AtheisticNonduality

@JoeVolcano Space and time exist, otherwise you would not be arguing about the nature of space and time; therein your "arguments" are self-refutations. Nothingness and Everythingness are ultimate, and the contents of Everythingness are impermanent of course. But they are only illusionary in the sense that there's nothing outside of Consciousness; they actually exist. If you say something is an illusion, you're saying it is, so you're contradicting yourself by one sense of the word. Movement is real; spatial fields are real; the passage of time is a true phenomenon; the human mind exists, the objective systems studied by science too. This is all undeniable, and you are conflating things through what Leo calls devilry. Best

A. Did you post that 33 minutes ago? Or is that just an illusion? B. Please consult the Solipsism Masturbatorium, which disproves your entire worldview.

No, I'm telling you the evolutionary process is a pyramid based on death. There is no reason to believe in a mythical God. There is reason to believe in the cosmos morphing into higher forms, which does occur. What epistemically separates them is that one is more based in foundational principles of reality's patterns that we have access to, whereas the former is just a superstition. If we admit the existence of time (and don't insist on its illusion) then it is sensible for more complex forms (life and especially higher life) to have been put together by lower constituents (the realm of matter, which over vast timescales can do much more than what we can observe, so of course this is all deduction until "the interstitials are found" since it is not "in our direct experience". But the faculty of reason is suitable for this.) Or we could point out the absurdity of a place and entities that come fully-formed with no history whatsoever, because the world we're in is made of time.

@JuliusCaesar You see, I don't know if you know this, but all those interstitials are fucking dead; therefore, their non-appearance is because of their fucking death and not their nonexistence in the first place. And what's the alternative you propose to macroevolution---spontaneous emergence, God-creation, panspermia? Also, we did not evolve from any "monkey" species that are alive today: we only share a common ancestor, which is very dead. But that doesn't matter much, since we are humans as only humans; our origins don't affect our identity (we should have long ago gotten away from the concept of a mythical creator deity, though we are always constantly created by the real God in the present moment). So, the reason we should care about evolutionary patterns is understanding how forms change, from simplicities to complexities as the upward movement courses. @JoeVolcano Abiogenesis is something deducible from what we know about reality, that is, the illusory Maya "lie" reality of relatives and objects that you cry about. Cheers.

Pedestrians decapitated as a routine.

@Mason Riggle If we want to "spiritually bypass" we'll just end up with solipsism. This moment, this cluster of sensations in the space of my awareness timelessly here, is all that is real, and all else is delusion or something which simply can't be known. That doesn't just render the unconsciousness vs. consciousness distinction obsolete. In fact, it makes all of this forum strange because it's just self-communication, a single moment held together by only you, or at least that is how solipsism presents itself.

He is talking under our feet.

@Carl-Richard Ban him.

No

Rocks, as inanimate beings, are not conscious, even if they are only graspable by the cosmic Consciousness. Things of your unconscious psyche are not conscious, though they are under the care of the overarching Consciousness we call Existence. Not all things are reducible to consciousness, and yet they are still Conscious. Despite many states and a duality between unconsciousness and consciousness, between unknown and unseen and known and seen, all things are the same as an ontological fabric of phenomena we ascribe the phrase Consciousness, in this specific context. It's totally apparent this is a semantic issue, rooted in the naive skepticism Carl is against.

Rocks are not conscious. Things of your unconscious are not conscious. Not all things are reducible to consciousness. But all things are the same as Consciousness. It's totally apparent this is a semantic issue, rooted in the naive skepticism Carl is against.

??????

I would ask @electroBeam since he's done it successfully multiple times, although he doesn't seem very active.

@JoeVolcano Smoke less crack.

This is a major "red flag." This is not just Emptiness = Form or Unmanifest = Manifest. This is an actual structural change or development to formations. Enlightenment thousands of years ago is not the same as Enlightenment today. The Nothingness cannot change, but the Everythingness certainly can. Ascent being primary causally, as a catalyst, does not reduce the effectuality of redescent.

@SQAAD Probably the greatest merger between Darwinism and intelligent (self-)design would be Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

@JarretFold I don't agree with your taste here!

I know! Even Leo visited his profile.

It's like the "Boston Strong" phrase from after the marathon bombing. It's a statement of camaraderie over a shared event of national history, like watching thousands of people get murdered on live TV.

Sit laus Domino Leoni, hujus culti sapientissimo conditori.

The only reasonable criticism of "transgenderism" I can see is that there is a serious difference between a woman that was raised as a girl in a society that treats her a certain way and who's gone through all the biological experiences of being women like menstruation and living in a female body that is at risk of objectification and, on the other hand, a trans woman that would be raised as a male in a society some might view as still male-dominated, would have all of the experiences of a male, all the biology of a male, and then have a decision to adopt certain feminine traits (like stereotypical female appearance and feminine behavior and identification with being a woman). This could be seen as something completely different and detached from the biological women to the point where it has to be its own category. And then on the other hand, because society is moving toward greater freedom, why couldn't someone be a woman if they wanted to be, or if they really were on a mental or "spiritual" level? Any reduction of that to mental illness or lack of self-acceptance is ignorant to the point of stupidity. Being that free-minded is not mental illness; it's hyper-sanity. It's not lack of self-acceptance; it's complete self-acceptance to where they have to be themselves even in a society that would not approve. Something like self-definition to the degree of having "the wrong chromosomes" while still becoming and acting as a woman is a pure level of independent thought, in some way.

@rnd I know a few people that died from the little flue. How do you model that in your view? I do not know anyone who experienced harm from the inoculation against the virus, the virus which has killed over a million people in the US alone. @Leo Gura Don't lock the thread. Give him some time.

@Someone here Socrates had an inner voice that guided him.

You've probably heard of Socrates' daemon. Perhaps that is the "schizophrenia" here.