It's time to wake up!

originally posted by: Andy1144
But it's a simple point and doesn't cover what we could discuss if you were more open.

You don't even know what the point is.

You don't want to discuss it because you don't think it matters. I do and try to explain why but I guess it's pointless if you don't want to.

Your explanations lack logic, why would I want to discuss it with you?

Science came into the discussion later, it wasn't the main point.

It was mine.

a reply to: daskakik

It was mine.

You only like discussing your own points it seems.
Anyway, what lacked logic so far in this discussion from my side?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You only like discussing your own points it seems.

When the point debases anything after it then it is pointless.

Anyway, what lacked logic so far in this discussion from my side?

Really? You must really only live in the now because you seemed to have forgotten the landmark that signals the start of another circle.

So, after 60 pages of pointing it out, are you going to accept the critique this time?

a reply to: daskakik

When the point debases anything after it then it is pointless.

You are saying anything one says is baseless, therefore pointless? What exactly do you mean?

Really? You must really only live in the now because you seemed to have forgotten the landmark that signals the start of another circle.

I am not the only one going in circles. Your points aren't clear that's all. I am asking for clarity.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You are saying anything one says is baseless, therefore pointless? What exactly do you mean?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that your arguments are based on subjective logic so they are baseless.

That may not be the case with something said by someone else.

I am not the only one going in circles. Your points aren't clear that's all. I am asking for clarity.

I can't make it much clearer. Like I said, you ask questions when the answers are right there in front of you.

a reply to: daskakik

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that your arguments are based on subjective logic so they are baseless.
That may not be the case with something said by someone else.

What doesn't deal with subjective logic? Science? So philosophy is all baseless since it's based on subjective reports. Subjectivity is all we have and it is possible to make an objective analyses without the need of science.
Please give me an example of something with basis.

a reply to: UniFinity

I am looking only for true saints and their teachings

The truth you seek will determine whether these saints are true or not; but in your eyes only

originally posted by: Andy1144
What doesn't deal with subjective logic?

Like I said, that has already been addressed.

I already answered that Science? So philosophy is all baseless since it's based on subjective reports. Subjectivity is all we have and it is possible to make an objective analyses without the need of science.

If you don't get it then, I guess I have to accept that you just don't get it.

Please give me an example of something with basis.

I don't need to. It isn't necessary to question your premise.

Saying "they are wrong too" doesn't make you right.

a reply to: daskakik

Like I said, that has already been addressed.

It is not clear.

If you don't get it then, I guess I have to accept that you just don't get it.

You need to explain it better.

I don't need to. It isn't necessary to question your premise.
Saying "they are wrong too" doesn't make you right.

I know, but I want to know what you mean by baseless more, therefore, I asked for an example of something with base.

originally posted by: Andy1144
It is not clear.

Too bad.

You need to explain it better.

No I don't. I can't make it any clearer.

I know, but I want to know what you mean by baseless more, therefore, I asked for an example of something with base.

You always ask for something irrelevant while missing the point. An example of something with base isn't going to change what your premise is based on.

All you are going to do with it is twist words so that they sound similar and apply them to your premise. Then you will say this is just like the example you gave and we can go another round. All the while it doesn't change anything because that was never really the point.

I've already explained, what I mean, in the simplest terms that I can think of. We are now on page 66. Either I'm not the person to explain this or you just can't wrap your head around it. Either way, this conversation has become even more pointless.

originally posted by: daskakik

Either way, this conversation has become even more pointless.

How many times have you said this - yet continue on?

Double post.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
How many times have you said this - yet continue on?

A bunch.

Usually because someone asks a question and I guess maybe this time around they will get it. The point is?

a reply to: daskakik

You always ask for something irrelevant while missing the point. An example of something with base isn't going to change what your premise is based on.

What is his premise and what is it based on?
Don't tell me to go and look - I just want to know what it is that you are arguing against.

The point is?

It is pointless.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
What is his premise and what is it based on?
Don't tell me to go and look - I just want to know what it is that you are arguing against.

No, if you can't take the time to look or if you have not been following the thread then why should I bother?

It is pointless.

Of course there is a qualifier implied but it makes no difference. If you read the post you will see that I am talking about trying to be clearer.

originally posted by: daskakik

No, if you can't take the time to look or if you have not been following the thread then why should I bother?

It is really to see if you can actually state in your own words what you think you are arguing against. It is not that I have not been watching the thread - the question is to clarify.
If you lay out what it is that you are arguing against - then that will make everything much clearer.

Usually because someone asks a question and I guess maybe this time around they will get it.

If you read the post you will see that I am talking about trying to be clearer.

See, clarity is what is required.
With 66 pages there can be a tendency to wander from the original argument - it is good to get back on track.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
It is really to see if you can actually state in your own words what you think you are arguing against.

I know and I am not playing that game.

It is not that I have not been watching the thread - the question is to clarify.

I don't need to clarify anything to you. You and Andy are not the last word on the matter.

If you lay out what it is that you are arguing against - then that will make everything much clearer.

I already did. "What you are talking about", take it or leave it.

With 66 pages there can be a tendency to wander from the original argument - it is good to get back on track.

The original argument is "It's time to wake up!"

Seems to me that we have discussing what "waking up" means. Andy thinks he can prove that his definition of waking up is "the truth". Everything else that I have brought up centers around the idea that he can't prove it so the claim is baseless.

originally posted by: daskakik


Seems to me that we have discussing what "waking up" means. Andy thinks he can prove that his definition of waking up is "the truth". Everything else that I have brought up centers around the idea that he can't prove it so the claim is baseless.

Thank you for clarifying.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Thank you for clarifying.

And this is why the request is BS.

From page 41:

Still not getting it?

It isn't about any concept in particular. It isn't about my proof or your proof.

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

That needed clearing up?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Thank you for clarifying.

And this is why the request is BS.

From page 41:

Still not getting it?

It isn't about any concept in particular. It isn't about my proof or your proof.

It is about what people consider proof and how you can't change that.

That needed clearing up?

I don't get it - is it a riddle? What request was BS?