# Theism, Atheism, Non-Theism



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2021)

Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.

It cannot be denied that theism has been a major force in human society at all levels of development. And I believe there have always been a minority that didn't believe in the gods of their times.  

I personally have chosen a philosophy of non-theism.  My path is not based on whether gods exist or not.

We are all pretty well acquainted with the major theistic religions and the similarities outweigh the differences and in fact the big three all claim to worship the same creator and also recognize the prophet, Abraham. So I don't really want to discuss the differences of the Abrahamic religions and would rather concentrate on theism in general including paganism.

Atheism doesn't need much introduction as it's stance is pretty clear.  There are no gods.

Agnosticism as I see it is akin to non-theism in that the existence of any gods is not affirmed but the possibility of the existence of gods is not denied but that gods if they exist are thought to be unknowable and that there is also the possibility that gods do not exist.  We, as people, can easily equate the unknowable with nonexistence. One thing I am unsure of regarding agnosticism is whether or not the mere existence of gods is considered important.

Non-theism is a little muddied as some non-theistic philosophies recognize that gods may exist much like agnosticism but that it also that the existence of gods is not required of anyone walking the path.

Many of you know I have studied and practiced Buddhism for many years with a healthy dose of classical Stoicism in the mix.  So I do firmly believe that it doesn't matter if gods exist or not and that as Buddhism states that Right Understanding, Right thought, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action etc, are all steps on the path to enlightenment.

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 12, 2021)

Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".


----------



## Grumblenuts (Apr 12, 2021)

Aetherism: Mother Nature rules and that is all.


----------



## lg325 (Apr 12, 2021)

Theism - Christian.  A study of history shows what Human kind is like without the understanding and practice of the teachings  of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".


True. The Abrahamic religions all worship the same god but I did not intend to imply that all monotheistic religions worship the same god.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

lg325 said:


> Theism - Christian.  A study of history shows what Human kind is like without the understanding and practice of the teachings  of Jesus Christ.



Not necessarily.

Human behavior hasn't changed all that much in the last 2000 years.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> 
> It cannot be denied that theism has been a major force in human society at all levels of development. And I believe there have always been a minority that didn't believe in the gods of their times.
> 
> ...


.....all are ridiculous terms since there is no god--no one has proven there is a god ....it's worthless---like saying you are ASanta--AEaster bunny/etc


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Aetherism: Mother Nature rules and that is all.



So how does that affect your world view or the path you choose to walk?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

harmonica said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> ...



I'm not attempting to prove the existence of any gods.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".
> ...


I mention this because of the non-denominational  "Nature's God" referenced in the DoI.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


It's a good point.  I should have been a little clearer in the OP


----------



## Turtlesoup (Apr 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".
> ...


Hell, even all the christian sects don't worship the same god.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 13, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Just adding to a good OP. 

It's clear to me that the framers were leaving a wide berth for all faiths.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


That can certainly be argued.

I guess I'm asking in a round about way if Christians or theists, or deists would change their behaviors if they found out that there was no god and if atheists would change their behavior if they found there was.

As a non-theist I don't think it matters if there is actually a god, gods, creator etc.  I believe that for me it would have no effect on the path I have chosen to walk.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 14, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> 
> It cannot be denied that theism has been a major force in human society at all levels of development. And I believe there have always been a minority that didn't believe in the gods of their times.
> 
> ...



Failing to distinguish the difference between _classical theism_, which arguably includes deism, and the pagan religions of materialism is nonsensical.  Why the hell would one believe in a created god?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 14, 2021)

I am an autotheist.

 None of you would exist if I didn't imagine you.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 15, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> ...


I am referring to the belief in any gods whatsoever.  I do not recognize a difference in Pagan gods or the Abrahamic god


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 26, 2021)

Politicized version is
Anti-theism
Some atheists have stated and identified as such
Where they are actively and publicly opposes to THEISTS and theism, not God per se.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> 
> Thoughts?


They are not philosophies. They are doctrines of different categories, and improperly compared.
Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that there is supernatural deity that controls reality.

Humanism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that humans define reality.

Agnosticism is an ethical doctrine that suggests that a supernatural dimension of human experience cannot be determined.

Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine for the basis for public policy.

Non-theism and anti-theism are silly word games.

Secularism is a political doctrine of infinite tolerance - no bias, which favors seems to favor atheism, because theist based doctrine is always biased against people who do not believe in a supernatural dimension of human experience.


----------



## Blues Man (May 3, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the number and contentiousness of threads on these topics, I thought it might be interesting to compare these three philosophies.
> ...




Distinctions without differences as far as this discussion is concerned.

And if secularism is indeed defined by infinite tolerance then atheism cannot be favored because all things are tolerated equally.

What you you call the belief that it matters not whether gods do or don't exist?

I chose the term non-theist


----------



## ding (May 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I chose the term non-theist


Now THAT is a  distinction without a difference.


----------



## ding (May 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Many of you know I have studied and practiced Buddhism for many years with a healthy dose of classical Stoicism in the mix. So I do firmly believe that it doesn't matter if gods exist or not and that as Buddhism states that Right Understanding, Right thought, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action etc, are all steps on the path to enlightenment.


Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.


