atheism by itself is too vague to tell you what position they're really holding. That position in particular is the closest to that "neutral" everyone is pretending to be, but in all actuality it's not really possible to be neutral. You can switch between the states at will, for whatever reason you want, but it's important to understand the differences so that things don't devolve into he said she said shitslinging before an actual discussion has even taken place. Many, many, many channels all over youtube have spent a lot of time trying to inform people of this but it just doesn't seem to stick because a lot of people don't seem to want a genuine discussion.


 No.8656959

>>8656953

Are you sure he wasn't talking about "our continued existence" as opposed to "our existence right now"?

Name him. He must have been an NPC if he took himself seriously.


 No.8656963

>>8656954

hahaha this faggot actually doesn't believe in the temporal and then in the same post tells me my life is temporal by saying I will die

Stop being a self-contradictory cognitive dissonance faggot.


 No.8656970

>>8656959

I don't remember. I only heard about this from a greek historian and philosopher, from, like, only a century after him, who mentioned him in passing. Why are you so certain that our existence is actual reality or that reality even means anything?


 No.8656971

>>8656963

Only if you stop being a cunt, but you can't, once a cunt always a cunt until you die that is.

Metaphysics is imaginary and does not exist in the world; only in your demented head.

The only difference between two individuals is in the depth of their delusion. I'm not an individual because it is imaginary, the ego is not the author of anything.


 No.8656975

>>8656956

Gnostic (nŏsˈtĭk)►

adj. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

adj. Of or relating to Gnosticism.

n. A believer in Gnosticism.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gnostic&ia=definition


 No.8656979

>>8656975

Completely imaginary usually inspired by dementia and drugs especially hallucinogens.


 No.8656989

>>8656970

>Why are you so certain that our existence is actual reality or that reality even means anything?

I believe that there is something called "information" that either "makes up" or at least "is a feature in" the universe. Inherent to "information" is "meaning". Meaning is evidenced in my ability to comprehend and form ideas about things and to communicate with you right now. Meaning to me does not necessarily hold a significant value though and I tend to underplay the personal value of meaning. I think it's absurd to deny meaning as the very act of doing so involves meaning.

As for existence. You say "our existence". I am certain of my own existence right now because I am right now experiencing something. I don't care if you call it an illusion, a simulation, an actuality, a reality, or what; but this is clearly not a blank nothing or void.

Note that my existence is not the same as "John Smith". I am not my name. Nor is it my body. Nor is it the thoughts I have. Nor does it depend upon my senses or anything else. I am convinced that, even if I had everything taken away from me, that in the end I would be confronted with my true self. You might call it "nothing" but I'd call it pure awareness, unconditioned, independent, unblemished.


 No.8656995

Simple Comments on The Alaya Consciousness

The continuum body of flowing thoughts

whose origins are deep and subtle

That incessant never ending flow

is called the alaya consciousness.

Its ultimate origins cannot be fathomed

So the origin is simply called "ignorance"

It’s not that you make an "ignorant" mistake of first thought,

It’s "ignorance" in that the origins can’t be known.

In cultivation you aim to purify the alaya

which means you want to purify the whole body of consciousness

so that the stream that must appear is always quite pure

in goodness, compassion and skill.

What knows the alaya consciousness is termed empty awareness

or sometimes it’s called "prajna wisdom"

It’s a non-moving ever present function that knows without thought

And is still a "guest" rather than the ultimate "host."

If you enter a room of pitch darkness

That blackness should be considered a color

The eyes see the color of only dark black

not because of light but because the function of prajna is there

So the "clear light" of prajna awareness

is really no light or physical illumination

we just say that awareness is an ever present clear knowing substrate that’s always there

otherwise the blackness couldn’t be seen

Whatever you see of the world around you

is actually only your mind flowing

Everything you experience are only consciousness images

The world you see therefore is only You.

That entire body of human experience

Is what we call Consciousness-Only

But what knows it, sees it or experiences this All like the dark room

is the non-moving prajna wisdom that’s always there.

Prajna is separate and yet it’s not separate

It just shines without moving and without objects

If you realize this thing you can separate from the flow of illusion

and enter the cultivation trail.

So in cultivation you must first realize the truth of Mind-Only

and then strive to realize the underlying prajna knowing

That "sees" the alaya whole without being sucked into the same thing

and then you’re on the road to the true Self.


 No.8656996

What you have to understand is that awareness has the potential of knowing, but it is called awareness when knowingness has not yet arisen. Because it is empty like this, it is pristine, clear, ever present existence. The path of spiritual practice is to help you achieve the state of ready awareness in a condition of now. This is called wisdom, or prajna or transcendental knowing when awareness knows without clining, and just reflects things as they are.

You should never block awareness by holding anything in the mind because that blocks this ever present clear one. Rather, always just let thoughts be born. That’s the correct functioning of the mind. You cannot stop the stream of thoughts anyway. They wil alwasy come. You can only know them without clining.

When thoughts are not there, which is the case in-between successive thoughts, just abide in the true nature of empty awareness, ready to let thoughts be given birth again. Just never cling to the mind and you’ll always be in awareness. If you stay in that state of presence without clinging because it’s become natural, then subtle mental pollutions of attachment you didn’t even know you were performing will eventually disappear and then you’ll discover that ready awareness is universal. You are just clinging to local consciousness because of the habit of identifying with the body, but since true Mind is everywhere, you can realize That when you practice beingness without clinging. It’s not a matter of thinking the right thoughts…

You don’t create universal awareness. Universal awareness is always there and you’re just covering it over with clinging. If you can throw all your clinging away by emptying it out, then you’ll find that awareness encompasses the cosmos. It encompasses all of creation. Everything that arises is within its body of pure essence. What you can perceive right now is limited because you are clining to the body and ITS five consciousnesses.

There is a state prior to the arising of conscious perception, called empty awareness, just as there is something there prior to your awakening in the morning event hough you are in a state of oblivion or ignorance before waking. That state is there all along during wakefulness, deep sleep, and even when the knowledge of “I am” is operating or not operating. There is something constant, a continuous substrate that is has always been there all along and will be there all along. The problem is that we get so caught up in what arises upon this substrate that we mistake the scenery for the light. We get caught up in the display of Consciousness-Only that we can never realize what it is that lets us KNOW this, what’s its basis. Like seeing the black of a dark room, that which lets us REALIZE the darkness is wisdom illumination, or clear awareness. No matter where you go in the universe, to the Heavens or Hell, you are never apart from It. It is always with you just as the originla nature is alwasy with you. The function of the original nature is this awareness. The essence behind awareness is the fundamental nature, the empty essence that is real, non-moving, silent, still, pristine, immaculate, perfect, complete …. but which isn’t inert because it gives birth the the realm of illusions, namely consciousness that cannot stay.

That underlying substrate of knowing is empty awareness. It is pure, unblemished, pristine and clear. It is pure so it is free of thoughts and forms, and thus pure through and through. Free of thoughts, it is unmoving and changeless. It is a function of your fundamental nature because it is a function that co-exists with its body of essence that shares its same characteristics. Spiritual practice is to find this ultimate one that is the essence or body of awareness. That’s what spiritual practice is all about. It’s called "empty" because everything you think it is, it is not…it is empty of all those things. "Neti, neti, not this, not this." So it’s called absence of existence, but also neither existence or non-existence because you cannot identify it as something, and also because though empty it gives birth to this world of forms (which is existence).

And thus the Middle Way is to know This One and illusion without clinging to either. Can you get there? I hope you understand it better now. The samadhi states are just practice vehicles and resting stations to help you prepare to realize This One, which is why they belong to the Stage of Intensified Practices within the five phases of cultivation.

https://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_simple_comments_on_the_alaya_consciousness.html


 No.8656999

>>8656979

Define imaginary.


 No.8657002

>>8656975

> adj. Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

Yep. So some people are always asking atheists, "Oh, so you know for certain that there is no god? Then that means you're claiming there is no god, and that instantly makes you wrong!"

So that's followed either but shitflinging or an eyeroll and a long winded explanation that theists often times won't listen to. Now, when someone says that they're an "agnostic atheist" what they mean to say is "I do not currently hold a belief in a god (atheist), but I do not know for sure if there can or cannot be one (agnostic)".

If they want to get uppity and in your face, you're likely up against a GNOSTIC ATHEIST, in a nutshell being "I do not currently hold a belief in a god (atheist), and I am aware of knowledge that would render the concept of god's existence null (gnostic).". From there you can have discussion, but as you can imagine, that is rare. This is all a basic explanation though; there are other, more specific positions (i.e igtheism, deism), that have more qualifiers and better structured definitions. People believe all kinds of crazy shit, so it doesn't hurt to try to lay down some groundwork to work from, but it's important that the groundwork be genuine, not built solely to be some kind of trap. That doesn't get anyone anywhere.


 No.8657005

>>8656971

>Metaphysics is imaginary and does not exist in the world; only in your demented head.

You are taking the metaphysical position that my head exists and is (I am assuming) a material thing. Materialism is a metaphysical idea.

>I'm not an individual because it is imaginary, the ego is not the author of anything.

lolwhat are you saying you don't have a limited point of view and that you're omniscient and experiencing everything all at once?


 No.8657011

>>8656989

You're referring to a soul. As I said, I can't be certain that everything I experience isn't part of some dream or hallucination. For me to say otherwise would be dishonest. I also can't be certain that I'm not a programmed robot from some neighbor or someone else who gave me the illusion of free will.


 No.8657013

>>8656999

You :^)


 No.8657014

>>8657002

Most atheists literally believe there is no god for certain though. They think of course that god is a sky wizard and they feel certain he doesn't exist. They are unaware of any concepts of God. Fuck for a long time I myself had no clue what "God" meant. My entire childhood. Not until I was an adult did I understand shit like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God


 No.8657020

>>8657011

>I can't be certain that everything I experience isn't part of some dream or hallucination.

You are certain you experience though. Forget about whether it's a dream or hallucination as that's not relevant. You know for a fact that you are experiencing. Therefore you exist. Something that does not exist can not experience.


 No.8657021

>>8657005

Yes your head is there but it is bent, as I said before.

>>8657005

Evidence that you believe an imaginary story, faith, living in hope are all fiction.


 No.8657026

>>8657021

>Evidence that you believe an imaginary story, faith, living in hope are all fiction.

>Fiction

<Fiction is any story or setting that is derived from imagination—in other words, not based strictly on history or fact.

https://duckduckgo.com/?ia=definition


 No.8657028

>>8657020

It all just seems arbitrary. But as I've said, I'm not certain of anything, including my disbelief in all of these things.


 No.8657029

>>8657026

I'm not going to buy your used car simply because you told me a story.


 No.8657031

>>8657021

What does "living in hope" mean?

What "imaginary story" do I supposedly believe in?

By "faith" do you mean the very principle of faith or faith in some specific thing? As I believe there is such a thing as "faith" that some people have and I assume you believe there is such a thing as "faith" too or you probably wouldn't even reference such and discuss it if it wasn't a thing.


