I Think I'd Like to Change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2012, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 05:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 01:51 AM)Egor Wrote:  And I want to stop being an asshole. ... I don't know, one day you look in the mirror and a 47-year-old man stares back at you and you realize that acting like an adolescent isn't cute--it's pathetic. Confused

I think I'd like to change.

Well I'll be goddamed. Someone needs to tell Edward that his wife or daughter has hacked into his account. Big Grin

Congratulations on discovering Girly's 3 Commandments. Better late than never.

#1: Don't be an asshole.
#2: Unless it's called for.
#3: See rule #1.

Don't mean I always live by them, but what matters is I try. Good on ya, brother. Thumbsup

(10-05-2012 11:22 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(10-05-2012 10:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  'Grats on having ginormous balls...

[Image: elephantitis.jpg]

That’s me!

That's what I'm worried about. Those testicles ain't functional no more, brother. It don't count if you're not an asshole 'cause you have the testosterone of a little girl. ... Nah, I'm just fucking with you. Good luck and Godspeed Edward!

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-05-2012, 05:08 PM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 03:02 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  So just to follow up on this, god is a guy (e.g. a male). I only say that because you mention "he" and "him."

Blame that on the creators of English. We don't usually refer to a conscious entity as "it." So, if I have to pick him or her, I choose "Him," and I tend to capitalize it when I'm referring to God.

Quote:Also, just out of curiosity, what if when I die, I don't want to like this guy. Is that an option? What if I, say for example, don't want to exist anymore. Is that an option? Because I'm not really down with tyranny or conformity.

You can't not exist, not on your own anyway. I suppose God could make it so you don't exist by simply ignoring the mental lines that form your modality from His substance. But we were created for Him. We exist at His pleasure. And don't forget, if he erases the mental lines that form you, you stop existing by returning to an existence as God. The guy you say you don't like is more connected to you than you might think (God, I feel more comfortable in my New Age clothes!).

Quote:So for example, we can verify that the emotion of compassion exists (observed behavior both in humans and animals, consistent brain scan patterns that correspond to the observed subjective emotion of compassion, etc.).

You could literally spend a lifetime searching for and learning about compassion and it would be a life well-spent. It just wouldn't require any sort of pondering of god whatsoever.

I'm not sure a scientific approach to compassion is going to get you where you want to go in that regard. And by the way, when you say "god" what do you mean? What is that?

Quote:Or perhaps writing for children. You could spend a lifetime learning about, searching for, and actually doing that, and it would be a life well-spent and utterly devoid of any god-seeking.

Just sayin'

Well, I get your point, but I would like to say there is no profession closer to being a professional bum than being a writer. But that's just my take on it, and if I could be that professional bum, trust me, I would.


(10-05-2012 03:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The short story is that she is my sweet everything. Heart

The long story is... long. Just got itself deleted in inception. Prolly has to do with child abuse, psychosis, and Gwyneth being the best thing everz. Big Grin

Okay. Got it. Yes
(10-05-2012 03:23 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Here's to the new Egor...



So, you've answered one of the most complex questions in the universe: What to get for a man who's got everything. Thumbsup
(10-05-2012 05:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's what I'm worried about. Those testicles ain't functional no more, brother. It don't count if your not an asshole 'cause you have the testosterone of a little girl. ... Nah, I'm just fucking with you. Good luck and Godspeed Edward!

Good point!
BTW, thanks Morondog, Kim, Logisch, and GirlyMan for the rep points. If I ever get into positive territory, I'll make sure I do the same for you.

Ed
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Egor's post
10-05-2012, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 05:49 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 05:08 PM)Egor Wrote:  You can't not exist, not on your own anyway.

Oh, I'm confident I can, brother. It's the only truly unalienable, irrevocable right I have. But we can agree to disagree.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
10-05-2012, 06:38 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 05:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-05-2012 05:08 PM)Egor Wrote:  You can't not exist, not on your own anyway.

Oh, I'm confident I can, brother. It's the only truly unalienable, irrevocable right I have. But we can agree to disagree.

I know, huh? Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
10-05-2012, 08:08 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 01:24 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Wow, I have nothing but respect.

I had a quick conversation on your Veridican site where you explained your definition of God to me. It was a great exchange of ideas without any hostility. Agree with you or not, I really enjoyed the ideas you set forth. I thought to myself, "more people would be willing to engage with this guy if he just tossed his ideas out there and stopped trying to win pointless battles."

