Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
That's how every god in human history has come into existence. You'll notice that as we progress and begin to find scientific explanations these gods are no longer worshipped. No mores sun gods, no more throwing virgins into volcanoes, because we now understand these things.It's the height of idiocy to suggest that, if someone can't explain with another reason, that it's all because of "God".
How silly.
Indeed. I personally am an example of one who can get waste energy focusing on the past and future events, when I knowingly life a fuller life focusing on the present. Missing out on being aware of one’s immediate environment is missing the most important aspect of life, like they say don’t miss the small stuff- it’s major; yet, it still requires a bit of effort for many who fill their minds with worrying about yesterday or fretting about tomorrow. Mediation is another way many enhance their connectedness with nature and mindfulness.Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
Ahhhh.... the power of now.Indeed. I personally am an example of one who can get waste energy focusing on the past and future events, when I knowingly life a fuller life focusing on the present. Missing out on being aware of one’s immediate environment is missing the most important aspect of life, like they say don’t miss the small stuff- it’s major; yet, it still requires a bit of effort for many who fill their minds with worrying about yesterday or fretting about tomorrow. Mediation is another way many enhance their connectedness with nature and mindfulness.Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
You also need to consider that when someone suggests that their reason is "scientific" and not a matter of faith...It's the height of idiocy to suggest that, if someone can't explain with another reason, that it's all because of "God".
How silly.
Just try getting a Christian to acknowledge that something other than their idea of their Christian God could've done it, and they lose their shit.
Enjoy your faith. But, remember, it's called "faith" for a reason...
In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
Here is a self-labeled atheist’s take that is worth a read. His blog contains various engaging topics, but I found this one particularly insightful regarding how modern ancient humans fared comparing a “always kind tribe”, a “circumstantial kind tribe”, and a “hostile tribe”. Just posting about it makes me want to reread it now as I’ve forgotten some of details of this thought-provoking piece- The Story of UsI agree with much of what you said except #4. Morals are a human concept, but instead of enslaving others, I think they might be inherent in human nature and were the result of recognition of what works best in a society. People don't always behave morally, but most can recognize what the moral choice is. Religion certainly isn't necessary for morality to exist..1. What PROOF do you have that there was NOTHING before this supposed "beginning"?
Scientists THEORIZE, they don't state theories as FACT. If they do, they are CHARLATANS!
The fact that this idiot is taking science OUT of the context of theory, shows he knows NOTHING about what he's spewing!!
2. Design originates from the science fact, that when a DNA combines with other DNA, it produces a pattern that has been used previously, like a living copy machine. As far as the universe is concerned, it was shaped from star explosions, planet and sun gravity, and numerous other scientific works. To think that everything is based on a "supernatural" entity is ludicrous and nothing more than a crutch for refusing to see reality, and spreading more lies.
3. Life. Wow, this guy is delusional to the point of needing to be put in a rubber room!
Life evolved from chemicals that settled on this rock from meteors and other fragments, starting a chain reaction of embryonic proportions.
4. Morals are a human concept. There is nothing extraterrestrial about them. Just as what is "right" and what is "wrong" are human concepts, created by humans to enslave other humans to the will of those in charge. Just like the fantasy story you call the Bible!
5. Atheism is NOT based on materialism, but Catholicism is!!! Free will is a another human concept that really can only exist if there are NO laws and no one in power to maintain a particular thought or agenda in human society. Since humans have created laws and agendas for society to live by, there can be NO free will.
6. Reasoning is only a side effect of language and society being used to create and help society, and its members, make decisions without beating each other over the head with sticks.
This guy is basically saying, that some phantom somewhere, hiding in plain sight, has his puppet strings attached to everything in the universe, all puppeting everything all at once.
This jerk is taking it upon himself to act like the universal reservoir of ultimate knowledge!
He's GOT to be a Democrat.......thinking he knows EVERYTHING there is to know about EVERYTHING!!!
Society DEMANDS that this lunatic be locked up for our safety!!
Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't the 100% objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
We've been over this before.By virtue of the First Law of Thermodynamics ENERGY has no beginning or end. You have NO knowledge if the SLoT.By virtue of the second law of thermodynamics matter and energy must have a beginning.
Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan AykroydOk, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.
So, after all that BULLSHIT, you never addressed the "symbolism" of the house of David and Lucifer.The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.I am the offspring of Lucifer. (Rev 22:16)I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35)
I am the Light of the World (John 8:12)
I am the Door (John 10:9)
I am the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25)
I am the Way and the Truth and the Life (John 14:6)
I am the Vine (John 15:1,5)
Rev 22: 16 I, Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
KJV - Lucifer 1; 1
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.
This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christ’s universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13–16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1–8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israel’s tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9–10; 18:1–19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.
The lurid descriptions of the punishment of Jezebel (Rev 2:22) and of the destruction of the great harlot, Babylon (Rev 16:9–19:2), are likewise literary devices. The metaphor of Babylon as harlot would be wrongly construed if interpreted literally. On the other hand, the stylized figure of the woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1–6), depicting the New Israel, may seem to be a negative stereotype. It is necessary to look beyond the literal meaning to see that these images mean to convey a sense of God’s wrath at sin in the former case and trust in God’s providential care over the church in the latter.
The Book of Revelation cannot be adequately understood except against the historical background that occasioned its writing. Like Daniel and other apocalypses, it was composed as resistance literature to meet a crisis. The book itself suggests that the crisis was ruthless persecution of the early church by the Roman authorities; the harlot Babylon symbolizes pagan Rome, the city on seven hills (Rev 17:9). The book is, then, an exhortation and admonition to Christians of the first century to stand firm in the faith and to avoid compromise with paganism, despite the threat of adversity and martyrdom; they are to await patiently the fulfillment of God’s mighty promises. The triumph of God in the world of men and women remains a mystery, to be accepted in faith and longed for in hope. It is a triumph that unfolded in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and continues to unfold in the history of the individual Christian who follows the way of the cross, even, if necessary, to a martyr’s death.
Though the perspective is eschatological—ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the parousia—the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over. Christ’s overwhelming defeat of the kingdom of Satan ushered in the everlasting reign of God (Rev 11:15; 12:10). Even the forces of evil unwittingly carry out the divine plan (Rev 17:17), for God is the sovereign Lord of history.
The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis, but it remains valid and meaningful for Christians of all time. In the face of apparently insuperable evil, either from within or from without, all Christians are called to trust in Jesus’ promise, “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). Those who remain steadfast in their faith and confidence in the risen Lord need have no fear. Suffering, persecution, even death by martyrdom, though remaining impenetrable mysteries of evil, do not comprise an absurd dead end. No matter what adversity or sacrifice Christians may endure, they will in the end triumph over Satan and his forces because of their fidelity to Christ the victor. This is the enduring message of the book; it is a message of hope and consolation and challenge for all who dare to believe.
The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4–3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.
Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan AykroydOk, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrongI'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say noOk let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?Yes pleaseThat belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholderWhat you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the sameNo. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?That it can impede our ability to see reality.In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.
If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?
Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.
But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.
You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?
