Illusions opinions reality

@kellyjay said
Difficult to answer what isn't specifically addressed?

y a w n

@kellyjay said
Difficult to answer what isn't specifically addressed?

Ok here you go. On illusions vs reality...

Sonship and his church believe and preach that a person must believe that God is Triune as a prerequisite for salvation.

Do you agree or not?

@kellyjay said
I responded to both of those. What is it you think I didn’t address?

Very sorry if I missed it - I showed you where my questions were, could you please direct me to where your answers are?

@kellyjay said
I responded to both of those. What is it you think I didn’t address?

You are such a weasel. Here’s what CalJust asked you

@CalJust asked
Question 1: Am I right in assuming that what you refer to as "truth" is the way you currently believe, and someone else who believes differently (say I, or fmf, or Ghost, or Galv - or even sonship from the LCM) is suffering from an illusion?

Question 2: If that is so, what do you see your responsibility being:
(a) Showing them the error of their ways and leading them to know the truth?
(b) Shunning them?
(c). Saying to them "Go in peace, brother, and live your life fully in harmony with those around you. Try not to hurt yourself or others."

And here is your flim-flam reply.

@KellyJay relied
Yes, truth does not depend on our opinions, like reality it doesn't change with my having a bad day, or I live in this country instead of that one.

Building my world view on an "illusion" does not put me on solid ground, instead it is more like shifting sand. Nothing solid there, nothing to rely on that can not change or disappear as quickly as it appeared since it isn't real. An illusion can mold itself around what I want, but not reality, that will remain as is and will not alter itself because I become disinterested, or I start to not like where it is taking me, or because those around me don't like it.

Your use of “Yes” at the start of your reply is an immediately dishonest attempt to change the meaning of the question you were asked to one you weren’t asked and therefore provide yourself with the opportunity to reply dishonestly.

As @Wolfgang59 said in this thread, as I say all the time, as FMF and other tell you all the time, you almost always dodge direct questions and reply with a tangential fur-ball.

@caljust said
Very sorry if I missed it - I showed you where my questions were, could you please direct me to where your answers are?

I would look at my responses to you just below your questions.

@kellyjay said
I would look at my responses to you just below your questions.

So you didn’t answer my question.

Shame on you for claiming you did.

@caljust said
@ThinkOfOne
For goodness sake, ToO, let’s drop this thing.

This was the quote of yours I referred to:

Nothing I read seemed to speak of there being no distinction between perception of reality and reality itself.

I took that to mean that to you there IS a distinction between perception and reality. And I assumed (maybe wrongly) that this meant (to you ...[text shortened]... d show.

I give up - I yield - you are right - I am wrong. Reality is exactly what you say it is.

Now you're pitching a hissy fit in order to avoid admitting that you've been making unfounded assertions? Even worse you're now trying to assert that you have not made any assertions? And are "playing the victim"?

Here I was thinking that you might be capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Evidently I was mistaken.

@caljust said
So you didn’t answer my question.

Shame on you for claiming you did.

I said I responded you should pay attention! You have missed more than one thing said here!

@caljust said
The problem is, Kelly, that you think that what you do not agree with (i.e. the other guy's belief) is an illusion.

To him (the other guy) YOUR belief is an illusion.

THAT is basically the reason why you should give to others the same rights and respect that you would like them to give to you.

And it's not a bad idea to start by not calling their faith an illusion.

Let me be more direct with you.
This is what I wrote to start this off.
In this I didn't state my beliefs or asked that anyone accept what I had to say.
You stating I'm not giving someone the same rights is ignoring what was said and implying something not true. You stating that I am calling someone else' faith here an illusion is also not true, it didn't happen.

My point was simply stating that is possible no matter who is right someone is wrong. So accusing me of stating something I didn't say or imply was a bad idea.


"If the Theistic world view is all wrong then the truth is they (we)(I) have always been all wrong, instead of the truth of reality it’s an illusion.