----------



## ding (May 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.
> 
> Thoughts?


The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational.  It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > I chose the term non-theist
> ...



No it's not since I have defined my terms at the very beginning of the thread.

WHat would you call a person who doesn't think it matters if gods exist or not?


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Many of you know I have studied and practiced Buddhism for many years with a healthy dose of classical Stoicism in the mix. So I do firmly believe that it doesn't matter if gods exist or not and that as Buddhism states that Right Understanding, Right thought, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action etc, are all steps on the path to enlightenment.
> ...


I don't think I need a lesson on Buddhism from you.  I've been practicing it for years.  There is no need to acknowledge gods and the belief in gods is not needed to walk the Eight Fold Path.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.
> ...



Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy.  But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God.  He taught to die to self to see reality.  Reality is God.  And I didn't use the phrase non-believer.  I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term.  And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


If you can't see how Buddhism teaches to not be a materialist, I'm not so sure that you don't need a lesson on Buddhism.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind.  The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind.  The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



There is no teaching of eternal spirits in Buddhism.  There is no creator or personal deities.  Some schools may mention gods and some may even speak of cyclical rebirth but belief in these is not a requirement to walk the path

Enlightenment comes from within not from without.  

Before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind?  Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Sounds like you are practicing secular humanism.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not regard the body and the mind *or spirit* as being two entirely separate entities - there is no sense in Buddhism that the body is a "vessel" that is guided or inhabited by the mind *or spirit.*[1]

Buddhism and the body - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Enlightenment comes from within not from without.


Enlightenment is a spiritual awakening.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I disagree.  Samsara proves otherwise.  Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits.  When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment.   Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body. 

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called *Nirvana* or *enlightenment*.​​Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​​The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​​Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​





						What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize
					

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


And to really throw a monkey wrench into your beliefs the very basis of Buddhism is right and wrong.  Something I believe you have claimed does not exist and is made up by man.  Can't wait to pull on that thread with you and see what unravels.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits.  That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.  

There is no enduring essence or self 

 The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If nothing is permanent then neither are the concepts of right and wrong.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Sounds like you just completely undermined the Eight Fold Path.  right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi.

No such thing as right and wrong, eh?


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong.  So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​​After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the *Jakata*.​





						What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize
					

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We are dealing with the fact that Siddhartha did not speak English and that the translations do not always capture the meanings of the Buddha's words.

For example the word suffering is not the word used by The Buddha.

The correct word , Dukkha, is a Pali word that contains many meanings. It can mean ordinary suffering, but it can also refer to anything that is temporary, incomplete, or conditioned by other things. So even joy and bliss are dukkha because they come and go.

As for the Eight fold Path 

The word "right" is the translation.  So  "Right " Action isn't a commandment as in do this or you are wrong.  It means being accurate or skillful, and it carries a connotation of "wise."


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Again the eight fold path is not to be taken as the commandment do this or you are wrong.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Dude, the right view instead of the wrong view, the right resolve instead of the wrong resolve, the right speech instead of the wrong speech, the right conduct instead of the wrong conduct, the right livelihood instead of the wrong livelihood, the right effort instead of the wrong effort, the right mindfulness instead of the wrong mindfulness, and the right samadhi instead of the wrong samadhi.

I am afraid you are just going to have to accept that the Buddha believed in right and wrong just like everyone else.


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


What does that matter?  If you are ever going to be enlightened those are the steps, right?  You can't do the opposite of those things and expect to become enlightened, right?


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Again those are translations and we all know that more is lost in translation than is conveyed.  You are hung up on the words in English not the words they were translated from.  Again the Eight Fold Path is not a set of commandments.  I can just as easily use the term "correct" instead of" right "

Right and wrong are human concepts therefore they are impermanent and no attachments to them are necessary.


----------



## Blues Man (May 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Just looking at the English translation, viz. "Right", one could say it is the opposite of wrong - like, one should practice "Right Mindfulness" and not "Wrong Mindfulness". This "Right - Wrong" also lends itself to be looked as "Good - Bad". Often, referring back to the Pali or Sanskrit word gives us a better understanding of the english translation. For example, Right Mindfulness in Pali is "samma-sati". The Pali word "samma" has a wide range of meanings: right/rightly, perfect/perfectly, full/fully, complete/completely, through/throughly, proper/properly. Why was "right" chosen in preference to the other possible English words? What about "Proper mindfulness" or "Perfect Mindfulness"?


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?  

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the *Jakata*.​





						What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize
					

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


In your studies, for any one of the eight paths, were you taught that some behaviors were acceptable and some behaviors were not acceptable and can you provide an example of each and the reasoning behind why one was acceptable and another was not acceptable?


----------



## ding (May 4, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So any conduct could be the right conduct to achieve enlightenment?  What about if I decided to take any woman I wanted, would that be an acceptable conduct to become enlightened?


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't know if he was lying.  but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Again with the rape fantasies.

The Eight fold path is the path of compassion.  The Middle Way of the Eight fold Path is not unlike Aristotle's Golden Mean.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


But I don't always believe what I am told.  

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius?  I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


You dodged the question.  

But apparently you believe in compassion, right?  Isn't compassion a man made thing too?  What's wrong with being cruel? Is cruel wrong or bad or evil?