Looks like you've done just that. Well done!
See what I mean?
IP address check, please mods?




(10-05-2012 05:08 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(10-05-2012 03:02 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  So just to follow up on this, god is a guy (e.g. a male). I only say that because you mention "he" and "him."

Blame that on the creators of English.


English evolved... there was no creator!
Big Grin
.
(I love this forum; miracles happen every day)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
10-05-2012, 09:08 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 07:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  C'mon... Egor has always done exactly what he's said. He not known for being a liar. Just because some of you don't like him because of his past attitude, doesn't give you the right to "call BS".

I mean... isn't the whole reason why people dislike Egor is because he's painfully honest? He hasn't given any reason to not believe him.

Anyway, Egor - I look forward to this change.
Some kind and god points K.C.!

Change isn't always for the best; as the good book sayeth one evil spirit departs and seven new ones take its place................... I'm not suggesting this will happen to Egor of course!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
10-05-2012, 09:28 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
[Image: 2vA1a.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
10-05-2012, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 10-05-2012 10:09 PM by lightninlives.)
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
Quote:lightninlives Wrote: So just to follow up on this, god is a guy (e.g. a male). I only say that because you mention "he" and "him."
Blame that on the creators of English. We don't usually refer to a conscious entity as "it." So, if I have to pick him or her, I choose "Him," and I tend to capitalize it when I'm referring to God.

Ok, so then let's just cut to the chase.
  • Is this god you're working on defining anthropomorphic? (e.g. has human characteristics).
  • Is this god you're working on defining a personal god in any way shape or form? (e.g. interacts/intervenes directly with humans in any way).
  • Is this god you're working on defining deistic or theistic in nature (e.g. does he interact with the physical universe or not).
Quote:Quote:Also, just out of curiosity, what if when I die, I don't want to like this guy. Is that an option? What if I, say for example, don't want to exist anymore. Is that an option? Because I'm not really down with tyranny or conformity.
You can't not exist, not on your own anyway. I suppose God could make it so you don't exist by simply ignoring the mental lines that form your modality from His substance. But we were created for Him. We exist at His pleasure. And don't forget, if he erases the mental lines that form you, you stop existing by returning to an existence as God. The guy you say you don't like is more connected to you than you might think (God, I feel more comfortable in my New Age clothes!).


I think that my cohorts covered your "you can't exist" assertion, so there's no need to beat a dead horse. I'm more interested in some of the apparent contradictions you laid out in the statement above. Namely:
At one point you state "...we were created for him. We exist at his pleasure..." but then you go on to say that "you stop existing by returning to an existence as god" and "the guy you say you don't like is more connected than you might think."

So which one is it? Do we exist for god (e.g. we are separate from god) or are we part of god (e.g. we're connected)?

Mind you, I can only guess that you haven't read up on personal journey to atheism (might need to revisit that in an upcoming post). I'm all too familiar with the concept of erasing the mental lines of the ego and returning to an existence as god; a oneness; a singularity; Brahman. I studied advaitism under a Hindu holy man that would literally read sanskrit text (and translate to English on the fly) and had the ability to induce sober hallucinations using voice inflection (he did this multiple times and to multiple people I was with...my best guess is that he was trained in the art of voice inflection and hypnosis).

Oh, and one last thing, the whole "I don't like this guy" line was a hypothetical intended to highlight the tyrannical nature of the god you're working on defining for yourself and the rest of the forum. I don't dislike this god of yours anymore than I dislike Kris Kringle or the Luck Dragon from Neverending Story.
Quote:QuoteConfusedo for example, we can verify that the emotion of compassion exists (observed behavior both in humans and animals, consistent brain scan patterns that correspond to the observed subjective emotion of compassion, etc.).

You could literally spend a lifetime searching for and learning about compassion and it would be a life well-spent. It just wouldn't require any sort of pondering of god whatsoever.
I'm not sure a scientific approach to compassion is going to get you where you want to go in that regard. And by the way, when you say "god" what do you mean? What is that?

This is truly fascinating stuff. For starters, how do you know that I have not already gotten to where I wanted to go in this regard? Secondly, have you ever done some sincere introspection on why you would dismiss a scientific approach to anything? Not just for yourself, mind you, but for humans in general.

