The Curious Brainwashing Case of ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Seems like a slight abdication of responsbility there. To know about all the world's problems, and not even feel slightly compelled to do one's part to alleviate the suffering... seems callous.

Not quite. You jumped to a few assumptions in a row there. #1- who's to say anyone is responsible and who is to say that a state of true happiness feels no responsibilty?
#2- who's to say the awakened person is not compelled to do his part?
#3) - Who's to say that suffering needs to be alleviated? Or that it isn't?
#4) Callous? Is nature callous when a tornado destroys property and kills humans?
Is a tiger callous when he pounces on his prey for his cubs dinner?
#5 If a person is unhappy and troubled or disgusted or angry or vengeful when he goes out in help of others - "to alleviate suffering"...whom is he helping? The people he wants to help - or is he just responding to his programming to alleviate the guilt that his computer (brain) is generating? Is he going out to help others while he is sleepwalking? Then what good would he be if he is just doing it out of a neurotic desire to obey his computer who is telling him he must have "negative" emotions whenever the problem of evil presents itself?

Mysteries? Questions? Reality? Programming?

Yes.

How would you define "perfect"? A mother miscarrying a baby doesn't involve any brainwashing, but I wouldn't say it's perfect. A child that dies at a young age isn't perfect. An old man who suffers painfully into his advanced years isn't perfect.

---

If one was programmed from birth to believe that we should all have healthy lives and live a long happy life without suffering - yes it would certainly be a tragedy. If one was not programmed or re-programmed himself to be in touch with reality - these things would just be a normal part of reality.

Who is crazier or calloused - the person who suffers when faced with reality?

Or

The awakened who is in touch with reality and realizes that reality is reality and adding our opinion of it -is irrelevant?

Pick one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Not quite. You jumped to a few assumptions in a row there. #1- who's to say anyone is responsible and who is to say that a state of true happiness feels no responsibilty?

---

You yourself said the problem is humans, and that reality is perfect. If reality is perfect, that assumes that humans are the problem. If humans are the problem, then fixing that problem would make it their responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

#2- who's to say the awakened person is not compelled to do his part?

---

He might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

#3) - Who's to say that suffering needs to be alleviated? Or that it isn't?

---

Usually, it's considered a good thing to alleviate suffering. I guess someone could choose to do nothing, and stay "happy", but I certainly couldn't. Then again, I am more of an existentialist (the Sartre sort).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

#4) Callous? Is nature callous when a tornado destroys property and kills humans?

---

Nature is unthinking. But I would say it is callous not to help your fellow man if you have the capacity to do so without putting an undue strain on yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

#5 If a person is unhappy and troubled or disgusted or angry or vengeful when he goes out in help of others - "to alleviate suffering"...whom is he helping? The people he wants to help - or is he just responding to his programming to alleviate the guilt that his computer (brain) is generating? Is he going out to help others while he is sleepwalking? Then what good would he be if he is just doing it out of a neurotic desire to obey his computer who is telling him he must have "negative" emotions whenever the problem of evil presents itself?

---

Actually an interesting question. Some could argue that they are merely helping in order to make themself feel better. But I don't think that sort of "selfishness" is a bad thing. If people are hardwired to get good feelings from helping others, that's a bonus. And again, you are assuming brainwashing. I can tell you that my parents certainly didn't raise me as an existentialist; that's something I read on my own, and it felt "right" to me. Now you could argue that it felt "right" due to brainwashing, but then you get to a state where every person's actions are out of their control and are merely in reaction to the original "first movement", which eliminates any sort of free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

If one was programmed from birth to believe that we should all have healthy lives and live a long happy life without suffering - yes it would certainly be a tragedy. If one was not programmed or re-programmed himself to be in touch with reality - these things would just be a normal part of reality.

---

Just because things are a part of reality doesn't mean they aren't tragic. Should the mother who recognizes that death is a part of life not grieve her son?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Who is crazier or calloused - the person who suffers when faced with reality?

Or

The awakened who is in touch with reality and realizes that reality is reality and adding our opinion of it -is irrelevant?

Pick one.

---

The second is certainly more calloused. Humanity has emotions; if you don't have emotions you're not human. And it's obviously not irrelevant since how we react to situations determines multiple fates. Even your supposed mystic will have opinions. For instance, does your mystic like the taste of chicken more, or beef? Which is the "true" reality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

Yawn. The idiot cultist again claims that the God claim is exempt from the burden proof without proving why.

