A Non-Violent Solution?

[genkaus]

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  Quite while I'm behind?

Genkaus is the one who's claiming to have 'proof' of something.

Thus far he hasn't proven a thing. All he's done is make a complete ass out of himself proclaiming to be able to prove something that neither the scientific community nor the philosophical community would support.

Pull your head out if your ass and see again.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  In the meantime I haven't claimed to have proven anything. All I've done is show that anyone who has an open mind has more than enough scientific information to construct many different plausible spiritual philosophies that cannot be ruled out as Genkaus' erroneously claims.

Look again. There are and can be many different scientifically (and rationally) plausible spiritual philosophies. Yours isn't one of them . I'm not ruling out all of them - just yours.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  In fact, I'm truly surprised that you would support Genkaus' closed-minded and out-dated classical position.

I'm truly surprised that anyone would have a position that became outdated in the vedic ages.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  His arguments are totally retro, and don't even apply in the face of modern knowledge. You'd have to go back to the days of Newton and Spinoza to make the kinds of arguments that he's attempting to peddle.

You're yet to quote a single modern "scientist" who argues to that effect.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  I can't believe that anyone would be gullible enough to fall for his out-dated baloney

I'm surprised that you fell for baloney that was outdated in the dark-ages. (No, not really)

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  Clearly there are intelligent atheists on these boards who do understand that Genkaus is full of himself, and that his claims are nothing more than an over-inflated personal opinion.

I don't see any rushing to your rescue. But then, you think your imagination is reality.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  The more intelligent people know that we can't rule anything out. We simply don't yet have enough information about the true nature of reality to even begin to pretend to be so arrogant.

The more intelligent people know that we can rule out the self-contradictory and the non-sensical.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  I'm sure that Genkaus will gain his fair share of followers as he preaches his dogma. That's just about guaranteed by the laws of statistics.

And your stance is such bullshit, that not even the law of statistics would give you any followers.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  I can't "lose" to Genhaus, because I'm not the pompous fool who's claiming to have a proof that only my opinions smell good and all others stink.

You can't lose to genkaus, because you believe what you can imagine is real and you cannot imagine it.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  I've showed him clearly why I do not need to accept his petty limited axioms. He's claims are totally ungrounded in modern knowledge.

No, you haven't. All you have done is repeatedly pointed to modern physicists and argued how they say they do not know anything. You haven't addressed my argument at all.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  So you're taking Genkaus' position that spiritual agnosticism has been RULED OUT? There can be no possible spiritual essence to reality. And therefore spiritual spiritual agnosticism is no longer a valid view because we now KNOW that spirit cannot exist in any possible imaginable form.

The two positions are not equivalent. One can be a spiritual agnostic while maintaining that there still can't be any spiritual essence to reality. Spirits may still exist, they just wouldn't be essential to reality.

(18th February 2012 23:45)Abracadabra Wrote:  Stop for a moment and think about how lame Genkaus' position truly is:

Here's the position:

1. The only example of consciousness that we are aware of is biological consciousness.
2. Consciousness appears to require a physical brain in this case.
3. Therefore we can rule out any and all spiritual philosophies because we don't think there could be any other kind of consciousness.

Complete and total misrepresentation. My actual position is as follows:

1. Consciousness, by its very definition, is a phenomenal entity.
2. Therefore, there cannot be a non-phenomenal consciousness.
3. Therefore, any spiritual philosophy that proposes a non-phenomenal consciousness (as Abra's does, when he's not hastily retreating from that very accusation), is bullshit.