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't have to reconcile anything.  The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men.  He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never said all human concepts are worthless. If you think I have then quote the post.

I have said that morality is relative, the concepts of good and evil are relative and those concepts changed over time.

And our society has conflicting ideas on cruelty just as it does on killing.

But you deny this.  I don't.  In fact I accept it as reality where as the ideal is fantasy.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I never said you said all human concepts are worthless.   If you think I have then quote the post.

If you don't believe that right and wrong exist independent of man than you have no basis for saying compassion leads to enlightenment anymore than you have for saying cruelty leads to enlightenment. 

I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons.  I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of  logical reasons.  That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes.  Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Sure you do.  You are following the teachings of a mad man.  That's crazy.  

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that.  You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You seem to be hung up on the fact that i said right and wrong are human concepts and you are using a lot of space reminding me that all these different things are human made concepts.

Just like you're hung up on the words right and wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



How many times do you have to be told I don't follow all of the Buddha's teachings?  And like I said the Buddha was just a man that's all so like all men he was fallible.  I don't give much credence to rebirth or reincarnation and I really don't care if any Buddhist does or not but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  I don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect because there is no perfect.

And I never said anyone who believed in reincarnation was a mad man that's all you.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So you don't follow the eight fold path?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Atheism doesn't need much introduction as it's stance is pretty clear. There are no gods.


There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists; ‘god’ does exist as a creation of man, a metaphor for human spirituality, or as a focus for meditation or contemplation.

But yes – there is no omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation; that ‘god’ in fact does not exist.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I'm hung up on your conflict between believing in behaviors which logically lead to success (like the 8 fold path) and your failure to acknowledge that it's because of logic that those behaviors logically lead to success.  You are arguing through both sides of your face.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 5, 2021)

ding said:


> I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons. I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of logical reasons. That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes. Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.


There exist so many kinds of "logic" and potential redundancies that use of the term in such context demands clear definition distinguishing from other possible terms. "Standards"? "right and wrong"? Wtf? Humans obviously prefer defining "logic" for themselves, but what we consider it probably seems like fairly mindless repetition of apparently rewarding behaviors to other animals. Pets and farm animals find training their "owners" child's play so often prefer focusing upon more rewarding tasks like grooming, eating, drinking, playing, and napping. These activities were naturally selected in practically all mammal species because they helped ensure survival. Again, if you wanna call Mother Nature or The Aether "God".. be my guest. Otherwise, go fish.


----------



## ding (May 5, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons. I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of logical reasons. That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes. Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.
> ...


The analysis is made easy when one compares diametric behaviors.  It's pretty obvious to see the logic of why two compassionate people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people.


----------



## Blues Man (May 6, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible.  He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.


----------



## ding (May 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I already got it, bro.  

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic.  You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be.  Instead of truths that are founded in reality.  In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.


----------



## Blues Man (May 6, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality.  You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.


----------



## ding (May 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That would be an absolute statement in an of itself.  So apparently only what you believe is true.  Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.


----------



## Blues Man (May 6, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth.  I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes.  You don't


----------



## ding (May 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked. 

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being.  You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.


----------



## Blues Man (May 6, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I have never denied reality.


----------



## ding (May 6, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality.  Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.


----------



## Blues Man (May 7, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.


----------



## ding (May 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth.  If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.  

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (May 7, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist.  you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.


----------



## ding (May 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Right and wrong is defined by logic.  Logic is the art of reason.  Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.  Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.  Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception.  Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist.  Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality.  People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer.  I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.


----------



## Blues Man (May 7, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?


----------



## ding (May 7, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man. 

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.


----------



## Blues Man (May 7, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.


----------



## ding (May 14, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.


----------



## Blues Man (May 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense.  The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.


----------



## ding (May 15, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That's hilarious.  You think animals are being killed for reasons of self defense.  Do you believe it is wrong to kill animals.  Yes or no?

If it is cruel to kill animals for food - which is done for survival - then it is cruel to kill period.   You can't have it both ways.  It seems you have "compartmentalized" your beliefs.  And by "compartmentalized" your beliefs I mean to say you have rationalized your beliefs such that you see yourself as always doing good.  If that doesn't tell you God exists, nothing will.  You can't bear to see yourself as doing evil.


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you have never heard of a bear attack or a mountain lion attack or coyotes attacking a family pet or a child etc?  What about rabid wild animals have you heard of those?

it is no longer necessary to kill animals for food in order to survive and if you can't see the difference between factory farming and hunting for survival then you have a mental deficit that cannot be remedied.

And I don't need to always think I am doing good.  Much of what I and anyone else does is neither good nor bad. And like I said before evil is just a value judgement used by societies to describe the most reprehensible behaviors.

I have made the choice not to eat animal products for my own reasons and there is nothing I can do to stop other people from doing so I have not once pronounced that people who consume animals are somehow "evil" or that because I don't that I am "good"


----------



## ding (May 15, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no.  I don't really hear about those things.  But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them?  And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat.  I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good.  But per your logic, you must.


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.  

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


No.  I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray.  I could try to wound it instead of killing it.  

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?  

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good.  Not me.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

Blues Man believes in good and evil so much that he believes everyone should agree with his determination of good and evil and is so desperate to see himself as good that he rationalizes that killing animals is good.