---

Here is some truth for you to ponder;


Neither one of us (you and I) has been in 100% contact with reality since we were infants.

Neither one of us has ever seen what this "god" is. Neither one of us has witnessed anyone prove that "god" does not exist.

Your programming tells you that evidence is needed only on one side and that only one side has what someone "programmed" you to believe - which is called the "burden of proof."

You were programmed to accept this without question because the programmers had "titles" and "credentials" which they were programmed to believe - were necessary - and they accepted THAT programming without question. (still with me?)

I received the same programming...then I said...ok...smarty pants, "so prove there is NOT a god"

They couldn't. So they lost credibility with me. They were no different than the people who "claimed" there is a god. No different.

You blindly accepted that because these sleeping scientists had titles that they actually had some kind of monopoly on truth. They didn't. They don't.
They can write that formula into the curriculum. They can award people titles when they complete that curriculum. They can shove that formula deep in your asshole the way they did and they can shove it down your throat the way they did. It still wouldn't make it true. They still wouldn't know what truth is-just because they "labeled it -refuting the truth"

Either way both you and I would still not be in direct contact with reality.


The idiot here would be probably both of us.

Me, for trying to open your eyes to your programming that you refuse to acknowledge...

You, for calling someone an idiot who is trying to alert you to your programming which you deny.

Seriously, the only think I'm picking up is SBM's need to feel superior in some way over other people. Doesn't come of as happy in any way whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Here is some truth for you to ponder;


Neither one of us (you and I) has been in 100% contact with reality since we were infants.

Neither one of us has ever seen what this "god" is. Neither one of us has witnessed anyone prove that "god" does not exist.

Your programming tells you that evidence is needed only on one side and that only one side has what someone "programmed" you to believe - which is called the "burden of proof."

You were programmed to accept this without question because the programmers had "titles" and "credentials" which they were programmed to believe - were necessary - and they accepted THAT programming without question. (still with me?)

I received the same programming...then I said...ok...smarty pants, "so prove there is NOT a god"

They couldn't. So they lost credibility with me. They were no different than the people who "claimed" there is a god. No different.

You blindly accepted that because these sleeping scientists had titles that they actually had some kind of monopoly on truth. They didn't. They don't.
They can write that formula into the curriculum. They can award people titles when they complete that curriculum. They can shove that formula deep in your asshole the way they did and they can shove it down your throat the way they did. It still wouldn't make it true. They still wouldn't know what truth is-just because they "labeled it -refuting the truth"

Either way both you and I would still not be in direct contact with reality.


The idiot here would be probably both of us.

Me, for trying to open your eyes to your programming that you refuse to acknowledge...

You, for calling someone an idiot who is trying to alert you to your programming which you deny.

---

All this typing just to shift the burden of proof.

The one making the claim has the burden of proof. Saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist," is absolutely pointless, because it does nothing to support the claim that God exists.

For the claim to be believable, there must be sufficient evidence. Lack of evidence contradicting it is not, in itself, evidence for it. That's actually a logical fallacy.

If you actually spent time reading about this simple concept instead of making up cultist nonsense, you wouldn't come off as ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Seriously, the only think I'm picking up is SBM's need to feel superior in some way over other people. Doesn't come of as happy in any way whatsoever.

---

His pure state of enlightened happiness is what got him banned by unhappy mods, imo.

Quote:

---

You blindly accepted that because these sleeping scientists had titles that they actually had some kind of monopoly on truth. They didn't. They don't.
They can write that formula into the curriculum. They can award people titles when they complete that curriculum. They can shove that formula deep in your asshole the way they did and they can shove it down your throat the way they did. It still wouldn't make it true. They still wouldn't know what truth is-just because they "labeled it -refuting the truth"

---

Actually, it's just a case of simple logic. To claim the positivity of something, you need to prove it. Now, if someone said, "There IS no god", then you could ask him to prove that statement. If someone said, "The (Judeo-Christian) God you've described doesn't exist, according to logic", then he would need to show how the logic breaks down.

If you were to answer in response, "God doesn't follow logic", then it's a pointless argument. (Of course, he could ask you how you could possibly know that, but that's another argument.)

Again, to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can you prove he doesn't exist? I doubt you can. But that doesn't mean we should start wondering if he's actually out there, or treating that option seriously.