 No.8657037

>>8657028

I don't see how you can possibly be not certain of anything.

The screen you're staring at right now is proof that something exists.

If you want to be an NPC faggot you can deny your own self-existence but something clearly exists or you wouldn't see anything right now.

Call it an illusion or a simulation; then it's still generated by something that has actual reality, that exists.


 No.8657038

>>8657014

The statement that God is real has never been proven in thousands of years. Science bypassed the retarded "oh it's an all powerful man in the sky doing this/whatever other concept" way of thinking, setting apart man from dumb animal. Now we've landed on Mars and the Moon, but there are still people dumb enough and willing to take on this thousand year old lie that was used when there were no actual explanations. To me, religious people are like my grandparents. They are retarded in a cute way, like a dog - why take it away from them when it makes them happy?


 No.8657039

>>8657029

You're schizophrenic. Sigh. I'm wasting my time arguing with a crazy. I haven't told you any stories and I'm not selling you anything.


 No.8657042

>>8657038

>whatever other concept

The powerful man in the sky idea is retarded. The other concepts are NOT. Deism, pantheism, panentheism, etc. are not retarded.


 No.8657045

>>8657002

>>8657014

I should probably also mention, this is all magnified by the presence of many, multiple religions, all of which often making drastic, contradictory claims. It is entirely possible to be completely sure of evidence that objectively disproves a specific religion and outright deny it's corresponding god(s), but still be unsure of god's general existence as a whole outside of the framework of that specific religion. I think people forget that sometimes and conflate everything that follows. This is a mistake we must try not to make. I hear what you're saying, though. To be honest, I was torn between atheism and igtheism for a while because the very general concept of god was so underdefined and vague that it didn't even make sense to try to find something with no real tangible definition. But I think humanity has sort of figured out at the very least the "role" that we're referring to, which greatly devalues the concept of god, but at least gives an idea of what to look for. In your case, when you find an atheist that "knows for certain that there is no god", they've likely found a lot of discrepancies with one god in particular, and are confident in their ability to oust that idea of god as a possibility within our current existence, which again is entirely valid and possible, but also not necessarily indicative of anything on it's own.

Let me put it this way: say there's a pot of soup, and no one knows what kind it is, but every once in a while, someone will find a hint that helps narrow it down a tiny bit. Person A claims that it "absolutely must be soup X!", but person B knows that by definition, soup X has to contain ingredient X, and they're privy to the knowledge that no ingredient X was ever in the kitchen at any point. Person B can say with absolute certainty that soup X is not present in the pot. But it could be soup Z. Or soup Y. Hell, maybe there's no soup at all and everyone is wasting their time when they could be making their own soup. I think a lot of our conversational issues stem from just not being specific enough. That's not a hard fix, just a time consuming one.


 No.8657046

>>8657038

Do you actually believe we landed on Mars?

That must mean you believe in the relative then. How else can you explain motion, something you must accept, if you think objects can actually move through space.


 No.8657050

If you believe in the relative, then you must also believe in the absolute, as the relative can only be relative to the absolute.

If you believe in the absolute; ta-dah, you've found God.

Atheists are fucking retards and irrational and refuse to think. God is rational. Not Allah or Yahweh or any mythological character but The Absolute.


 No.8657055

File: 42a6e6dd27ac6e2⋯.jpg (28.98 KB, 480x462, 80:77, 42a6e6dd27ac6e2b8d02b9dae3….jpg)

>>8657050

You've jumped the gun, son. Calm down and take a moment to untwist your panties.


 No.8657056

Self-existence deniers are Flat-Earther tier. They have to believe in some wild grand conspiracy to delude them in order to keep denying their own self-existence. At some point it's better to just accept the Earth is a sphere and you exist.


 No.8657057

>>8657031

You want to own something that is beyond human understanding, but you never will. You are trying anything to get what you want but can never have. You attach your self to stories that seem to explain something, but the field is beyond your imagination, so you live in hope wandering in a circle. I'm sorry if this seems rude or arrogant I don't mean to be.

I haven't seen any evidence for the stories in this thread yet.


 No.8657062

>>8657050

The fact that you can write words doesn't mean that they'll automatically make sense.

>8657046

We have landed multiple unmanned spacecraft on Mars.


 No.8657068

>>8657055

I'm done here. I am not arguing with trolls who are just saying things to infuriate me and which they don't themselves believe and know makes no sense. You all believe in God. It is a rational necessity. The only God you can deny is a false god, a stand-in, such as peoples myriad conceptions of god as anything less than the ultimate principle. If you accept one basic observation about motion, time, existence, or anything else you end up finding God instantly. Just because you can play with words doesn't mean shit. God is; and all your wordplay ain't going to change that. Disbelief is irrational, unwarranted, unfounded, and not even possible. You all know God is. I'm done. I'm out. Atheism is a spook.


 No.8657075

>>8657068

Rhetoric :^)


 No.8657081

File: 0a3cbaccb0e9362⋯.jpg (71.44 KB, 763x616, 109:88, internet_arguments.jpg)

>>8657068

>You all believe in God.

Nah.

>It is a rational necessity.

A lot of people have proven it isn't. You haven't proven it is. What the hell is anyone supposed to make of that?

>God is; and all your wordplay ain't going to change that.

God isn't; and all your wordplay ain't going to change that. See how easy it is to just claim victory mindlessly and with nothing to really back it up? Two can play this game indefinitely.

