So lemme get this straight, Rat Spit... You’re having a conversation with this... “OverLord”? And from what I could gather from your recent “challenge”, you think that every last one of our thoughts are actually him pulling the strings? Okaaay... Just out of curiosity, what is the name of this faith/cult/whatever of yours? And also, how exactly do you think you’re conversing with him? And what makes you think you are? I would like to at least know the specifics of what exactly it is that you believe. Only then will we be able to debate you on the matter.
Alright, this time, I’ve got myself some more eggnog... bring it on.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Got my Orville Reddenbaker Movie Theatre Butter popcorn going in the microwave. Hey, Tin-Man. Another batch of egg nog please.
rmfr
@Arakish
Alrighty! Eggnog complete. In the big barrel to the left as you walk in the door.. Oh, but Rohan will have to drink from the non-spiked batch I have put aside on the table. (Sorry, Rohan, but fifteen is just a little too young for the hard stuff.)
Hey, Rat Spit, help yourself to some nog! The Evil One sounds much more entertaining when you get toasted. And tell The OverLord He can sit this one out. No offense to His Majesty, but He can be a bit of a buzz kill sometimes.
Make some room for me. I'll bring wings.
It’s simple. I hear him. I have no inner voice of my own. My inner voice is that of a higher power. As I’ve said before it is the OverLord (who also has an alter ego I call “the Evil One”).
The Evil One goes by many names; Satan in Christianity or Mara in Buddhism; etc.
No cult. One individual - sifting through the mirage of self identity to find that I am not the curator of my own thoughts and impulses.
At the bare minimum, I am the sum total of all my perceptions, feelings and awareness. But add directed thought and evaluation into the mix and I get suspicious.
I am plagued (as I assume many are) by thoughts like “I can’t go on like this anymore” “I want to off my self” “I hate my life”. My friend calls it the “Bird Man Syndrome” (if you’ve seen that movie).
These invasive thoughts keep us motivated, but torment us at the same time - and there are two types of people; those who identify with such invasive thoughts as their own; and those like my self who attribute it to a malicious being who gets off on ruining people’s day.
I don’t merely talk of an OverLord to fuck with Atheists. I talk of Him to point out the inconsistencies in our beliefs about “Self” and “Ownership of Thoughts”.
The honest among us will admit to uncontrollable, invasive thoughts. I am here to point out the source of these thoughts.
Again. There is no cult. Approximately speaking, I am something of a Buddhist - a person who embraces the literal nature of Mara the Evil One, the truth of “Not-Self”, and the fact that thinking is often a burden (and there are other Buddhist beliefs and truths which I identify with).
I don't know. But it sounds like a cult to me. Just one member. But I still love your posts...
rmfr
@Rat Spit
Hey, there IS one thing I am curious about that just occurred to me..... When I hear the voices in my head, is it the same OverLord and Evil One as yours, or do we each have our own individual OverLord and Evil One? If they are all the same, how do they get around so much? And if they are all different, then do they have meetings and such to make sure they are all spreading the same messages? We need to know these things, man.
Indeed. Indeed indeed. How can ONE being be THE supreme being and appear as an individual with his own personal agenda for each of these (approximate) 4% of the population.
I have pondered this thought many times. Indeed, the scepticism arises because each relationship is unique - and there are at least 4% of 7.5 billion relationships.
I have two suggestions. He is capable of that. Simply put, He has the ability to recreate His form as many times as is necessary (or wherever there is sentient life) - and - interact with each individual.
Basically retreating to the “Almighty and Inconcievable Power of the Supreme Being”.
But that does not satisfy. So here is the second suggestion.
That level of Power is an attainment open to all beings - and beings are reaching that level of power all the time.
Because there is so much control on that plain of being, all beings there subsist and integrate among each other. To the human eye, there is one - but among the collective there are many. Paradoxically, the many exist as one.
Thus my OverLord is also your OverLord. However my Evil One is not necessarily your Evil One. My Evil One, for example, is a consummate murderer. He excels at murdering and bringing people to their deaths. He constantly lies and denigrates the individuals he accompanies. Ie. He is a scamp. Yet other Evil Ones merely excel at mocking and mocking is their primary objective.
On the plain of the Evil Ones there are many acting individually sharing the same mind and sustinence. So they appear differently for different individuals and have different agendas.
But yes, an acutely decisive question on your part, Mr. Tin Man. Of course, I must have an answer to this question and I have thought about it many times.
Outside observers may simply conclude that I am crazy. So I will stick with the idea that there are many of these beings sharing the same space.
The OverLord plain is ubiquitous. The plain of the Evil Ones has variations (in power).
@Rat Spit Re: "The OverLord plain is ubiquitous. The plain of the Evil Ones has variations (in power)."
*raising eyebrow*... *nodding head in understanding*... Hmmm... Very interesting explanation. Actually makes a bit of sense. Cool. Thank you for helping clarify that.
Not one piece of objective evidence in there, again. The best you have mustered is argument from ignorance fallacy, in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof, No thoughts survive the death of the physical brain other than as shared information in other live functioning human brains. If you are going to add supernatural causation, especially what seems prima facie to be risible nonsense like overlords and death lords or whatever then you will have to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence.