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you. 

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man believes in good and evil so much that he believes everyone should agree with his determination of good and evil and is so desperate to see himself as good that he rationalizes that killing animals is good.



Why don't you quote where I ever said anyone should believe what I believe?

And quote where i said killing animals was good?

You're the one that eats animals here not me.  So it's you that think that your enjoyment of eating animals is justification for killing them


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


It doesn't justify it.  How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong.  I admit it.  

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person.  Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man believes in good and evil so much that he believes everyone should agree with his determination of good and evil and is so desperate to see himself as good that he rationalizes that killing animals is good.
> ...


The quotes are when you explain how you are a good person by always doing good.  For example, you are a good person because you don't eat animals, right?

Yes, I eat animals.  AND I admit it is wrong.  What more do you want from me?  Do you want me to rationalize it?  Sorry.  I don't do that.  I'm not you.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Where did I ever claim to be a good person?  I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never said I always do good.

You're the one who is constantly putting value judgements on other people not me.

And you are rationalizing.  You say you know it's wrong to eat animals but you make up reasons to keep eating animals.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good.  That or rationalize they are doing good.  There's your proof that you think you are good.  You expect everyone to be good.  You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad.  You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals.  I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it.  I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite.  Mind you you are not behaving like  a hypocrite for eating animals.  You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good.  You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I don't see how I can rationalize it is good to eat animals when I say it is wrong to eat animals.  The fact that you believe I must be making up reasons to keep eating animals is proof that you believe everyone - including yourself - must always do good or rationalize they are doing good.  There's your proof that you see yourself as good.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are rationalizing it because you're still eating meat even though you say you know that it is "wrong".  So you have made up some reason to keep eating meat and that is rationalization.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong.  You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish.  But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest.  If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Again... if I were rationalizing it I would have made myself look better rather than telling you that the reason I eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

You don't know what rationalizing means anymore than you know what compartmentalizing means.  Your whole worldview is a rationalization designed to make you see yourself as good.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> you would kill a person in self defense


Probably but I wouldn't rationalize that it was good like you would.  Which is proof that you rationalize seeing yourself as good whereas I don't rationalize seeing myself as good.  I prefer seeing reality.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it.  If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it. 

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't believe that is the reason.

You like eating meat.  It's that simple.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > you would kill a person in self defense
> ...


I never said killing in self defense was "good" YOU think I said that and you cannot find a quote of me saying that killing in self defense was "good".

What I said was I do not think killing in self defense was wrong.  It's justifiable but that does not imply "good".


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat.  That's you.  So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat.  No doubt about it.  That is definitely why I eat it.  But it's not the reason I don't eat meat.  The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.  

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals.  You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good.  That's not a value judgement.  That's an observation.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Of course it's the reason.  I know eating meat is wrong but I do it anyway because I like it and am selfish and weak.  I just don't rationalize that what I am doing is good like you do all the time.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


If it's not bad then what is it?  Because you didn't like it when I referred to it as the lesser of two evils.  That's probably becaue you don't have a well thought through worldview.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't see myself as superior to anyone.  I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat.  I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices.  You seem to have issues with it though.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And you don't stop eating meat because you enjoy your self flagellation as much as you enjoy eating meat.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I said it's not wrong but it is justifiable.  

That does not imply good or bad.  Like I said life is nothing but a pallet of shades of gray and this is one of those gray areas.

I am not a pacifist and never claimed to be so yes I would kill a person who was trying to kill me and I would kill a person who was trying to kill my wife and I will not think it is wrong but I would not enjoy the taking of a life.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I'm not defensive.  I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it.  I don't rationalize like you do.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Wrong.  I don't stop eating meat because I like it and because I am too weak and selfish to stop eating meat.  Why is that so hard for yo to understand?


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That's you rationalizing that you did the right thing.  You can't help yourself.  

To you killing is sometimes right.  To me killing is always wrong.  I don't need to rationalize it like you do.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



OK now again quote me where I ever said killing anyone was right or good or whatever adjective you want to use.

I sincerely do not believe killing in self defense is wrong but that does not mean I think it is good and I would regret the taking of a life but I would have no guilt whatsoever.

The way I see it the person trying to kill me or my wife is responsible for his own death because he made the choice to attempt to kill.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


No.  It's not.  It's called being honest.  Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong.  I am telling you that just isn't so.  There is no requirement that I must do right things.  The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things.  The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't.  I'm not going to do that.  If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things.  That's called reality.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


You have literally rationalized killing as good and you can't deal with it.  I don't have that dilemma.  I can say all killing is wrong and then choose to do wrong.  I don't need to justify my actions as good like you do.

You rail against this because deep down you know killing is wrong but since you would do it you use code words like just or justified to avoid saying killing is good but they mean effectively the same thing.  We know this because you won't say all killing is bad.  I will because it's true.  If all killing isn't bad then some killing must be good.  You can say some killing is justified but it still means that some killing isn't wrong which makes it right.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life  Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


OK once again where have I ever said killing was good?

And you are the one that has said ALL killing is wrong not me.  The only instance killing another human is not wrong is in self defense and now it is you defining the single exception as the rule.