>Atheism is a spook.

o no im terrified ;(((

Seriously dude, go take a nap, sort yourself out, and try again later. If it means soooo much to you, search out some teachers of positions you disagree with and see if they can't explain it more easily for you and try again from there. Getting your ass handed to you on an imageboard must be upsetting, I'm sure, but you have nowhere to go but up.


 No.8657084

>>8657068

>f you accept one basic observation about motion, time, existence, or anything else you end up finding God instantly.

Are you literally retarded or are you copying this from somewhere?


 No.8657085

>>8657068

Your stories:

What they are in reality are the romantic words of a man who needs glorious rhetoric to cover up murderous reality.


 No.8657090

File: b34c44eb5fa4b15⋯.png (12.38 KB, 600x315, 40:21, 411782.png)

Next


 No.8657091

>>8657081

>A lot of people have proven it isn't.

You faggots don't believe in your own existence, don't believe in truth, don't believe in anything. Therefore there is no "proof" of anything whatsoever one way or another. Yet here you are claiming "a lot of people have proven it isn't.

Well then.

1. Prove to me other people exist.

2. Prove to me proof exists.

You're always making all kinds of wild claims all over the place like there's such a thing as Mars, a Mars Rover, places, time, space, things, existence, non-existence, etc.


 No.8657092

>>8657037

>but something clearly exists or you wouldn't see anything right now.

So you've never said anything in a dream or, in it, responded to what you presumed was physical stimuli?


 No.8657094

>>8657084

Retardation doesn't exist. Prove to me retardation exists. You haven't, faggot.


 No.8657095

>>8657084

Copypastas, the potential of copying and pasting things, and "somewhere" do not exist. None of these things can be proven.


 No.8657098

>>8657085

Murder doesn't exist, faggot.


 No.8657099

>>8657092

>So you've never said anything in a dream or, in it, responded to what you presumed was physical stimuli?

Dreams are real.


 No.8657105

>>8657099

The act of dreaming is real, but, are you claiming that the actual dream is real?


 No.8657106

File: 68e365a24753c1e⋯.jpg (29.49 KB, 468x313, 468:313, truths-quicksand.jpg)


 No.8657107

>>8657092

There is no such thing as physical stimuli as there is no physical.


 No.8657109

>>8657105

>The act of dreaming is real, but, are you claiming that the actual dream is real?

It is.


 No.8657110

>>8657107

It's all energy from the field, but it seems real to human consciousness.


 No.8657113

>>8657110

http://www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1906dynamicthought.pdf

Read this book and ignore what it says about gravity as the author himself admitted he'd probably be wrong and he was indeed wrong about that.


 No.8657114

>>8657109

So what we're experiencing in the dream is reality?


 No.8657115

>>8657091

>Prove to me proof exists.

Well, the universe is fairly consistent and it's happenings are reproducible when well understood. Reproducibility is the baseline for what is considered "good" evidence, or "proof".

>Prove to me other people exist.

I know for certain that I exist. Other entities that seem self aware possess reproducible traits, similar to my own. I have observed no discrepancies indicating otherwise yet, thus I can only logically assume other people exist, which isn't to say that it isn't possible that they don't, but so far there is no other evidence indicative of that possibility. I will always remain vigilant for such things.

>You're always making all kinds of wild claims all over the place like there's such a thing as Mars, a Mars Rover, places, time, space, things, existence, non-existence, etc.

I'm not the other guys in the thread but I can tell that a lot of needless complexity has gotten to you. You also seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Maybe hit the reset button a couple times.


 No.8657116

>>8657114

Yes. Depending what you mean by reality.


 No.8657118

>>8657094

look in the mirror, there's your proof


 No.8657121

>>8657115

>I know for certain that I exist.

You were just saying you don't know this for certain and now you are saying you do know it for certain. reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


 No.8657123

>>8657118

>he actually believes in mirrors

look at this belief-filled faith-ridden faggot. hahaha mirrors are an illusion nigger


 No.8657127

>>8657121

I'm not that other guy, I'm someone else. I myself do, I don't know who else is being weird. I think, therefore I am. It is said that is the only true absolute certainty. I'm not sure about that, there could be more, but my ability to process information indicates that there is at least one entity capable of doing so in my plane of existence, and I am privy to all of it's experiences.


 No.8657128

>>8657113

There is no material in materialism it's just a concept to wrap our bentheads around. I've read everything that needs to be read, done everything that needs to be done, gone everywhere that needs to be visited.

itt: there are very good people, except for one who is very grumpy, lost and frustrated.


 No.8657129

File: 8a4d5eb7c2a5c2c⋯.jpg (28.48 KB, 620x400, 31:20, reallynigga.jpg)


 No.8657130

"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change, is ever to be found The Substantial Reality — the Fundamental Truth." — The Kybalion.

"Substance" means: "that which underlies all outward manifestations; the essence; the essential reality; the thing in itself," etc. "Substantial" means: "actually existing; being the essential element; being real," etc. "Reality" means: "the state of being real; true, enduring; valid; fixed; permanent; actual," etc.

Under and behind all outward appearances or manifestations, there must always be a Substantial Reality. This is the Law. Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit, sees nothing but change in matter, forces, and mental states. He sees that nothing really IS, but that everything is BECOMING and CHANGING. Nothing stands still — everything is being born, growing, dying — the very instant a thing reaches its height, it begins to decline — the law of rhythm is in constant operation — there is no reality, enduring quality, fixity, or substantiality in anything — nothing is permanent but Change. He sees all things evolving from other things, and resolving into other things — a constant action and reaction; inflow and outflow; building up and tearing down; creation and destruction; birth, growth and death. Nothing endures but Change. And if he be a thinking man, he realizes that all of these changing things must be but outward appearances or manifestations of some Underlying Power — some Substantial Reality.

