It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

It's funny you say that, I was about to say the exact same thing to you.

You said "You can believe whatever you want."

And I mentioned hard evidence and logic.
It's not so tough to figure out which one is which.

originally posted by: Andy1144
And I mentioned hard evidence and logic.
It's not so tough to figure out which one is which.

Just because the christian thinks that the bible is evidence and uses "logic" to support that idea doesn't mean that it is.

a reply to: daskakik

But what if I was actually the atheist and you were secretly the christian and you were just using "personal experience" as a way to say science is wrong?

After all you didn't give any hard evidence right?

originally posted by: Andy1144
But what if I was actually the atheist and you were secretly the christian and you were just using "personal experience" as a way to say science is wrong?

After all you didn't give any hard evidence right?

But, I'm not doing that.

a reply to: daskakik

Athiest: You aren't giving giving evidence, all your doing is saying you've experienced god so he is real.

Christian: I am not doing that.

a reply to: Andy1144
You got that wrong:

Christian: I have offered proof of god. Can you prove he doesn't exist?

Atheist: You can't prove a negative and your proof is not actual proof.

a reply to: daskakik

But what if the person did actually have good evidence but the other person didn't believe him because for him, the other guys evidence sounded too esoteric and new-age-ish to sound logical?

originally posted by: Andy1144
But what if the person did actually have good evidence but the other person didn't believe him because for him, the other guys evidence sounded too esoteric and new-age-ish to sound logical?

"What ifs" don't really take a conversation anywhere productive.

What ifs" don't really take a conversation anywhere productive.

And just stating opinions without supporting evidence isn't either.

a reply to: Andy1144
That doesn't really take away from the ineffectivness of your use of the above "what if".

I'm starting to see that you think that replying with a sound observation changes what you previously posted. It doesn't.

Just like in a previous post you asked that I go into detail. After I said I already had, you replied that you went into detail a bunch of times, when that was totally irrelevant.

Just like pointing out that I don't offer proof. I can't help it if you don't understand that the onus is on the person making the claim and that the other doesn't have to provide anything other than his opinion on the proof offered by the first person.

He may choose to offer an argument for that opinion, which I did, and the first person can take it or leave it.

a reply to: daskakik

But first you say, you haven't made any claims so there was nothing to support, then you say I did and I offered proof.

So then when I say that seeing through the illusion of self will reduce suffering to anyone who sees it, what is your counter argument and hard evidence that I am wrong. I am requesting not only your opinion but proof to support it. Maybe you have in the past but let's do it once more now.

And if you need more proof from me then ask, don't immediately say I am wrong because I don't have enough proof.

originally posted by: Andy1144
But first you say, you haven't made any claims so there was nothing to support, then you say I did and I offered proof.

Right, you made a claim and I commented on the proof you offered for it.

I made no original claims.

So then when I say that seeing through the illusion of self will reduce suffering to anyone who sees it, what is your counter argument and hard evidence that I am wrong. I am requesting not only your opinion but proof to support it. Maybe you have in the past but let's do it once more now.

You can't prove it. Not with hard evidence.

A bunch of people saying that they have experienced it is no different than a bunch of people saying that they are filled with the holy spirit.

And if you need more proof from me then ask, don't immediately say I am wrong because I don't have enough proof.

Round and round, right back to the concept of proof.

a reply to: daskakik

You can't prove it. Not with hard evidence.

A bunch of people saying that they have experienced it is no different than a bunch of people saying that they are filled with the holy spirit.

So is saying that everyone who doesn't drink water for over 6 days die, hard evidence? That is a claim proven by science.

originally posted by: Andy1144
So is saying that everyone who doesn't drink water for over 6 days die, hard evidence? That is a claim proven by science.

I'm sure the claim is not worded like that. Scientific claims of that nature are usually not worded in absolutes because there are many variables and there can be exceptions.

a reply to: daskakik

Well let me take another example. People need oxygen to live, or else they would die. Hard evidence, yes?


Or, you cannot be conscious of being unconscious.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Well let me take another example. People need oxygen to live, or else they would die. Hard evidence, yes?

Yes.

Or, you cannot be conscious of being unconscious.

If conscious refers to being physically awake, yes.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok, now I will also make another claim based on hard evidence.

Thoughts are formed from synapses in the brain, and every feeling and experience is processed in the brain. If you feel something in your knee, your brain is equally involved in it. You cannot have a feeling which the brain isn't involved because the nervous system is connected directly from brain to all the body.

Hard evidence?

a reply to: Andy1144

Sure, that is what science has discovered so far.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok, so then based on logic, if suffering is defined as thoughts of discontent with what is being experienced, then the mental suffering was formed by a thought. (I just took that as one example, but let's just say that is all that suffering is, discontent with the moment)

You can't wish things could be different without thinking about it right?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Ok, so then based on logic, if suffering is defined as thoughts of discontent with what is being experienced, then the mental suffering was formed by a thought.

You can't wish things could be different without thinking about it right?

Right.