Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Darwin333]

Yep.

If you were dating someone and they tell you one thing, but you observe them to determine if they're being honest and you see that they're not, what does that tell you?

You mean like constantly saying "gays are bad, gays are going to hell, etc..." and then covering up not only homosexual acts by people of power in their organization but covering up criminal acts of child abuse?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

My comment was not meant to imply anything about you. If anything, you implied that what I said was something unachievable or impractical, suggesting you yourself thought you believed certain things just because you wanted to.

I believe it is unachievable. And yet (by your comment above) you imply that it is something achievable....suggesting you yourself believe certain things just because you want to. Case in point. And herein lies the rub.

 

[Moonbeam]

The truth is that we are all bonded by the brotherly love that is self hate.

Thanks, and just a few moments ago you were the one parading around as if you were a rational being. Hehehehe.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And yet (by your comment above) you imply that it is something achievable....suggesting you yourself believe certain things just because you want to.

You'll have to explain that to me better. I said that I don't believe things just because I want to. How does that imply the exact opposite?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do you constantly write this sort of gibberish? It means absolutely nothing.

Read my sig. The answer's been there for years and years.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Read my sig. The answer's been there for years and years.

So you're deliberately trying to waste everyone's time and/or disrupt the discussion? Or what?

You're a smart guy. Why don't you try actually putting forth a sensible position, instead of constantly trying (and failing) to sound "profound"?

 

[LunarRay]

So you're deliberately trying to waste everyone's time and/or disrupt the discussion? Or what?

You're a smart guy. Why don't you try actually putting forth a sensible position, instead of constantly trying (and failing) to sound "profound"?

Moonbeam's post:

"Clearly yours can't grasp the fact it's irrelevant, that there is one truth and a million fingers pointing at it, none of which is the truth being pointed to."

How about I take a stab at translation but that really is not necessary!

The 'yours' refers to the quoted person's mind....

The one truth and the finger pointing is about the believers all seeing the same thing regardless of the collateral issues of other gods or holidays.

The 'none of which' seems to be the fingers... iow, the truth is not the pointers but, rather, what is being pointed at...

Now then... I've not spoken to Moonster regarding this post I refer to so I could be wrong but it seems that either you've a bias against Moonbeam or the words he used to express his position or perhaps the message he opined... The former is your prerogative but the latter two are as valid a response as any other postings herein... including yours.

 

[randomrogue]

Do I have to be drunk to understand what's going on with that?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sorry, but "there is one truth and a million fingers pointing at it, none of which is the truth being pointed to" is gibberish.

If he's trying to make a point, he should just make it, like everone else. That's what a discussion is about.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Now then... I've not spoken to Moonster regarding this post I refer to so I could be wrong but it seems that either you've a bias against Moonbeam or the words he used to express his position or perhaps the message he opined... The former is your prerogative but the latter two are as valid a response as any other postings herein... including yours.

I think Charles' point is one that has been reiterated by many members of these boards over the years, in that sometimes Moonbeam posts some very eloquent, well-reasoned and thought provoking ideas, but other times he uses such obscure vernacular that he obfuscates whatever point it is he is trying to make. Whether he is doing this specifically to appear "mystical" or whatever is a matter of contention, but his use of language often just serves as an impediment to effective communication, and if no one can understand what point you're trying to make, you've effectively failed to make one. He's capable of writing in a way that is more common and easier to decipher; his choice to use language the way he does may make his posts more stylistically interesting, but they also make his point unclear, and good ideas just end up lost in a sea of misunderstanding.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you're deliberately trying to waste everyone's time and/or disrupt the discussion? Or what?

You're a smart guy. Why don't you try actually putting forth a sensible position, instead of constantly trying (and failing) to sound "profound"?

I'm a smart guy? How smart, not nearly as smart as you, almost as smart, smarter by a little or a lot smarter than you? How would you know and what difference would it make? And if I am smarter than you how would you be able to evaluate what I say? You would be too dumb to be able to. So let's just take this smart shit off the table.

We aren't talking about smart anyway, but about understanding and wisdom where all the same rules apply. How would the person with a little sense understand the person with a lot? Do you see the sense in this? Do you know it when you are more logical than somebody who is illogical? And is it them who calls you pretentiously logical or you who calls them that? Can you put an old head on young shoulders. And since you're a courageous and honest person who can flat out say I'm failing, let me do the same. I am more profound than you can possibly imagine and it's your job to try to keep up, not my job to dilute truth to be pedestrian enough to make sense to you.