Silverblk, just curious, how deprogrammed do you think you are? As a %? And then what % do you think the average person is deprogrammed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Seriously, the only think I'm picking up is SBM's need to feel superior in some way over other people. Doesn't come of as happy in any way whatsoever.

---

Ok. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Here is some truth for you to ponder;


Neither one of us (you and I) has been in 100% contact with reality since we were infants.

---

Even if that made sense, you couldn't prove that to be a truth.

Quote:

---

I received the same programming...then I said...ok...smarty pants, "so prove there is NOT a god"

They couldn't. So they lost credibility with me. They were no different than the people who "claimed" there is a god. No different.

---

Actually they are completely different.

Not sure you will ever not be blind to the logic as to why. Use det Ipad and google it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Ok. Thanks.

---

You're welcome.

No one that snarky and sarcastic could possibly be truly, blissfully happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

All this typing just to shift the burden of proof.

The one making the claim has the burden of proof.

According to your programming -yes. According to reality - not even close.



Saying "you can't prove that God doesn't exist," is absolutely pointless, because it does nothing to support the claim that God exists.

See above.

For the claim to be believable, there must be sufficient evidence. Lack of evidence contradicting it is not, in itself, evidence for it. That's actually a logical fallacy.


See above.

If you actually spent time reading about this simple concept instead of making up cultist nonsense, you wouldn't come off as ignorant.

---

You missed the part where I went through the same brainwashing class. Difference is I saw through it- eventually.


But we can save a lot of wasted time here;

If in thousands of years no one has satisfied your neurotic need to have someone satisfy your "conventional" requirements - of proving or disproving this mystery...then it won't ever be satisfied on a message board.

Sorry.

Stay programmed, my friend!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

I forgot to add;

You must have missed those threads here at Spurstalk - the ones where someone asks , "what is your major?"

and it turns into a bashfest because some people are superior because their "label" or "title" will earn them more money than those they are bashing...

their "programming" didn't tell them that money would make them "superior" and "happier" than those they were bashing...they weren't brainwashed into thinking that their chosen field made them "superior" to other "less reputable" fields....

I guess I am misinformed here.

---

If you felt inferior in that thread, that's on you and your thin skin, pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

His pure state of enlightened happiness is what got him banned by unhappy mods, imo.

---

This seems really important to you for some strange reason.

It takes all kinds....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You're welcome.

No one that snarky and sarcastic could possibly be truly, blissfully happy.

---

lol

:lol "according to reality"

According to reality, the same thing is true. A claim being poorly supported in theory will also be poorly supported in reality.

You are a true moron. You make up complete bullshit about enlightenment, perfection, etc., and have shown that you lack the most basic logical reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Even if that made sense, you couldn't prove that to be a truth.



Actually they are completely different.

Not sure you will ever not be blind to the logic as to why. Use det Ipad and google it.

---

lol

the ipad alert was so that any typos would be forgiven....didn't specify but if you've used one you'll understand how tricky it can be to type accurately...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

:lol "according to reality"

According to reality, the same thing is true. A claim being poorly supported in theory will also be poorly supported in reality.

Yes, a reality that you haven't been in direct contact with most of your life...ok. A reality you kn nothing of - and yet - you want to debate it.

You are a true moron. You make up complete bullshit about enlightenment, perfection, etc., and have shown that you lack the most basic logical reasoning.

---

When truth is elusive - resort to name-calling. I missed that brainwashing class.

It is entirely possible that people are better than you are at typing on iPads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It is entirely possible that people are better than you are at typing on iPads.

---

Not possible -probable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

When truth is elusive - resort to name-calling. I missed that brainwashing class.

---

Since you have been calling everyone in this thread brainwashed, you're showing your hypocrisy more and more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

So now you are bashing ME because I re-programmed myself in ways that you haven't arrived yet and are still brainwashed by. So now you are bashing someone who is ahead of you on the re-programming ladder.

And I am the hypocrite in this scenario.

Got it.

Thanks.

---

Roflmao. The enlightened condescending is awesome.

Don't ever say you never say you are better than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

When truth is elusive - resort to name-calling. I missed that brainwashing class.

---

You obviously made it for thin skinned butthurt class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

lol

the ipad alert was so that any typos would be forgiven....didn't specify but if you've used one you'll understand how tricky it can be to type accurately...

---

Is it too tricky to use google?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

lol

---

Doubtful

Silverblk, when you get a chance, feel free to respond to my posts. :tu