Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

He said humanism, but humanism itself isn't a religion - it's atheism with no religion, and it promotes human prosperity and earthly values that we experience in this lifetime. Hindus can actually be atheists, but they say rather obviously it's hard to connect with the spirituality of the hindu belief structure when you don't believe in any of the gods. Hey, whatever. I find the concept of one main god with countless personalities allowing it to present as any one other god, or human, or animal is pretty damn cool. I got your back, Vishnu. You're the Brahman to my Atman. Of course, if Vishnu is a projection of Brahman, we don't know who/what Vishnu really is. Interestingly enough, I would imagine a person suffering from divine delusions of grandeur would fit in well with the Hindus.

"I'm God."

"That's wonderful! I'm God too!"

We're all projections of Brahman, and our ego is a formation known as Atman. Brahman (Self) and Atman (self).

 

Indeed. We are the paramatman, resistance is futile.

Speaking of futile, WS, I applaud your last post but I fear that it's water off a duck's back.

Still, an excellent attempt.

 

Well, you know, what is said about Bramahn applies to something else, too.

tao k'o tao, fei ch'ang Tao.

The way you can comprehend, isn't the real Way.

Jesus also told his disciples that He is the Way.

Major religions have a lot in common.

 

Actually I had said Hinduism, but I corrected it while he was writing his post after checking the eariler posts to see which was indicated as atheistic. (I tend to get the two names confused.)

As for humanism, Secular Humanism isn't a religion and is the more commonly referred to version of humanism, but there is also the belief that we are gods and that there are no beings higher than us. The belief that there are no beings higher than us can be said to atheistic.

 

Xyle - this is one of those stories you tell with one less sentence.

 

Am I stroking out or has this asylum just reached critical nonsense?

 

Right, so I shouldn't have to explain to you where your explanation fails to be logical; therefore, you yourself will provide an honest breakdown of your failure to be logical for the enjoyment of everyone else. Yes?
Since that result is doubtful, and pointing out the obvious errors (such as the impact of pride upon a person's perception) is a waste of time, I'll just continue to be illogical which should be a sufficient insult to your sensiblity because quite frankly I given up trying to provoke people to think (or have I?).

Run for your life! (jk)

-------------

:: Xyle has left this thread ::

 

One of us! One of us!

 

Did I just win a thread?

 

...

Yes, yes you did. Well done, sir.

Try to figure out how you did it, we may need you again.

 

I think is started when he started spelling "Bible" in another thread.

 

Do I get a trophy or something..? I'm pretty sure there's not actually a precedent for this.

 

Considering you just sussed a possible schizophrenic on the internet;



Bask in the glow of the coveted Pointless Trophy.

 

Now all we need is Gross and Smuel to kiss and make up (and possibly film the occaion) and then we need never talk about this thread again.

 

...no tongues.

 

Right. So your argument could be summarized as:

i) If it's important to get from A to B, then getting from A to B is important.
ii) How you get from A to B will affect you.

That's fine. I agree. The problem is that you seemed to be turning it round the other way, with your rhetorical question "What's the point of a destination if the journey has no significance?"

Using i) and ii) above, this could be re-written as "What's the point of getting to B, if how you get from A to B doesn't affect you?"

Well, really? I think it's fairly obvious - the effect that the journey has is a side effect. It's not the important part. The important part is that you get to B. So, for example, if it turns out that you are already at B, then there is no need for a journey, so it will, by definition, not affect you. Yet it doesn't follow from that that being at B isn't important.

The point of a destination is that it's where you want to be. Whether or not the journey affects you is usually irrelevant, and most of the time people seek to minimize the amount that the journey affects them. In an ideal scenario, it wouldn't affect them at all.

If you never meant to imply any of that, then yeah, we agreed all along. And certainly in the case of atheism, I only care about the end result.

Mwah.

 

Just for the record, I got a good chuckle out of, "I guess we have to disagree to agree, as usual."

 

But what if B is Death and A is birth, isn't the journey more important?

I would say that they are equally important. You choose to travel in some ways on some path for a reason, because they affect you.

But you are travelling in order to get somewhere, which decides what path you will take. You can't say that one is more important than the other.

That's like saying that one side of the coin is more important than the other.