Incidentally, I take a somewhat mathematical approach to concepts like compassion and happiness. They are not destinations. They are directions (hopefully, one of my mathematically inclined cohorts can draw up an equation or geometric graph to illustrate this divergence from mainstream, deterministic approaches to these concepts).

As far as what I mean when I say "god" I'm referring to the god you're working on defining in this and other threads. I don't believe in god, so I can only use the definitions that others give for him. Kind of goes back to that "Fountain of Youth" analogy that I posited earlier but you haven't addressed yet. I couldn't define the Fountain of Youth because I don't believe it has or ever will exist (not literally anyway, though I do believe scientific and technological breakthroughs will lead to serious life extension sooner than later). But if you believe it exists, I'll be happy to use your definition as a point of reference.

Quote:Quote:Or perhaps writing for children. You could spend a lifetime learning about, searching for, and actually doing that, and it would be a life well-spent and utterly devoid of any god-seeking.

Just sayin'
Well, I get your point, but I would like to say there is no profession closer to being a professional bum than being a writer. But that's just my take on it, and if I could be that professional bum, trust me, I would.


The irony here is delicious, considering that the bible was written by professional writers (I think they called them scribes back then). But hey, at least you seem to be getting my point. There's no need to search for the fountain of youth or god. This only life of ours offers up plenty of real things worth pursuing.

P.S. I'm very happy to see the path you seem to be on. Stepping away from rigid dogma and doctrine is almost always the first step, and even if you never get to a point where you can even imagine/pretend for one day that god is a human idea and not a real entity that actually exists (some find that just one day will do the trick) you've already hopefully made enough progress to ensure that you vote and treat others according to reason and not religious dogma, and that's good enough for me.

The rest is just exorcising the argumentative part of my psyche ; )

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2012, 12:27 AM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
OK, would you stop with the compliments already, enough is enough.

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2012, 02:25 AM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(10-05-2012 05:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Oh, I'm confident I can, brother. [cease to exist upon death] It's the only truly unalienable, irrevocable right I have. But we can agree to disagree.

Is it your hope?

(10-05-2012 09:08 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Change isn't always for the best; as the good book sayeth one evil spirit departs and seven new ones take its place................... I'm not suggesting this will happen to Egor of course!

From your perspective you might be right. The easiest person to ignore may have been the asshole bashing the Bible like a windup monkey banging a cymbal.

Time will tell.

(10-05-2012 10:05 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  Is this god you're working on defining anthropomorphic? (e.g. has human characteristics).

How to answer that? I think no, because He is not like us, we are like Him.

Quote:Is this god you're working on defining a personal god in any way shape or form? (e.g. interacts/intervenes directly with humans in any way).

These questions don’t compute given a monistic entity. He doesn’t intervene with anyone, only with modalities of Himself. He’s the only real thing that exists.

Quote:Is this god you're working on defining deistic or theistic in nature (e.g. does he interact with the physical universe or not).

Theistic, I suppose. If he stops the conscious observation of the universe, it stops existing.

Quote:I think that my cohorts covered your "you can't exist" assertion, so there's no need to beat a dead horse. I'm more interested in some of the apparent contradictions you laid out in the statement above. Namely:

At one point you state "...we were created for him. We exist at his pleasure..." but then you go on to say that "you stop existing by returning to an existence as god" and "the guy you say you don't like is more connected than you might think."

So which one is it? Do we exist for god (e.g. we are separate from god) or are we part of god (e.g. we're connected)?

I have an article, maybe a pamphlet actually, about a theory of souls. The concept of a line is paramount in this theory (Cantor might be able to expound on this). A line is not a physical thing. It’s a mental thing. It has an infinitesimal width. All God has to do is imagine three lines which form the simplest shape, a triangle (I suppose it could be any shape but that’s a less important speculation.), and upon doing so, there is a modality. The question is: Is the modality its own thing or is it God? The truth is, it is both. It is the actualization of a square circle, so to speak. It is a paradox. Nevertheless, all God has to do is stop imagining the lines and the modality disappears and becomes one with God again as if it had never existed in the first place. Kind of like the way a drop of water ceases to exist upon hitting a pool.

You are a modality of God. Eventually, somewhere beyond even the lucid spiritual plane, the lines will disappear, but it will be you who erased them. That’s what God wants, and that’s why I don’t think people can end their own existence. God gets what He pays for in the end. Or at least that’s what I believe.