And I'm not the one who lives in a world where the only 2 choices are right and wrong or good and bad.  That's your thing and you can't even live up to your own moral code.

So once again it is not wrong to kill in self defense but it is not "good" either it's one of those gray areas you can't seem to comprehend


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


You imply that some killing is good when you argue that some killing is justified.

Now if you are really arguing that killing is bad and some killing is the lesser of two evils then you have come full circle to what I have been arguing all along.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

selfish:  lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

weak: of a low standard; performing or performed badly.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No I am implying no such thing.

YOU are inferring incorrectly because you have to put everything in either the "good" pigeonhole or the "bad" pigeonhole.

Killing in self defense is neither "good" nor "bad" but it is acceptable or maybe I should say tolerable.

And I never used the term "lesser of 2 evils"  that's your argument even though you couldn't tell me what the greater evil is that you do not choose when you kill in self defense.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't make those judgements.

But you seem comfortable calling yourself weak and selfish and are content to do nothing about it


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


You are just changing words; good, justifiable, acceptable.  But it means the same thing because you are rationalizing that what you did wasn't wrong.  I on the other hand make no such rationalization because I admit that what I am doing is wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?



Yup.

Because you say these things and it's merely lip service or you are trying to god me into a contradiction.

Like I said you say you are weak and selfish and you are accepting those as excuses for your own behavior because you believe those things cannot be changed.  So what are the reasons you choose to be weak and selfish?


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That's dishonest of you. Of course it is selfish of me to eat meat.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.


No I have always said killing in self defense isn't wrong and it isn't "good" either.

You just can't comprehend that


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



SO what are your reasons for choosing to be selfish?

And why are you content to do nothing about it?


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?
> ...


Not sure how admitting I do wrong things will curry favor with God, but it's nice to know you think I am strong and selfless.  

I don't choose to be weak and selfish.  I choose pleasure.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.
> ...


Actually I can because I have said that some killing is the lesser of two evils which you objected to but sure seem to be arguing for.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man why do you choose to be dishonest?


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Pleasure.

Because I am weak.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never said anything about gods.

And of course you are choosing to be weak and selfish because you don't care that being weak and selfish makes you live a life that is not in agreement with the values you say are so importatnt to you


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Again... I am choosing pleasure because I am selfish and weak.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Again what is your reason to choose weakness because it is a choice.  You are choosing to live in a manner that contradicts your own beliefs so you are choosing to be a hypocrite.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I don't choose weakness.  I am weak.  I choose pleasure.  What part of I am choosing pleasure because I am selfish and weak don't you understand?

I would only be a hypocrite if I rationalized I wasn't doing wrong which is what YOU do.  When people don't meet the standard and admit they didn't meet the standard, they aren't hypocrites, they just failed to meet the standard.  But in no way does their failure to meet the standard negate the standard.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You choose to be weak.  You choose to be selfish.  You can change these things but you don't want to.


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Again... I am choosing pleasure because I am weak and selfish.   I think it must be your judgmental nature that is clouding your objectivity with bias which is preventing you from seeing this reality.  That and probably your competitive nature which prevents you from admitting you are wrong.

And yes, for the record I don't want to change what I am doing because I like it and because I am selfish and too weak to do what I know I should do.  But what I am not doing is rationalizing that what I am doing is right like you do.  Nor am I compartmentalizing what I am doing because I fully acknowledge and admit to what I am doing and don't try to justify it as good and right like you do.


----------



## Blues Man (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So you think it is utterly impossible to choose not to be weak and selfish?

And I have never said anything I do is right or good I do what I do so I can live a life aligned with my own values.  You seem to prefer a life of discord because you choose to live a life that does not agree with your own values.


----------



## ding (May 19, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I never said that.  The journey of life is a conflict and confusion process.  So it's a journey and a process.  

I don't think your words match your actions.  But that's OK because that's your journey; that's your conflict and confusion process.  I think you rationalize a lot.  So it isn't surprising that you have rationalized you aren't rationalizing.


----------



## Blues Man (May 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I live more aligned to my values than you do.

I do not consciously choose to violate my own code of values like you do.


----------



## ding (May 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Because you rationalize.  Like I said before, the human mind cannot live in conflict.


----------



## Blues Man (May 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No I choose not to live in conflict with my own values as you do.


----------



## ding (May 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


No, you rationalize you have no incongruities.

There is no conflict when one confesses his sins.  If I was conflicted I would be rationalizing I was doing good when I wasn't.  That's the conflict. As long as I own my bad acts - even if I keep doing them - my beliefs are still aligned with the standard even if my actions aren't.  It's a process.  It's a journey.  But the journey can't begin until one acknowledges that he isn't meeting the standard.  You can't see this because you are judgmental.  You think everyone must do perfect things rather than be perfect.  Being perfect does not mean doing perfect things.  I have no doubt this concept is beyond your ability to comprehend but I promise you that true stoics would get it.  So would true Buddhists.


----------



## Blues Man (May 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I never said that.

In fact I distinctly remember saying I have my faults just like everyone does.


----------



## ding (May 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Who are you trying to convince?


----------



## Blues Man (May 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I am merely pointing out that you are once again lying about what I actually said.


----------



## ding (May 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


It is easier for you to see it that way.