If the Atheistic world view is all wrong, then they have had the illusion, not truth of reality.

Color my world with truth not acceptable opinions."

@caljust said
Do you think my questions are unfair, or biased or something? Why don't you want to simply answer them?

If you think me asking you questions is presumptious (in order, maybe, to try to establish some common ground for discussion) feel free to ask me anything you like.

Again a little more direct.
If you want to alter what was said to accuse me of saying or implying something I did not say just so you could attack that is counter to common ground.

I don't mind questions and answers, feel free to ask what you will. Just don't alter my answers or statements to attack what you make up instead limit your conversation to those things I did say. If you are unclear as to my intent ask, I would be very happy to clarify anything that needs to be.

@wolfgang59 said
I entered this discussion to demonstrate that as Caljust says, Truth is subjective.

Any fool would agree that reality is not.

And defining Truth to your own world view
for the purpose of this debate is quite deceitful.

I agree our best efforts should be to alter our opinions to fit reality, as nearly as we can see it. With or without coffee!

@kellyjay said
If you are unclear as to my intent ask, I would be very happy to clarify anything that needs to be.

I think you use 'being unclear' as a deliberate debating tactic and then you often portray requests to clarify the meaning of what you posted as being made in bad faith and then often use this as a basis for portraying yourself as a victim.

@fmf said
I think you use 'being unclear' as a deliberate debating tactic and then you often portray requests to clarify the meaning of what you posted as being made in bad faith and then often use this as a basis for portraying yourself as a victim.

Much of the time I have no idea what KellyJay is on about; his posts are frequently rambling strings of churchy dogma loosely hung together with poor grammar and incoherent syntax.

Most of the rest of the time I just disagree with him and he ignores me like the manchild he is.

@thinkofone said
Now you're pitching a hissy fit in order to avoid admitting that you've been making unfounded assertions? Even worse you're now trying to assert that you have not made any assertions? And are "playing the victim"?

Here I was thinking that you might be capable of engaging in a rational discussion. Evidently I was mistaken.

I think the trouble with this forum is that it has a really toxic atmosphere, and the default position for a respondent) is (mostly) that the poster has malicious intent, or a devious mind, or worse. The respondent then analises every word and phrase, and inevitable there is something that can be construed as offensive.

Here I was discussing what was (in my mind) an interesting model. Not mine, but KW’s. The issue under discussion was what constituted reality. It was clearly a contentious issue, one on which other experts disagreed. I wanted to post it on RHP.

KW’s position is that there “is no given, ready-and-waiting reality for us to discover” but that reality is created by the person at the various stages of development.

Both you and wolfgang argued that no, reality is fixed but our PERCEPTION of it changes.

Correct so far? If not, here is where we should stop and begin to clarify our differences if you dispute my summary.

******************

Anyhow, I summarised that by a single statement, in passing, that “it seems to me” that the issue is that you believe reality is fixed and perception varies. Or words to that effect. No imputations, or allegations, or anything that should in any way cast doubt on your character and intellect.

You jump at that simple saying and accuse me of all kinds of devious motivations, dishonesty , etc etc.

First of all, it was a comment in passing, not even the main thrust of my argument. I explained exactly how my reasoning went when I read your comment which I quoted in my previous post. And you did not dispute it or showed me where my flaw in logic lay. Just claimed again that I was avoiding your claim and being dishonest and devious to say the least.

Secondly, you never disputed the so-called allegation. Do you or do you not view reality as fixed and perceptions as subjective and variable?

It is really tiring to have every word one writes analysed and scrutinised for hidden meaning or malicious intent. It makes it extremely difficult to persue what you call “rational discussion”.

Having read many of your past posts, I was also under the impression that here was somebody with whom rational discussion was possible, and maybe even enjoyable.

What an eye-opener!

@caljust said
Having read many of your past posts, I was also under the impression that here was somebody with whom such an activity was possible, and maybe even enjoyable.

What an eye-opener!

Welcome to @thinkofone.