Now try to address the issue and not go off on me, God, where is the new forum: Truth is a state of consciousness, not a statement, a religion, a thing of any kind etc. It is a state of awareness that people can have. Religions are bridges to help folk awaken into that state. There are millions of bridges and only one state. Those bridges are like fingers, they are paths to the truth but are not the truth itself. That is a state of consciousness one can attain. Now, what about that is so profound that it makes you feel stupid or what doesn't make perfect logical sense? And remember, if you have no personal experience with the fact that consciousness has different states, you will have no frame of reference to evaluate. And what about that fact, if applicable to you, makes no sense?

"Show a man too many camel bones or show him too often and he will forget what a real camel looks like." A saying I once read.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think Charles' point is one that has been reiterated by many members of these boards over the years, in that sometimes Moonbeam posts some very eloquent, well-reasoned and thought provoking ideas, but other times he uses such obscure vernacular that he obfuscates whatever point it is he is trying to make. Whether he is doing this specifically to appear "mystical" or whatever is a matter of contention, but his use of language often just serves as an impediment to effective communication, and if no one can understand what point you're trying to make, you've effectively failed to make one. He's capable of writing in a way that is more common and easier to decipher; his choice to use language the way he does may make his posts more stylistically interesting, but they also make his point unclear, and good ideas just end up lost in a sea of misunderstanding.

This. I enjoy Moonie, but more often than not his points are wasted or lost due to the words/language he uses. Or takes more thought than most people care to muster up.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Charles' point is one that has been reiterated by many members of these boards over the years, in that sometimes Moonbeam posts some very eloquent, well-reasoned and thought provoking ideas, but other times he uses such obscure vernacular that he obfuscates whatever point it is he is trying to make. Whether he is doing this specifically to appear "mystical" or whatever is a matter of contention, but his use of language often just serves as an impediment to effective communication, and if no one can understand what point you're trying to make, you've effectively failed to make one. He's capable of writing in a way that is more common and easier to decipher; his choice to use language the way he does may make his posts more stylistically interesting, but they also make his point unclear, and good ideas just end up lost in a sea of misunderstanding.

I am referring to the zen statement I have used a thousand times that the finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon. It is an analogy that words about the truth are not the truth when the truth, in fact, is a conscious state that can't be caused to manifest in the listener with words, that it has to be experienced. This is also expressed as, He who tastes knows or he who has not tasted knows nothing, etc, why drunk on wine is a analog of knowing, or the statement, in it what is in it, that you can comprehend only what you can comprehend and no more, given your state, etc. It is also the truth in the parable of the sower. So while I am doubtless guilty as charged, and I agree with your point because I am aware that I do this, I think I can say with some certainty that there's nothing else I could say that won't also get lost in the sea of misunderstanding.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm a smart guy? How smart, not nearly as smart as you, almost as smart, smarter by a little or a lot smarter than you?

No way to know. Irrelevant to the discussion.

How would you know and what difference would it make? And if I am smarter than you how would you be able to evaluate what I say? You would be too dumb to be able to. So let's just take this smart shit off the table.

It was never on the table. I was trying to encourage you to, you know, actually say something meaningful and pertinent to the discussion.

We aren't talking about smart anyway, but about understanding and wisdom where all the same rules apply.

If you're so interested in "understanding", why not use words that people can understand?

How would the person with a little sense understand the person with a lot? Do you see the sense in this? Do you know it when you are more logical than somebody who is illogical? And is it them who calls you pretentiously logical or you who calls them that? Can you put an old head on young shoulders. And since you're a courageous and honest person who can flat out say I'm failing, let me do the same. I am more profound than you can possibly imagine and it's your job to try to keep up, not my job to dilute truth to be pedestrian enough to make sense to you.

Do you get paid by the word or something?

Truth is a state of consciousness, not a statement, a religion, a thing of any kind etc. It is a state of awareness that people can have.

Okay, that's a position at least.

Now, what's it based on? What sorts of "truth" are you even talking about?

Is it your contention that everything is subjective, and that there is nothing at all that represents objective truth?

