• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Endangered-EGO

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,315 profile views
  1. @Wilhelm No. It becomes empty of everything. There's no difference between a rock and a human. No-self=no-other=no-consciousness. Soulless robots is more accurate because it's really dramatic.
  2. @Fearless_Bum It's not fear, it's aversion. There can be huge amounts of suffering without any fear.
  3. @Patok95 Of you need medication then take it. You need to be pragmatic. Most people who take antipsychotics tske them because of the dissociation. If those medication have sode effects you don't want, then ask for different ones. Enlightenment isn't something to attain. No amount of medication can change anything for the better or for the worse. It's all about the development of attention.
  4. @Leo Gura In contrast to Chris Langans complicated jargon, what do you think about Jim Newmans "explanation". Basically: "This happening is a 100% mysterious, unknowable, absolute unconditional freedom and unconditional love". And:" There's nobody to know that, it's just what IS" Is that what it comes to in the end. And paradoxes, ToEs, self inquiry just destroys every method, system and path that's in the way of the realisation of the mystery of existence or God?. (Basically what jim newman says)
  5. @omar30 Yes, BUT: Also God wants to be punished, being lynched to death from the mob for raping a child. So be careful. Freedom for pleasure AND freedom for consequences. Just assume that a book doesn't have the same effect if you don't pay for it. You're not gonna be tortured if you download a book illegally. It just wouldn't have the same effect.
  6. @Leo Gura I obviously have to be against what Lagan says, because if being against existence is "evil" and giving the circumstances I have been dealt. No fucking way I am "evil". Dawkins needing to beg for forgiveness until God shows up again. Wtf. All of that sophisticated language and phylosophical jargon to end up supporting someone who's vocabulary doesn't go beyond "very badly" is pretty astonishing. @Leo Gura Can you point out the worst thing he claims in his CTMU? I lack the understanding of the phylosophical language he uses. I barely understand anything he says to contradict him. I just know he doesn't give an answer to the paradoxes he claims to have solved.
  7. @AdroseAkise I'm not gonna take this out of context. I know how easy that would be. @Carl-Richard No man, he's obviously going to purgatory. Unless he's like putting other people through unnecessary suffering.
  8. @JuliusCaesar tbh I believe I have experienced hell more often than heaven or purgatory. This existence for me is more hell (unnecessary suffering) than purgatory (cleansing suffering) or even heaven (being aligned with God) I can't believe a lot of people have experienced the intensity of suffering I have been through. A lot do though. This existence isn't a test run. It's more like a maze.
  9. @Carl-Richard I'm also more of a consequentialism oriented person. However I may have contributed indirectly to a person's death then by getting into a fight with them. So I partially caused that persons death by acting the best way I knew back then? What if that person's death prevented more bad stuff from happening because that person was eliminated from his karmic negativity? I think it's not quantifiable or we're simply as a species not intelligent enough to be able to make that calculation. So consequentialism is for an infinitely intelligent being. Deontology is for our limited capacities. In the end there's just nobody who can make the right choices and we know what the road to hell is paved of.
  10. @UnbornTao what's his facebook group? If I understood enough abouth ontology and logic I might be able to have an opinion about it. I can't agree or disagree with him, I'm just very suspicious about his stance.
  11. There's consequentialism and there's deontology. Consequentialism: results matter. If it causes more good it's good. Deontology: the act of stealing property. Which is bad. Now if you want to be mathematical like me, the the consequentialist good is bigger than the deontological bad, you have positive karma. Or a karma debt. However it's not quantifiable and it's way more tricky than that if everything is seen as a system. Spread "good" and break the chain of "bad" and it's okay. If you don't want to steal intellectual property, especially with spiritual books: Just contact the author they'll send you a free copy. Their main goal isn't to make money out of it.
  12. @Leo Gura He calls "against existence" evil. I would say that there's no such thing as being against existence. But he sounded pretty sure. Maybe he's just hurt by what people did to him, idk. Nomatter what, Chris langan creeps me out. If he's right I'm terrified. If he's wrong I'm relieved. But how could anyone, be against God, if god is calling. I guess that's how the church brainwashed and fear mongered people for the last centuries.
  13. Easy question. How do I align my illusory free will, with god's will? I've read in a book "conversation with god" that it's always the highest, most loving thought that should be followed. Any other maps/ideas?
  14. From ToE with Curt Jaimungal. He literally said that Richard Dawkins would go to hell once he dies. This Guy is obviously more intelligent than me, but fuck me. Chris Langan is so confident in his CTMU, that he just casually claims how Dawkins is gonna go to hell for being a petty arrogant materialist atheist. And for being against "existence', which is "evil". I only have my intuition to say that, but something is either really wrong with chris langan, or I'm fucking terrified that what he said might be true... Unfortunately I only understand about half of his theory, and I'll probably need a few years to understand it entirely. But damn I wish he's wrong to a certain extent.
  15. If the player is god and the game is fueled by "god's will" that's of course outside of our control, then we fully agree with each other's position.