Quote:Mind you, I can only guess that you haven't read up on personal journey to atheism (might need to revisit that in an upcoming post). I'm all too familiar with the concept of erasing the mental lines of the ego and returning to an existence as god; a oneness; a singularity; Brahman. I studied advaitism under a Hindu holy man that would literally read sanskrit text (and translate to English on the fly) and had the ability to induce sober hallucinations using voice inflection (he did this multiple times and to multiple people I was with...my best guess is that he was trained in the art of voice inflection and hypnosis).

That sounds very interesting.

Quote:Oh, and one last thing, the whole "I don't like this guy" line was a hypothetical intended to highlight the tyrannical nature of the god you're working on defining for yourself and the rest of the forum. I don't dislike this god of yours anymore than I dislike Kris Kringle or the Luck Dragon from Neverending Story.

I don’t think this God is tyrannical. Did you think the concept of Brahman was tyrannical?

Quote:This is truly fascinating stuff. For starters, how do you know that I have not already gotten to where I wanted to go in this regard? Secondly, have you ever done some sincere introspection on why you would dismiss a scientific approach to anything? Not just for yourself, mind you, but for humans in general.

I don’t know where you’ve gotten in terms of compassion. I just don’t thing a scientific approach to compassion really results in compassion. I’m not sure how it can.

Science is great for studying the physical properties of the universe. But there are some things that can’t be known via the scientific method. For instance, is a criminal guilty? Does a person love another person? Are you conscious like I am conscious? Etc. These things can be understood perhaps through logical analysis, and a reasonable belief can be formed, but they can’t be known through the scientific method, not the way the effects of gravity on a planet can be known, or the date of a carbon sample can be known, or the sensitivity of a microbe to an antibiotic can be known. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Quote:Incidentally, I take a somewhat mathematical approach to concepts like compassion and happiness. They are not destinations. They are directions (hopefully, one of my mathematically inclined cohorts can draw up an equation or geometric graph to illustrate this divergence from mainstream, deterministic approaches to these concepts).

What is your theory?

Quote:As far as what I mean when I say "god" I'm referring to the god you're working on defining in this and other threads. I don't believe in god, so I can only use the definitions that others give for him. Kind of goes back to that "Fountain of Youth" analogy that I posited earlier but you haven't addressed yet. I couldn't define the Fountain of Youth because I don't believe it has or ever will exist (not literally anyway, though I do believe scientific and technological breakthroughs will lead to serious life extension sooner than later). But if you believe it exists, I'll be happy to use your definition as a point of reference.

I didn’t address it because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I mean, if you don’t know what God is, how can you be sure He doesn’t exist? What about my definition:

God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness? Do you believe there is a fundamental consciousness in the universe?

Quote:The irony here is delicious, considering that the bible was written by professional writers (I think they called them scribes back then). But hey, at least you seem to be getting my point. There's no need to search for the fountain of youth or god. This only life of ours offers up plenty of real things worth pursuing.

P.S. I'm very happy to see the path you seem to be on. Stepping away from rigid dogma and doctrine is almost always the first step, and even if you never get to a point where you can even imagine/pretend for one day that god is a human idea and not a real entity that actually exists (some find that just one day will do the trick) you've already hopefully made enough progress to ensure that you vote and treat others according to reason and not religious dogma, and that's good enough for me.
The rest is just exorcising the argumentative part of my psyche ; )


I don’t vote for religious reasons. I’m a working man, a practical man (sort of) I vote for guns, a big military, and lower taxes (my taxes!). That’s it. That’s all I want my politicians to do. That’s all I think they’re capable of.

As for believing in God: Every day I come closer to the conclusion that it is irrelevant what we believe. What matters is what lessons we learn in this life. Even when we enter our lucid spiritual plane, we will not see God. In fact, He will be even more concealed. Eventually, you and God will both disappear and all that will be left is the fundamental consciousness. Same as it ever was. It’s a paradox, you know. Or at least that’s how I believe today. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Thanks for the discussion.


Thanks DeepThought, Robotworld, and Aurora for the kind things you all said on my rep page. This chage feels good to me. It feels in synch. There's an inherent weakness it seems to me in always having to fight--it's as if you are always at your last resort. It feels weak.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: