I'm hoping some of you will be willing to read through an email I had from an old friend and give me some advice or suggestions. Should I proceed or am I wasting my time. It's actually a "round two" of an exchange we had over a year ago.  It started up again due to my friend trying to turn me on to the movie "thrive", I wrote that he should read a critical analysis of the movie (debunking) before he dedicates his whole life to it, and he got defensive.    Thanks:


my point that i've made in the past , (which again is just a fundamental disagreement between you and i ) is that i believe that everything is subjective... there is no such thing as pure objectivity... everything, to thee most subtle level, is based upon an inkling that is subjective... 
i don't understand your examples of stuff we've talked about in the past : 
using time to prove that impericism does not exist.... what? please explain what you mean by this... don't recall ever getting into debating if "time" exists because it's made up... all that we have is now... the eternal nowness... 
using words to prove words do not exist.... never said that... 
sorry, i don't recall ever having made those claims... in fact, i think i've argued that words are actually all we have, or something to the effect that "the universe is made of words" Terrence McKenna's quote not mine : ) 
finally,  "debunking"  something , to me, only means that one can then simply debunk the debunker... and unless it's done right in front of me, and then again, with a slight of hand , the debunking chain can just go round and round.. 
i do "know" this... that whatever i choose to believe in, is my "reality" ... and the stronger the belief, the stronger my "reality" is... belief is EVERYTHING... and the more there is {ie. people in agreement, hence forth creating a "belief system ")  then the stronger or seemingly more "real" or "infallible " or "irrefutable" that belief system is... we are making this all up... everything is made up... even so called "laws" like "gravity" etc... what if every single person on the planet, all at the exact same moment , stopped believing in this thing called "gravity" for, say 1 hour... i say we would all be floating... yep... that's what i believe... 
and this isn't even getting into the whole "ego" vrs "non ego" arguments! 
i know this because at my absolute deepest bedrock core, i believe {know} that life is not linear... i come from a very old lineage of human beings who have called themselves, in addition to many monikers ... a "mystic." 
what exactly does a mystic know? this : 
a mystic is someone who believes in existence  beyond human comprehension; someone who values inner spiritual experience rather than relying on external "authorities" or "scripture." The mystic knows that there is direct access to limitless information, wisdom, possibilities and has direct access to taping into the field of infinite possibilities.



Views: 470

Replies to This Discussion

This guy wants to believe as he pleases ... and yet he's relying on so many bedrock scientific principles that it is laughable, from the gravity which is holding him in his seat to those of semiconductor physics which allow his computer to work and for the two of you to have that conversation, and too many others to count. He can delude himself into any belief system he wants. Such won't change how the world works. Or, stated alternatively:

You have a right to your own opinions, but you do not have a right to your own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynahan

This is my favorite quote:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Aldous Huxley


"i do "know" this... that whatever i choose to believe in, is my "reality" ... and the stronger the belief, the stronger my "reality" is"


Reality is independent of what people might believe or not. If he seriously believes that he can create reality by his beliefs, then I would challenge him to never take a door to exit a building, but a 2nd story window. 

Also, if gravity doesn't exist then that basically means that there is no Earth, no solar system, no moon, in fact it would be a universe unrecognizable to us. 


Basically his whole argument seems to come down to some very silly assumptions and there are some hidden bits and pieces of arrogance in his text as well. How arrogant and self centered does one have to be to believe that the laws of nature are somehow dependent on the structure of the mind and not vice versa?


I personally think that as long as he believes that he is entitled to his own set of facts there is no real reason to even discuss these kind of matters with him. He seems to have found his "truth" and hold dearly to this truth for emotional reasons, as such you cannot pry his eyes open to reality without shattering the precious dream that he build inside his head. 


I'd say it's time to give up.


I guess, if you're really a masochist, you could go the route of demanding demonstrations.  Objective reality works.  It's demonstrable.  If he claims he can do all of this stuff, or that some people can, demand that he demonstrate that it works.

You're working with reality.  He's working with reality+.  He needs to demonstrate the +.

It would be interesting to ask him to demonstrate a tangible example of how his reality is different then yours. I think he is too far gone to reason with. I hope he is not a flying buddy or rock climbing partner.

"I hope he is not a flying buddy or rock climbing partner." 


"Hey dude, if we believe it we can fly, you know!?" 



Hmmm... I feel like I should have made a joke including a R. Kelly reference, I'm sure people would've pissed themselves.

Thanks for replying everyone.  For the sake of efficiency I did not post our whole exchange.  I just thought this email is the meat of his idea.  So it may not be clear that I chose one thing to hammer on, which is; if this belief structure that constructs all our senses can validate is reliant on an progression of generations of belief then it is reliant on time.  So I basically told him his idea that time is an illusion is reliant on time.  

He came back with this (notice he uses the word EVOLVED then goes on to write that he could construct a sound "logic").  It's like he wants to challenge my point and then goes and does the same silly again:


about time... which is , very simply... i believe time is  "made up"  of course... {like everything else} : ) so i choose to participate in this man made idea, project called "time" ... otherwise, life on this plane, in this "civilization" in society, in "the world" would be extremely challenging... but that's all it is... made up... what i like better or what feels better is the notion of eternity... or just "nowness"  i like that concept alot... all just ideas... beliefs, agreements...

i'd also like to say that what i choose to believe in evolves... so it's ALWAYS subject to change... and is so because that to me, means it is very much alive, vibrant, and not dogmatic and dead... yes i am talking about my own personal "cosmology" but do have points about things outside of that..
i think with enough practice, effort, and persistence, i could make something  "illogical" and turn into some kind of infallible logical system... some kind of system that has the inevitability of "proof" .... isn't that what  Logic does ? ... and it's great for alot of things... but it's a fraction, a part of many different ways of thinking , which are all "real" or "valid" or basically work. To me, that's where the problem lies.... So much of the world only believes in Logic and "rationality" to answer every question there is... and Logic and "rationality" only has part of the answer... that's why i am so passionate about this subject matter... it's really about "whole brain" thinking... ie left brain logic married with right brain creativity and intuition... 
alot of what i'm talking about is similar to the "alchemical" process, both literally and figuratively ... 
i can understand though your attraction to logic and rationality, because of it's self professed "soundness" ....it's perfection... like math... 
i'm just not, BUT... i do think our arguments are getting a little confused, particularly with referencing things we've said a year ago, { or "nowness" hanging upside down... whoaaaa : ) 
finally.... the only illusion i "know" of is the one of everything and everyone as being separate from one another... oh, and anything that is not LOVE, is an illusion...
i've been studying "a course in miracles" for awhile, which teaches that anything that is not "God" or love, is an illusion...because "God" is perfection... whole, complete, so anything that is not, is not God, and since everything is God, whatever is not, is an illusion...



What I mean is using EVOLVED shows that his idea is reliant on time... again.  So do you think I should point this out to him or leave him be, he is a nice guy.

Keep him as a friend. Find another topic to discuss with him.

Yes, I think your right.  Our friendship will never be the same since there will be a "don't go there" area.  But that's life, have to grow up and accept people change.  Next time he tries to get me to see "thrive" I'm just going to write, "okay" and screw it.  




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service