It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 35
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Arguing for pages about diminishing suffering being better then posting something like that shows that it is all just word salad.

It is all just words for that which believes it is a thing - that thing that you think you are is not what you are. Until this is realized then words is all you will have - life made of words. Living life as a story does not feel the same as true life - real life.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
What has been claimed?

DE leads to acceptance.

I have not claimed that DE leads to acceptance. Never.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
It is all just words for that which believes it is a thing - that thing that you think you are is not what you are. Until this is realized then words is all you will have - life made of words. Living life as a story does not feel the same as true life - real life.

Has nothing to do with what I was pointing out.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
I have not claimed that DE leads to acceptance. Never.

That post you asked about was directed generally.

DE or your type of realization.
edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




My points.

I thought you didn't make any.



Last couple of pages I tried to flesh things out but it makes no difference.

That's because your stuck on one perspective and can't break out of it without seriously considering your expectations of what you consider logical are true.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And if you are not miserable then you don't need to realize anything.

Or at least it won't make any difference.


ETA: Also, since it seems any pacifier will do, maybe, there isn't anything special about your claims.



It appears to be replying to Itisnowagain.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
DE leads to acceptance. I wan't to expand on this. Unconditional acceptance is already here by default, always. But there can be a thought which creates the expectation that things could be different thus leading to non acceptance. We have to find the root of that thought. Where does it arise from? It arises from a sense of self, which is not coherent with actual reality.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I thought you didn't make any.

I tried to not make claims in this thread. Brought up a whole lot of points, though.


That's because your stuck on one perspective and can't break out of it without seriously considering your expectations of what you consider logical are true.

That doesn't change the fact that I indeed wrote longer posts.

Do you know that this thing you do about addressing a side issue to try to refute a point is called a red herring?
edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Tag problems it seems. Clicked on the link in that post and it shows ANDY1144.

Which is why I responded about DE.

Looking back at the original post, the remark was meant in general.
edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

How many times do you think you need to say the same thing?

Start a blog.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I tried to not make claims in this thread. Brought up a whole lot of points, though.

Aren't points like claims but smaller?



That doesn't change the fact that I indeed wrote loger posts.
Do you know that this thing you do about addressing a side issue to try to refute a point is called a red herring?

I think we've both done it and it is inevitable. But thanks for making me learn new words like red herring and others.

Also get to the other post if you can.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   


How many times do you think you need to say the same thing?
Start a blog.

I have to repeat myself because you keep on ignoring the point.

But Thanks for the blog thing, but there are just too many people repeating this same crap all over the internet. Wouldn't be necessary.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Aren't points like claims but smaller?

Yes but they are a part of the discussion and not the main topic.


I think we've both done it and it is inevitable. But thanks for making me learn new words like red herring and others.

No, you have a penchant for doing this while I try to keep things on topic.

You asked when didn't i write short replies, I answered that in past couple of pages I had tried to flesh things out. (The answer fits the question).

I said I wrote longer replies, you answered that I am only seeing things on one level. (The latter has nothing to do with the former).


Also get to the other post if you can.

Sorry, sometimes I have nothing to reply to some posts.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I have to repeat myself because you keep on ignoring the point.

I'm not ignoring it. I am challanging you about it.

You have failed at every step to argue it convincingly, let alone, prove it.


But Thanks for the blog thing, but there are just too many people repeating this same crap all over the internet. Wouldn't be necessary.

That was the point.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




No, you have a penchant for doing this while I try to keep things on topic.

Yes, we both have and it was an inevitable consequence of not being on the same page. That's why we can't keep things on topic. We try to keep things on topic but because we have different ideas in our head about what the topic is, we make it seem like we ignore each others points. I am sure your trying to keep things on topic, alteast for the most part, but it can't work if we're not completely clear about what we're talking about. I try to keep things on point, but from my point of view, you say something which to my perspective is out of topic, vice-versia. And maybe I sometimes deviate the topic a little lately because I see the same thing in you. So I just go with the flow.



I'm not ignoring it. I am challanging you about it.
You have failed at every step to argue it convincingly, let alone, prove it.

An athiest can't prove a christian wrong unless he accepts it. If you believe god is true and your challenging me for proof he doesn't exist, you won't except the proof I give. This probably sounds like an annoying reference though, but the point is I have made my points and arguments. I can't convince someone if he isn't completely open to it. I don't see what points you've made to disprove what I've said, just vague replies.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Unconditional acceptance is already here by default, always.


edit on 18-11-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Yes, we both have

No, the example posted above shows that.

It is a matter of relevance.


An athiest can't prove a christian wrong unless he accepts it. If you believe god is true and your challenging me for proof he doesn't exist, you won't except the proof I give. This probably sounds like an annoying reference though, but the point is I have made my points and arguments. I can't convince someone if he isn't completely open to it. I don't see what points you've made to disprove what I've said, just vague replies.

The problem is that I am open to it and even agree with a lot of it.

I am being impartial in this discussion to show to you that, despite my personal acceptance of much of what you say, your arguments are not logical and are not proof of anything.

The example is perfect but you are not seeing that you/christain is making a claim and the me/atheist doesn't have to disprove anything. It is you/christian that has to prove that DE/god exists.

To drive the point a little further, people of different religions have to prove their god(s) exist(s).



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

Non acceptance is caused by the belief that one had control do you otherwise or experience otherwise.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




your arguments are not logical and are not proof of anything.

Specifically where and why.
EDIT; And what do you actually agree with what has been said?



It is you/christian that has to prove that DE/god exists.

DE is the only thing which isn't an assumption, it's literally a direct experience of how things actually are in this moment. So in this sense there is not anything to prove.

edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Specifically where and why.

I have pointed it out throughout the thread.


EDIT; And what do you actually agree with what has been said?

Doesn't matter.

The point is that despite it, your argument fails.


DE is the only thing which isn't an assumption, it's literally a direct experience of how things actually are in this moment. So in this sense there is not anything to prove.

Red herring.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join