Religions are bridges to help folk awaken into that state.

Are they? Or are they bridges to allow anyone to reach their own definition of a subjective reality, where they can say that the "truth" is whatever they want it to be, whether it really is true or not, and whether it makes any sense or not?

There are millions of bridges and only one state.

But you just said "truth is a state of consciousness". We do not all share a single consciousness. So there cannot be only one state of truth, using your definitions.

 

[randomrogue]

Know your audience. It's a primary rule of public speaking and it applies to this forum as well.

I like Moonbeam so I'll attempt to read all of his posts but if it's not appropriate (like above) I just skip over it.

Back to the topic at hand though. How do people convert religions? The people above can't even comprehend their religion being wrong so how would someone convert?

 

[etrigan420]

Back to the topic at hand though. How do people convert religions? The people above can't even comprehend their religion being wrong so how would someone convert?

Crusades or Inquisition...

WHY NOT BOTH?! :awe:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I am referring to the zen statement I have used a thousand times that the finger pointing at the Moon is not the Moon. It is an analogy that words about the truth are not the truth when the truth, in fact, is a conscious state that can't be caused to manifest in the listener with words, that it has to be experienced.

And how would you expect anyone who didn't already know this supposed "zen statement" to understand it?

Why do you post here if you don't want to be understood?

This is also expressed as, He who tastes knows or he who has not tasted knows nothing, etc, why drunk on wine is a analog of knowing, or the statement, in it what is in it, that you can comprehend only what you can comprehend and no more, given your state, etc.

Once again, I have no idea what that means.

It is also the truth in the parable of the sower.

And again. You seem to toss the word "truth" around rather lightly. Which is somewhat ironic.

So while I am doubtless guilty as charged, and I agree with your point because I am aware that I do this, I think I can say with some certainty that there's nothing else I could say that won't also get lost in the sea of misunderstanding.

It certainly will get so lost if you are deliberately not even making an effort for it to be found.

 

[LunarRay]

Sorry, but "there is one truth and a million fingers pointing at it, none of which is the truth being pointed to" is gibberish.

If he's trying to make a point, he should just make it, like everone else. That's what a discussion is about.

Ok... well... If folks don't buy into the existence of God because there are religions whose similarities to pagan or unicorn worship render them untenable, I'd agree. But as far as I can tell God does not exist because religion says so... Religion seeks to explain God and does a poor job of it.

The bible is not axiomatic! But to the believer in God God is axiomatic and it is that which can't be disproved. Argued about, denied or any other derisive or pejorative term, sure.

You don't buy into the notion of God because you're not a believer and you base that condition on the absence of proof coupled with the easily defeated aspects of the bible. Your position is not only reasonable but it is profoundly logical.

All I can offer is.... God exists because I know this to be true... To you that is a profoundly illogical position... You can't disprove God's existence nor can I prove it.... So, it seems we are on equal footing here... No proof of existence and no proof of non existence.... Anything either of us can point to as proof of anything does not touch the issue proper.

 

[BoberFett]

I think Moonbeam is taking from the Gospel of Bruce Lee, Book of Enter the Dragon, verses 10-11.

And the good Bruce Lee said:

10. Don't think. Feel. It's like a finger pointing at the moon.
11. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!

 

[alzan]

Know your audience. It's a primary rule of public speaking and it applies to this forum as well.

I like Moonbeam so I'll attempt to read all of his posts but if it's not appropriate (like above) I just skip over it.

Back to the topic at hand though. How do people convert religions? The people above can't even comprehend their religion being wrong so how would someone convert?

Agreed. Moonie's posts are sometimes eloquent, sometimes mental mazes with no exit.

Good question. I've known a few people who've gone through a crisis of faith but they've never converted to another religion; they've either stepped away from the church permanently or taken sabbaticals of various lengths but then gone back to their original religion.

There may be life circumstances that cause a person to seek out a different religion than the one they currently hold but I would think those conversions would be rare.

Certainly one could have major/minor disagreeements with either the teachings of the church or the stance of the controlling body of the church on a particular issue(s) or enough members of their church or clergy that they would convert to a different religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Charles Kozierok: No way to know. Irrelevant to the discussion.

M: That was my point.