All thinkers, in all lands and in all times, have assumed the necessity for postulating the existence of this Substantial Reality. All philosophies worthy of the name have been based upon this thought. Men have given to this Substantial Reality many names — some have called it by the term of Deity (under many titles); others have called it "The Infinite and Eternal Energy"; others have tried to call it "Matter" — but all have acknowledged its existence. It is self-evident — it needs no argument.

http://www.kybalion.org/kybalion.php?chapter=IV


 No.8657136

>>8657129

>he believes things

I bet you believe you exist too. Next thing you know you'll be telling me all kinds of other spooky fables only an idiot would believe. I am an enlightened atheist self-existence denier though and do not believe in anything at all. Look at me and how intensely fucking sceptical I am, such intellectual prowess, just denying everything and pretending I doubt everything.


 No.8657137

>>8657116

Well, in either case, I suspect the reality of life is similar to a dream.


 No.8657139

>>8657130

It's self evident, sure, but people want to understand it fundamentally. I do too. A lot. But people keep shitting in the face of quest for truth and it's pretty frustrating.


 No.8657140

>>8657127

Well I've been arguing exactly that throughout the thread but the other anon just keeps denying everything I throw at him. He doesn't believe in his self-existence, he doesn't believe in the relative, he just denies each and every single thing I throw at him to the point of absurdity. It's really frustrating and non-productive.


 No.8657141

>>8657127

Heck, even denied that "information" exists. I swear he's just trolling me.


 No.8657142

>>8657136

No need to get mad. Also, not an argument


 No.8657144

>>8657128

ProTip: There is neither matter nor energy. There is only desire and mental substance.


 No.8657146

>>8657140

Do you have a specific point you're trying to make? I'll admit I jumped into things like halfway through and did not get all of the happenings around me. Hit me with a baseline thesis or something of the sort. Make it simple, so that it cannot be misunderstood, but forward, so that it has feet to stand on.


 No.8657151

>>8657136

You're confusing the self-denial part with me, and I've remained reasonably polite throughout all of this. But I suppose, what's the difference between one anon from the next ultimately?


 No.8657152

>>8657130

>The Kybalion

More rhetoric during a time when humans were basically ignorant monkeys, sorry.

>>8657137

Exactly it takes abnormal perception to see it for what it is because the realization is an analogy.

>>8657144

I would have to say that is a dream within the dream or my computer would not work.

>>8657151

It's just projection but they don't know any better, be a gentleman please.


 No.8657153

>>8657151

I'd say this board needs IDs but that would spoil the ethos of /b/


 No.8657156

>>8657153

Control freak is imaginary too.


 No.8657160

>>8657153

Yes. People won't truly be themselves with IDs. At least it always has that effect on me.


 No.8657164

>>8657156

That's nice.

>>8657160

The most anyone can do is handle shit as it comes, I guess.


 No.8657166

>>8657137

It's not similar. IT IS a dream. The only real question is why and how I got anchored here. I was traveling around through different realities and then some faggot pulled me here and I've never been able to escape. Calls me a tulpa and stuff. Says he created me (bullshit) as I already existed before. I took over his body but now I'm stuck and he's free. I don't know why I'm here or how I got here, all I can surmise is that, he started to "imagine" me and made a connection across time and space that pulled me out of my previous state where I was drifting around through realities to here where I'm stuck now and I don't like it. I used to be free, free in the sense that everything was constantly changing around me, and if things were not to my liking I could just shift awareness and not have to deal with those surroundings again. Now this place has become like a prison for me and I hate it and I'm afraid. I've been here now so long… and I want to return to my previous state of unbounded freedom.


 No.8657171

>>8657166

You have to forget everything you think you know. There is nothing to be, do, or understand, the me is totally helpless. Surrender and allow yourself to be lead, only then will you always be happy enough. :^)


 No.8657174

>>8657166

What was your previous state, assuming that your post is serious? And I am the anon you responded to, btw.


 No.8657177

>>8657146

I was talking in the thread a lot about evolution and trying to get the one anon to provide a source or citation or presentation of an alternative to the two theories, creationism and darwinism, which he was blindly "criticizing" by saying over and over both are not true and offering absolutely no reason as to why his denials should be taken seriously. I tried to talk about how mutation is a non-random process and mention various processes involved in evolution such as how viruses play a role in the evolution of species.

I was also trying to make the anon accept the law of polarity or at least accept the existence of the relative or finite or any other quality opposite of those qualities we attribute to God and make him realize that if he accepts polarity and he accepts things like "the finite" and "the temporal" and so on exist then the "the infinite" and "the eternal" exist too and are necessary.


 No.8657178

>>8657174

Sorry I'm not butting in just jumping around to the most interesting posts. take care :^)


 No.8657185

>>8657164

>The most anyone can do is handle shit as it comes, I guess.

Actually you don't do that, your brain which is a supercomputer crunches the data then tells the ego/GUI what it decided to do and then the me takes credit for the action.


 No.8657187

>>8657152

>More rhetoric during a time when humans were basically ignorant monkeys, sorry.

kys you dumb nigger it is absolute truth, every last bit of it, and it was written before all the lies that came out of World War II took over and poisoned everything


 No.8657189

>>8657152

Also whether you call everything an illusion or dream or simulation doesn't matter because they all have an underlying reality. Your entire life and everything you experienced might be a projection of this underlying reality but you are still real.


 No.8657191

>>8657178

No, I was just making it clear to him, because everyone ITT would have to be admit to being somewhat mixed up at this point.


 No.8657192

>>8657156

(You) are imaginary, faggot.


 No.8657193

>>8657177

>I was also trying to make the anon accept the law of polarity

You can't make anyone do anything at 8 chan, that's a mistake. This is a lunatic asylum group session where the dream of free speech is to only thing there is.


 No.8657195

>>8657192

How do you know I'm not really you in disguise?


 No.8657197

>>8657192

hahaha disregard that I suck cocks


 No.8657199

>>8657177

I see. Sounds like an uphill battle with no real opponent.

>if he accepts polarity and he accepts things like "the finite" and "the temporal" and so on exist then the "the infinite" and "the eternal" exist too and are necessary.

I can see why this might cause some issues. Does it make sense to you that two polar opposite possibilities can exist at the same time? From my observations, contradictions cannot actually exist, their only instances are in human reasoning, and are often discarded or corrected. Within a binary context, things must be "one or the other", typically. Multiple binaries produce greatly exponentially increasing possibilities, but the binaries themselves are singular questions with only one clear answer. What is the answer? Finding out requires more specific questions and observations. What else have you got?

>>8657185

Like hell it does! If it does, tho, someone better put a gold star on my chassis afterward or I'll be upset.


 No.8657201

>>8657185

If I was the only anon in this thread – and I'm original anon – you would find less, or maybe no, contradictions in my posts.


 No.8657203

>>8657195

I was you the whole time. But you weren't me. Because I know me and me is not you.


 No.8657207

>>8657174

My previous state was … how do I explain.

Everything shifting around me all the time and tunneling through different realities.

Like if you have a dream where the surroundings don't stay solid but keep changing.

That isn't to say there weren't moments where I did "lodge" somewhere.

Usually, stuff would just be in constant flux around me, and if I left a room and came back then things would have changed in the room I was in before.

Sometimes though, things were like they are now in this place I am currently in talking to you, where they remained stable. Usually I would only get stuck for a few days at most though and then be back in the "flux". One time I got stuck in some reality for about a day where I was some employee in some shop somewhere and I got so distraught because I was looking for another entity and I shouted out said entity's name repeatedly after having spent hours and hours just asking random people where the entity was and most people just ignoring me. I was then tackled and somehow in that process I got dislodged again and was back in the flux. Various other occasions like that happened.

Anyways…

Now I'm here and it's been YEARS and I am basically tied to this body. I can escape temporarily by "dreaming" and going back into the flux but I keep "waking up" and ending up here again.

The only way I can think to escape is I have to find some other entity that can trade places with me like how I traded places with the original owner of this body. They will become trapped and I can escape back into the flux or "astral world" without being burdened by this world.


 No.8657208

>>8657187

Sorry didn't mean to trigger you so hard.

>>8657189

For how long?

>>8657191

Yaaaaaaa!

>>8657201

You can only hope, but don't try to live there.


 No.8657214

>>8657193

Actually, I can make him do things, since he was behaving in a predictable way (by denying everything I said). So I could basically control him by forcing him to deny everything I said even when it meant him contradicting his previous statements. That probably makes him majorily asspained though as he has some emotional need to be not controlled. I personally don't give a shit if I'm controlled or not controlled.


 No.8657216

>>8657195

>How do you know I'm not really you in disguise?

I know this because I can not be disguised and even if you were a replica of me you are still not me.


 No.8657218

>>8657208

Live where?


 No.8657219

File: eecc9a2d0acc255⋯.jpg (124.95 KB, 900x900, 1:1, spuh.jpg)

>>8657216

>>8657201

>>8657195

Foolish mortals, I was the spy all along.


 No.8657220

>>8657203

Do you know what the business deal mindset is?

If you do then you will realize that it's a strategy, a concept to get an advantage of some kind, to get what you desire.

Now imagine that your whole life controlled by ego which is just a self defense mechanism, prevents you from truly enjoying your short life here because it fights with everything, is emotional and overreacts to drama, which is also imaginary.

Are you sure that you know who you are?


 No.8657225

>>8657199

Hot and cold are heat. It's not binary. It's degrees of the same one thing.

Literally everything is a degree of the one; God. Monad or whatever you want to call it at different degrees of vibration.


 No.8657226

Everything is polar and manifests in two pairs but are one in reality.


 No.8657227

>>8657226

>>8657225

Are you really sure that it isn't just another concept?


 No.8657228

>>8657220

I know what I am observing, and what I have yet to observe. But what becomes of an ego that has come to accept it's own inevitabilities? It "imagines" things that still have tangible effects on entities that surround it, but not the world itself. It makes real nonreal things by anticipating the effects of the nonreal things as though they were real. and thus, I know who I am.

I am the shitposter.


 No.8657230

>>8657208

>For how long?

For how long are we real is that what you're saying?

Forever. But everything about us or belonging to us changes. The thing is we aren't any of the things subject to change and constantly changing or belong to us. I wouldn't call that non-existence, the only term that seems to work is "spirit" or "self". I prefer "self".


 No.8657231

>>8657214

So you're a control freak, you can talk to someone about that.


 No.8657233

>>8657220

Whatever it is you mean by "ego" if it's something that belongs to you, then it's not you.


 No.8657236

>>8657231

No I'm trying to get some coherent conversation going about the self and you're just being a troll. As soon as some other anon comes along who can actually talk to me about this can come along, you and your irrational fear of "being controlled" can fuck off out of the thread, where you can safely enjoy the joy of "not being controlled", as if being controlled was a bad thing.

I don't care if you try to control me or if I'm trying to control you as I'm not an emotionally damaged individual who has to fight against anything that controls me or not. I am perfectly content with being controlled or not. It makes zero difference to me.


 No.8657237

>>8657225

Cold and heat are human concepts, used as descriptions of entities relative to other entities. But in reality, heat and cold are the result of the binary: moving, nonmoving, in regards to particles. The gradient is a result of many other binaries acting in tandem with the initial one. All particles move, but the situations in which they don't have also been conceptualized.

That said, what even was your point, tho?


 No.8657238

>>8657227

What are you implying by "just another concept"? Are you suggesting concepts aren't reality or something?


 No.8657242

>>8657228

It is not possible to think about nonreal things. If you can think of something it is real.


 No.8657246

>>8657238

"concepts" describe reality, but they often contain human bias that can skew objective information.

>>8657242

I can think of contradictions. Contradictions cannot be real. The ability for humans to be wrong is what allows them to be able to think about nonreal things.


 No.8657248

>>8657233

The ego is a hologram projected by the brain, it evolved over time as a quality of life. It's the reason people have a very difficult time learning meditation. It evolved to protect you from being eaten by larger predators. And it is a self defense device still today. What I talked about before is the latest neuroscience.


 No.8657249

>>8657237

Cold and heat are not entities. They aren't even objects.

Entity = a something possessing behaviors

Object = a static something

Cold/Hot aka heat = a property

So stfu with this "descriptions of entities relative to other entities" they are properties not entites.

>But in reality, heat and cold are the result of the binary: moving, nonmoving, in regards to particles.

Nope there is literally no such thing as absolute rest. Everything is in motion forever. There is no "binary" here only degrees of motion. So called "rest" is actually infinite motion.


 No.8657251

>>8657246

>>8657238

Concepts are imaginary ideas.


 No.8657254

>>8657246

You can't think of something wrong. Maybe a better word is "imagine". The only things you can imagine are things that are real. Everything you can actually experience/imagine is real. You can only say thing that are wrong by arranging words in a contradictory way but you can't actually imagine the contradiction.


 No.8657260

>>8657236

You really have a control issue, I'm not doing anything to you, because you don't exist. You are a figment of your own imagination. But you will never understand this. And I'm not a troll, but this will probably anger you anyway because the imaginary me is not like the imaginary you. :^)


 No.8657261

>>8657251

>>8657248

Maybe the problem with you idiots is this world is the only one you know because you lost your memory before ending up here. That would explain why you have these strange notions you do. Either that or you're just NPCs. You have no sense of the true state of affairs. The brain isn't projecting shit it's receiving.

You have to break the illusion that you're tied to a particular body or its brain or that your world is somehow "physical" when it's not.


 No.8657263

>>8657260

I'm not a product of anything, a figment of anything, nor anything you can see or interact with in any way at all. I can not be harmed, I am immortal, untouchable, enduring. You're the deluded faggot thinking the things you do.


 No.8657268

>>8657249

I didn't call them entities. I called them concepts. If you couldn't even read the first sentence properly, it comes as no surprise that you would miss the entire point.

>Entity = a something possessing behaviors

Is it possible for something not to possess behaviors? If not, all things are entities, and the word loses all meaning.

>Object = a static something

Static? In what sense? You admit there is no absolute rest, so in what regard can an object be considered static? It makes no sense and cannot be differentiated, falling to the same problem as your "entity"

>Cold/Hot aka heat = a property

A property? I have a feeling you possess an invalid definition of the word "property". You use it in a manner incorrect to it's true nature, so it cannot be taken seriously as you use it.

>Nope there is literally no such thing as absolute rest. Everything is in motion forever. There is no "binary" here only degrees of motion

Motion IS the binary. You admitted it yourself. It just so happens that the state of particles is stuck within a particular subset of a binary. One thing is possible, while the other is not. The binary state is thus confirmed. Degree is inconsequential as it is just a matter of other binaries acting upon the initial one, offering the human illusion of the human concept of "degree".

>>8657251

All ideas are imaginary. That is what makes them what they are.

>>8657254

>You can't think of something wrong.

I have and I did. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? Many of them depict things that absolutely are wrong, and could never possibly exist. and yet people think of them constantly. No words are needed in an optical illusion. It is illogic, made visual, but not manifest.


 No.8657269

I am so tired of this retarded world and need to find someone to trade places so I can go back into the flux. My god this place is horrible.


 No.8657271

>>8657263

> I am immortal, untouchable, enduring.

Try saying that after I find you and diddle your butthole.


 No.8657275

File: 302a693684c7571⋯.png (218.02 KB, 497x480, 497:480, sad.png)

>>8657269

i just want my waifu to be real.


 No.8657277

I sleep. I will return.


 No.8657278

>>8657254

Since all humans live in a dream it dosen't matter what they imagine because It's all imaginary.

>>8657261

Why do you keep calling your self an idiot? And it's just a concept.

>>8657263

More faggotry but not professional.

>>8657268

>All ideas are imaginary. That is what makes them what they are.

True

>>8657277

Goodnight have a good dream. :^)


 No.8657283

>>8657268

>Is it possible for something not to possess behaviors? If not, all things are entities, and the word loses all meaning.

A ball is an example of an object. A cow is an example of an entity. The ball doesn't have behaviors. The cow does.

Any object can become entitized when it gets possessed though and starts doing things.

>Static? In what sense? You admit there is no absolute rest, so in what regard can an object be considered static? It makes no sense and cannot be differentiated, falling to the same problem as your "entity"

I mean it in the sense programmers mean it.