----------



## Blues Man (May 20, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And yet you can never seem to quote any post where I actually said what you claim I said


----------



## ding (May 20, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I'm happy for you to see it that way.


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You mean accurately?

You have yet to provide an actual quote of me saying what you keep telling me I said.

But you just admitted you're happy to be seen as a liar so I guess I shouldn't be surprised


----------



## ding (May 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Like I said before, I'm happy for you to see it that way.


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2021)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Uh huh


----------



## ding (May 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


100%


----------



## MisterBeale (Jun 17, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Deism: Belief in a creator, but said creator doesn't necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "God".


These are two articles you may find interesting. . . 

Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious​








						Some Scientists Believe the Universe Is Conscious
					

Sounds like a bad trip ... but what if it's true?




					www.popularmechanics.com
				




Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?​A new paper argues the condition now known as “dissociative identity disorder” might help us understand the fundamental nature of reality








						Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything?
					

A new paper argues the condition now known as “dissociative identity disorder” might help us understand the fundamental nature of reality




					blogs.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Ringtone (Jul 18, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I am referring to the belief in any gods whatsoever.  I do not recognize a difference in Pagan gods or the Abrahamic god


That's because you are unlearned, uninformed and thoughtless.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 19, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> That's because you are unlearned, uninformed and thoughtless.


No it's because the Abrahamic god is just one of the hundreds or even thousands of gods man has worshiped.

IMO man invented gods.  And that's a conclusion based on years of reading books on the history or religion, anthropology, sociology and philosophy.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> ... Agnosticism as I see it is akin to non-theism in that the existence of any gods is not affirmed but the possibility of the existence of gods is not denied but that gods if they exist are thought to be unknowable and that there is also the possibility that gods do not exist.  ...



First of all is a-theism and non-theism the same and second is no one seriosly discussing philosophically about "gods" in such a context - but only about "god". Indeed this are philosophically two totally different "things" or "subjects". If you like to know that Zeus lives not on the Olymp you have just simple to go to the Olymp and to search for Zeus there and you will not find him. On such reasons were many ancient Greek philosophers - and also the early Christians - often called "atheists".

The philosophy agnosticism (agnosticism is not a belief!) means something what's totally different. Agnosticism makes clear that as well the belief in god and the not-belief in god (=the belief in not-god) is a philosophically not decideable question. As far as I know it was the first time in history that a problem had not only the solutions "true" and "false" but also the solution "not-decideable".

Oh by the way - nearly I forgot to say what's very important in this context: Nevertheless we are not able to say god is existing and not existing the same time - what's not any problem for god himselve, because he's allmighty. But it's a problem for our use of logic. If we think a contradiction is true then everything is true. But it's for example not true that grass will say "moo". So I fear we still have to make a decision - about something what we are philosophically (=also scientifically) not able to decide. ¿Crazy world in which we live?  - Or just simple a wonderful creation from god?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 23, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> First of all is a-theism and non-theism the same and second is no one seriosly discussing philosophically about "gods" in such a context - but only about "god". Indeed this are philosophically two totally different "things" or "subjects". If you like to know that Zeus lives not on the Olymp you have just simple to go to the Olymp and to search for Zeus there and you will not find him. On such reasons were many ancient Greek philosophers - and also the early Christians - often called "atheists".
> 
> The philosophy agnosticism (agnosticism is not a belief!) means something what's totally different. Agnosticism makes clear that as well the belief in god and the not-belief in god (=the belief in not-god) is a philosophically not decideable question. As far as I know it was the first time in history that a problem had not only the solutions "true" and "false" but also the solution "not-decideable".
> 
> Oh by the way - nearly I forgot to say what's very important in this context: Nevertheless we are not able to say god is existing and not existing the same time - what's not any problem for god himselve, because he's allmighty. But it's a problem for our use of logic. If we think a contradiction is true then everything is true. But it's for example not true that grass will say "moo". So I fear we still have to make a decision - about something what we are philosophically (=also scientifically) not able to decide. ¿Crazy world in which we live?  - Or just simple a wonderful creation from god?


The god you worship is just one of the many gods humans have worshiped


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> The god you worship is just one of the many gods humans have worshiped



And how do you "know" this - specially if you think about that you are able to say the same about the beliefs of atheists (and all other beliefes)? If we are all wrong - who is right? You?

My belief in god has by the way a totally different background than the religious belief of Buddhists - but in the moral components we are very near together. Even the rule to love enemies exists in this religion. So if 2 totally different approaches with a totally different "methodology" delivers in the end a comparable result (similar rules for a happy life in harmony with god, his children and the whole living creation) then this is a great indicator for a common truth in the background of this backgrounds - isn't it?



PS: One basic rule is by the way "Everything what's not definetelly wrong is true."  So nothing becomes true or wrong because someone believes about something else it is true or wrong - independent whether it is true or wrong what he believes. ... More simple: If I calculate 2+3=6 in the mathematics of nodes and another one calculates a+b=a/b in the extended universal law about beauty, which corresponds to the Lorentz factor in the theory of relativity - why should not both be true?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> And how do you "know" this - specially if you think about that you are able to say the same about the beliefs of atheists (and all other beliefes)? If we are all wrong - who is right? You?
> 
> My belief in god has by the way a totally different background than the religious belief of Buddhists - but in the moral components we are very near together. Even the rule to love enemies exists in this religion. So if 2 totally different approaches with a totally different "methodology" delivers in the end a comparable result (similar rules for a happy life in harmony with god, his children and the whole living creation) then this is a great indicator for a common truth in the background of this backgrounds - isn't it?
> 
> ...