CK: It was never on the table. I was trying to encourage you to, you know, actually say something meaningful and pertinent to the discussion.

M: Right, as if I had to be smart to say something meaningful, you put smart on the table.

CK: If you're so interested in "understanding", why not use words that people can understand?

M: Can't understand, or don't want to?

CK: Do you get paid by the word or something?

M: I get paid by how many times I can say the truth and not be understood and have grown rich beyond imagining.

CK: Okay, that's a position at least.

M: Great.

CK: Now, what's it based on? What sorts of "truth" are you even talking about?

M: I was talking about the fact that truth doesn't come in sorts or that it's something you can talk about, as I said and you seem to have missed.

CK: Is it your contention that everything is subjective, and that there is nothing at all that represents objective truth?

M: It is my contention that subjective and objective belong to a different kind of analysis, that truth is a conscious state that causes certainty. Keep in mind that if you haven't tasted you won't know what I'm talking about and that means for some with a different kind of certainty that I'm not actually talking about anything at all.

CK: Are they? Or are they bridges to allow anyone to reach their own definition of a subjective reality, where they can say that the "truth" is whatever they want it to be, whether it really is true or not, and whether it makes any sense or not?

M: No no, your job is to find out. I am doing what I can to explain what I see. I have no need for you to see it. Any such need will have to come from you.

CK: But you just said "truth is a state of consciousness". We do not all share a single consciousness. So there cannot be only one state of truth, using your definitions.

M: This makes good sense if you don't know what you are talking about which you don't. Just information. No criticism meant.

Elsewhere I mentioned that truth is that state of consciousness that arises at the collapse of duality, where time stops and consciousness and all that human consciousness can contain in awareness become one and the same thing as the universe we perceive, when the eye with which we see God is the same eye with which He sees us, when the ego disappears and there is only unity. I am that which I am the alpha and omega and other such pointing fingers. So it isn't that we share a single state of consciousness but that unity is unity is unity.

But we can do this forever, you give me your questions and I answer them but none of this will ever create for you a state of unified consciousness. There is only one real question to ask. Is such a state of consciousness possible. As a big game hunter, I think I see the tracks of my Beloved and everything my ego does to follow them makes them disappear.

 

[jackstar7]

Certainty outside of mathmatics (and sometimes even within it) is the realm of fools.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Moonbeam is taking from the Gospel of Bruce Lee, Book of Enter the Dragon, verses 10-11.

And the good Bruce Lee said:

10. Don't think. Feel. It's like a finger pointing at the moon.
11. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!

I always have a finger for you.

 

[LunarRay]

Know your audience. It's a primary rule of public speaking and it applies to this forum as well.

I like Moonbeam so I'll attempt to read all of his posts but if it's not appropriate (like above) I just skip over it.

Back to the topic at hand though. How do people convert religions? The people above can't even comprehend their religion being wrong so how would someone convert?

A person who knows God exists does so by an intuitive means... There can be no other way short of some direct 'miracle' which is in fact a true miracle.

Religion seeks to point to God... Folks who don't get all warm and fuzzy with one religion seek to find one that does provide that warm and fuzzy ness... IF one has a need to surround themselves with like thinking folks then they should seek out that condition... by what ever means they find reasonable...

As Moonster would say.... keep your eyes on what is being pointed at and less so on the digits doing the pointing...

 

[Moonbeam]

Ok... well... If folks don't buy into the existence of God because there are religions whose similarities to pagan or unicorn worship render them untenable, I'd agree. But as far as I can tell God does not exist because religion says so... Religion seeks to explain God and does a poor job of it.

The bible is not axiomatic! But to the believer in God God is axiomatic and it is that which can't be disproved. Argued about, denied or any other derisive or pejorative term, sure.

You don't buy into the notion of God because you're not a believer and you base that condition on the absence of proof coupled with the easily defeated aspects of the bible. Your position is not only reasonable but it is profoundly logical.

All I can offer is.... God exists because I know this to be true... To you that is a profoundly illogical position... You can't disprove God's existence nor can I prove it.... So, it seems we are on equal footing here... No proof of existence and no proof of non existence.... Anything either of us can point to as proof of anything does not touch the issue proper.

Anybody with any logic worth its salt would have picked your option. I was too stupid to understand real logic. Self hate without a doubt!