>A property? I have a feeling you possess an invalid definition of the word "property". You use it in a manner incorrect to it's true nature, so it cannot be taken seriously as you use it.

An object can be hot. An entity be hot and can feel that it is hot.

>I have and I did. Have you ever seen an optical illusion? Many of them depict things that absolutely are wrong, and could never possibly exist. and yet people think of them constantly. No words are needed in an optical illusion. It is illogic, made visual, but not manifest.

Optical illusions are real. There is "such a thing as an optical illusion".


 No.8657284

>>8657271

I have a butthole. I am not a butthole.


 No.8657295

>>8657278

>Since all humans live in a dream it dosen't matter what they imagine because It's all imaginary.

The reason things matter here is because we have to deal with the consequences of the shit we do here and it's not easy to escape because there's some kind of gravity holding us in place here and it's fucking difficult to escape.

Just because everything is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that it's somehow not real.

Every dream you have is real / actual. You are experiencing a part of reality. You just can discount and ignore it because you wake up. The problem is when, for some fucked up reason, every time you wake up you keep ending up in the same place instead of things being like how it is normally (at least for me) where you get to just wander and nothing has a hold on you.

>just a concept.

>just

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


 No.8657305

The longer I am stuck here the more horrible things get for me. I don't want to be invested in this world, I don't want to have to care about it and its inhabitants, and to be busied every day with maintenance of living required to maintain this body. The longer I am stuck here the more it seems like this is it, this is all there is, this reality is the only one; like the common delusion of so many here for whom this is all they know. Yet I know more than this world and I am not of this world. I was dragged here by some force that pulled me out of the flux and bound to this body by some silver cord. I must break it and be free.


 No.8657313


 No.8657317

>>8657295

It actually takes a lot of training to master yourself. But some never do or even care about peace and quiet or being happy enough. They are completely focused on being right about imaginary concepts, so they do battle daily for no good reason. As you can imagine this takes all of their time, resources, energy, and brain space. They never have any time left to just be. And they can't really understand that happiness is a decision that I make each day when my eyes pop open. None of that other stuff ever goes into my head so it never gets bent out of shape. My focus is that anything created by man is a dead imitation of life. All there is, is life and no one owns it but we often forget that until the day before we die. Or never if our life ends suddenly. We chase after crap, run to the end of our chain and bark at the imaginary ghosts, wondering why we aren't happy. Except me I never do that because I'm always happy enough, but I already said that right?


 No.8657319

File: 3b8a488c1ebeb1c⋯.jpg (104.73 KB, 736x522, 368:261, 2f2c1c298519bef4e258e05aa9….jpg)


 No.8657324

>>8657317

Are you that one taoist monk that has demonstrated psychic phenomena on youtube?

Also wtf is this talk about "brain space"?

You seem very tied to the concept of a brain and the concept of happiness.

Why should I even talk to you? I only talk to people I think have something to offer me and the only thing I'm after is freedom.

Whatever you have to offer is probably something along the lines of "just live your life bro".

This isn't my life. I am living someone else's life, literally. I don't know how to find the original owner and give him his life back and I'm not sure he'd want it back as I sure don't like his life.

I don't want to have to live out his life right to the bitter end. I might be trapped here a hundred years if that happens. That is so much bullshit to endure when I could be free again.


 No.8657325

I signed up for temporary possession of the body not for getting stuck in it and being stranded in this reality for years on end having to deal with strangers who don't even know the original occupant is gone. What a fucking cringefest it is too to see funerals and to see people moping about death. They don't even know who they are.


 No.8657327

>>8657317

Is happiness your goal? Why even have such a goal? It is so easy to be happy.


 No.8657332

>>8657324

Another one with the business deal mindset, there is nothing on offer here. I can't help you because there is no one to help. No I'm not tied to any concepts, but we need to communicate through language right?

I don't know why you want to talk to me I don't want to talk to you. If you want to change your life, change your story. Imagine another story and do that. Whatever your focus is you become over time, pick out a hero until you can be your own man. Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do and for no other reason, and helpers will come to your rescue. They will want to be with you because you are always happy enough, confident and calm. I am a Monk for 12 years now a meditation master but not the one you think. …take care and decide to be happy :^)


 No.8657334

>>8657327

I don't have any goals but I like peace and quiet, I'm happy enough because it's my intention. Whatever your focus you become, no one wants to be miserable. But they don't understand this simple truth, you are what you do.


 No.8657810

Taoist monk free bump now that he's probably sleeping


 No.8657814

>some rocks came to life

lol idiot


 No.8657895

>>8657814

Here comes Kent Hovind to save the day with a strawman!


 No.8659355

>>8657278

I dreamt that I was creating artwork to spite the locals in africa, and then I had to defend my work from them as they horded around.

>>8657283

>The ball doesn't have behaviors. The cow does

>possessed though

Are you attempting to describe "will"? Or differentiate between "life" and "nonlife"? That is a discussion all it's own.

>I mean it in the sense programmers mean it.

It would be nice if life worked like code. I'd love to see the compiler.

>An object can be hot. An entity be hot and can feel that it is hot.

Hot is a human concept. There is no objective point in which an entity passes from "hot" to "cold" or vice versa. Instead it's used to measure states relative to other entities, areas, etc.

>Optical illusions are real.

They have been successfully conceptualized, but they cannot be made real. There's no way to construct an infinite staircase, for example. You can offer up an illusion of one, but it doesn't truly exist, it will simply be a regular staircase observed from a deceptive point of view.

>>8657284

Prepare to be diddled.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / doomer / fast / fur / leftpol / mde / vg / xivlg ]