Anthropology.

Humans have worshiped gods their entire existence.

Humans invent gods to explain things they do not understand.  As our understanding of the natural word grew we discarded the gods we invented to explain the unknown.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Anthropology.



Anthropology? Whose anthropology? And what answer on what is this?



Blues Man said:


> Humans have worshiped gods their entire existence.



What do you mean by using the word "gods"?



Blues Man said:


> Humans invent gods to explain things they do not understand.



Aha - you think "gods" are explanations. In this view to the world we would pray today to the god of relativity and the god of quantum mechanics and so on. We would speak about how the god communisms forced the half world into his ban and how the god capitalism freed the world and so on and so on.



Blues Man said:


> As our understanding of the natural word grew we discarded the gods we invented to explain the unknown.



Who is "we"? You? And do you not think your belief "physics replaces spirituality" is only a little simple minded wrong view to natural science? In a similiar way how gods and god are different things are also believers in science and scientists two different things. The god of physics is "the experiment" and the spirituality of physics is called "mathematics". I don't think any physicist has a problem to understand this simple relation. To compare the words "god" and "experiment" drives no one nervous. Your way to think the world in your brain separates this world in two parts which are in reality not separated at all. Every member of every serios religion is able to be a natural scientist. The doctrine natural science has to follow only the spiritual belief or the church "atheisms" is as senseless as to say all bakers should be atheists or all taxi-drivers should be atheists and so on and so on.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 25, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Anthropology? Whose anthropology? And what answer on what is this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You obviously have a hard time with English.

We invented gods to explain things we didn't understand.

For example.

Rain gods
Thunder gods
Sun gods
Moon gods
Fertility gods

the list is long but as we came to actually know the causes of these things we stopped believing in those gods


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You obviously have a hard time with English.



No. You do not like to think. That's all.



Blues Man said:


> We invented gods to explain things we didn't understand.



Again: Who is "we"? You?



Blues Man said:


> For example.
> 
> Rain gods
> Thunder gods
> ...



That's how you classify gods - but that's not how the people in the past thought about Donar for example.



Blues Man said:


> the list is long but as we came to actually know the causes of these things we stopped believing in those gods



_Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge._
*CG Jung*


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> No. You do not like to think. That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We as humans throughout our history.

Like I said anthrpology









						Definition of ANTHROPOLOGY
					

the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture; theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




Definition of _anthropology_​
1*: *the science of human beingsespecially *: *the study of human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 26, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> We as humans throughout our history.



But you did not invent a god? For example the god atheism? Or a "spiritual" act like to burn three hairs and to dance around on a graveyard as for example Tom Sawyer did do?



Blues Man said:


> Like I said anthrpology
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Phrase for something what starts with biology and ends with culture. In general is your definition nothing else than what we study in universities and what has to do with human beings. Seems to me you love a kind of esoteric component, because no one is able to know everything about human beings starting from biology, psychology over sociology and history. Too big theme in one direction to know really something about all this themes in a qualified way - and too little on the other side to find the real complexity of life between the biggest universal structures up to the individual degrees of freedom of the spirit of a human mind.

And what for is "anthropology" your answer here? For human beings who don't need a religion? The anthroposophy from Rudolf Steiner is for example seen in France as a kind of dangerous brainwashing [pseudo-]religious sect. And to be honest: I see this the same way.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> But you did not invent a god? For example the god atheism? Or a "spiritual" act like to burn three hairs and to dance around on a graveyard as for example Tom Sawyer did do?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You believe in a god today because prehistoric humans invented the concept of gods to explain things they didn't understand and that belief became ingrained in every society.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 27, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You believe in a god today because prehistoric humans invented the concept of gods to explain things they didn't understand and that belief became ingrained in every society.



Aha. And now you are happy with this explanation ... ah sorry: with this god, which you invented now?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 27, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Aha. And now you are happy with this explanation ... ah sorry: with this god, which you invented now?


I don't worship any gods.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 27, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I don't worship any gods.



Sure. You only explain what you believe what's real. Others from your "we" invented gods - you don't do so - that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right. The only problem: You don't know what you try to speak about when _they_ (whoever they are) use the word "god", because you never studied anything about the anthropology of culture. You refer to things which you don't understand on your own.

*Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ... *(Gnṓthi seautón ...)
_*Know yourself ... and the god within you*_
was once witten over the entrance of the temple of the god Apollon in Delphi

In my own German language the word "know" here has two components: "wissen" und "erkennen". "Wissen" (to know) is a result of the process "erkennen" (and the English word "recognize" for erkennen is also not a good way to understand this word, because it refers to old things which still exist and not to new things (in German it would be "wiedererkennen").

We say "Erkenne" yourself - that's a process which never ends and always again creates new knowledge. The god within you is by the way not always the same god. God is always new. I fear it could be a little senile to think god has always to be an atheist. I would say we Christians are often naive - because we always hope for the best - but we are seldom senile (even if we are senile).


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 27, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Sure. You only explain what you believe what's real. Others from your "we" invented gods - you don't do so - that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right. The only problem: You don't know what you try to speak about when _they_ (whoever they are) use the word "god", because you never studied anything about the anthropology of culture. You refer to things which you don't understand on your own.
> 
> *Γνῶθι σεαυτόν ... *(Gnṓthi seautón ...)
> _*Know yourself ... and the god within you*_
> ...


I never said I was the only one who is right.

That's 100% your invention


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I never said I was the only one who is right.
> 
> That's 100% your invention



I never said so you are the only one who is right. But obviously you attack all people, who are not atheists = believers in atheism. A great worshipper of atheisms died by the way this days: Steven Weinberg. He said for example: _"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."_
Such sentences always sound extreme "wise" or "smart" - but in the end this is not a sentence about natural science - this only the religious dogma of a believer in atheism, who thinks atheism is the hightest step of evolution and all other believers are more primitive. Okay - the universe showed now how senseless it is by killing itself in Mr. Weinberg. Keeps the problem why Mr. Weinberg never stopped to try to find out senseful things about the senseless universe.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 28, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> I never said so you are the only one who is right. But obviously you attack all people, who are not atheists = believers in atheism. A great worshipper of atheisms died by the way this days: Steven Weinberg. He said for example: _"One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."_
> Such sentences always sound extreme "wise" or "smart" - but in the end this is not a sentence about natural science - this only the religious dogma of a believer in atheism, who thinks atheism is the hightest step of evolution and all other believers are more primitive. Okay - the universe showed now how senseless it is by killing itself in Mr. Weinberg. Keeps the problem why Mr. Weinberg never stopped to try to find out senseful things about the senseless universe.


You said and I quote

_that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right._


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> You said and I quote
> 
> _that's why they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right._



You degrade yourself to an idiot.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 28, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> It is wrong to use drugs. Drugs are dangerous for everyone.


No they're not.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> No they're not.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 28, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


>


How is caffeine dangerous to everyone?
Antibiotics?

 your bible says Jesus himself made a drug out of water


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> How is caffeine dangerous to everyone?



Caffeine is no drug. It makes no drug addicts.



Blues Man said:


> Antibiotics?



Antibiotics are a medicine.



Blues Man said:


> your bible says Jesus himself made a drug out of water



What doesn't mean everyone should be on a marriage every day and drink wine. Btw: Wine was in former times the only substance without dangerous bacteriae - what was specially for strangers and travellers very important. The people in a local area were adapated on the life in their water - but strangers had to calculate with 'the revenge of Montezuma' and more worse situations.
Since alcohol is distilled it became a clear drug. But also the immense masses of wine and beer - and also the high alcohol levels in beer and wine - today are a big problem. Also wine and beer are able to produce drug addicts - called "alcoholics" in this special case.

And I will not continue here to discuss about your problem with drugs. This problem will be solved in the reality and not in the virtuality. Either you will solve the problem and kill your drugs - or your drugs will kill you and everyone else whom you made to a drug addict. And perhaps additionally also many other human beings - for example in car accidents or on other reasons.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 28, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Coffein is no drug. It makes no drug addicts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Caffeine is a drug.

look it up.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 28, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Caffeine is a drug.



And tomatoes are fruits. Nevertheless no one throws tomatoes into a fruit salad. Caffeine is no mindmanipulating drug nor causes caffeine drug addicts.



Blues Man said:


> look it up.



No. That's totally unimportant.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 28, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> And tomatoes are fruits. Nevertheless no one throws tomatoes into a fruit salad. Caffeine is no mindmanipulating drug nor causes caffeine drug addicts.
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's totally unimportant.


I do.  In fact a tomato and watermelon salad is delicious.

The point that sailed right over your head is that not all drugs are bad


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 29, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I do.  In fact a tomato and watermelon salad is delicious.



Aha.



Blues Man said:


> The point that sailed right over your head is that not all drugs are bad



You are right: All drugs are bad. Wonderful that you do not tolerate yourselve to death.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 29, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Aha.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right: All drugs are bad. Wonderful that you do not tolerate yourselve to death.


Read what I said again

I said

NOT all drugs are bad


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 29, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Read what I said again
> 
> I said
> 
> NOT all drugs are bad



Tststststststs ... I'm convinced if you would fight for your self like the drugs in you fight for themselves - then you could have a chance.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 29, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Tststststststs ... I'm convinced if you would fight for your self like the drugs in you fight for themselves - then you could have a chance.


And I'm convinced you are unhinged


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 29, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And I'm convinced you are unhinged



You are convinced to have to say to me you are convinced I am unhinged because you are unhinged. Time for you to meet your self.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 29, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> You are convinced to have to say to me you are convinced I am unhinged because you are unhinged. Time for you to meet your self.


That's just a convoluted way of saying " I know you are but what am I?"

Grow up


----------



## zaangalewa (Jul 29, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> That's just a convoluted way of saying " I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> Grow up



I don't discuss with you about your problem with drugs any longer. Die with them - that's okay. But don't work for them, slave, and don't try to kill others with them or for them.


----------