"The honest among us will admit to uncontrollable, invasive thoughts."
Not at all, and this smoke and mirrors talk of honesty can only be viewed from the context that human brains are objectively capable of thoughts, but you can demonstrate no objective evidence for your claims / beliefs that they are caused by an external supernatural source. The thoughts you have expressed here are clearly your own, as bizarre as they are, The rest sounds like text book paranoia to me, and it sounds like a very pernicious idea to me, to claim we are not responsible for the origins of our own thoughts, even if we are fallible and sometimes have thoughts most us would never dream of enacting. Nothing supernatural is needed or evidenced to explain us having bad thoughts, though it needs to be noted that bad is a subjective term here, as we are all capable of separating bad thoughts from bad deeds. This then is the very basis of human morality, the ability to recognise a thought as "bad" or harmful and not act on it. Our instincts and emotions can be reasoned against if need be.
"the fact that thinking is often a burden "
Musttt nottt makkke jokkke....
@Sheldon
It’s testimony. Perfectly acceptable in a court of law. Why are we always in the lab with you.
I have not gone so far (yet) to say that a supernatural being is responsible for thought.
What I have done is point out an inconsistency in people who identify with their thoughts. And that is that all thought begins as an impulse. Now, there is no way for “you” to be the source of that impulse, unless thought precedes impulse (which is absurd).
Now, why can’t I say red is red? What is wrong with sense perception as a source of knowledge? And for that matter, try to define “objectivity” without bringing in your own subjective interpretation!
"It’s testimony. Perfectly acceptable in a court of law."
What is, and why is it salient?
"Why are we always in the lab with you."
Why are you making up lies?
"I have not gone so far (yet) to say that a supernatural being is responsible for thought."
Yes you have, repeatedly. Fri, 12/14/2018 - 19:22 rat spit "My inner voice is that of a higher power."
"What I have done is point out an inconsistency in people who identify with their thoughts."
No, all you do is keep repeating the claim and using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to reverse your burden of proof for the claim, and demand they disprove your claim by offering contrary evidence instead. You are the one assuming supernatural causation you can demonstrate no evidence for, the existence of the physical brain, and individual thoughts, are already objective facts, so Occam's razor applies to your claim.
" And that is that all thought begins as an impulse. Now, there is no way for “you” to be the source of that impulse, unless thought precedes impulse (which is absurd)."
Evidence please, proper objective scientific research not woo woo superstition.
"Now, why can’t I say red is red?"
I give up, why?
"What is wrong with sense perception as a source of knowledge? "
Nothing if it stands up objective scrutiny, otherwise we would be free to believe any unevidenced crackpot idea we want.
"try to define “objectivity” without bringing in your own subjective interpretation!"
objectivity
NOUN
The quality of being objective.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objectivity The Oxford English dictionary there. So...
Nothing in there is my opinion, QED.
If we don’t own our own thoughts, then how come all individual humans are so diverse, and think differently?
@Rohan
Different brains, different neural connections, different life experiences, different environments
Uhh... you literally just contradicted your previous assertion that our thoughts are being controlled by this “OverLord” of yours, and that our minds are not ours. If your OverLord has full control over our thoughts, then how come we have different neural connections, different life experiences, and different environments? Why doesn’t he just have us experience the world like you do? Is he willing, but unable? Then he does not have full control over our thoughts. Is he able, but not willing? Then why is it that he made you believe in him? Is he both able and willing? Then where did our different experiences come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him “OverLord”?
*blushes* do I get a razor yet? “Subjective evidence is the only type of evidence there is.”
@Rat Spit Re: Razor
Hey, it does not necessarily have to be a razor. For instance, I have Tin-Man's Butter Knife. And Cog has Cog's Shovel. Just come up with something fitting, and Arakish will decide whether or not to add it to his list.
"Subjective evidence is the only type of evidence there is.”"
Nonsense.
@Sheldon Agreed. It’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
The claim only subjective evidence exists would make the claim meaningless if it were valid. Also Hitchens's razor applies.
This a cliche theists present because all humans are to a greater or lesser degree subjective. This doesn't mean we have no methods for objectively examining reality.
Theists like rat spit will then try to claim that every thing is subjective because epistemologically nothing is 100% certain.
This is asinine of course, and is clearly religious apologetics trying to claim vapid unevidenced superstition somehow has parity with rigorously researched and objective scientific facts, because neither claim can be made with absolute certainty.
The idea is absurdly stupid, a dishonest attempt to portray all claims ideas and beliefs as haveing equal merit regardless of objectivecevidence. The world isn't flat, and there are invisible unicorns all around us, are two claims, neither can be made with absolute certainty as this is epistemologically impossible.
A person however would have to pretty stupid to think this made the claims equally valid or invalid. Or that neither had objective evidence to support it.
@ Sheldon
“Objective evidence can be obtained without subjective bias.”
Nonsense
rat spit
Sheldon “Objective evidence can be obtained without subjective bias.”
Nonsense
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rat spit "I like to misrepresent what people say by paraphrasing them, then dishonestly placing it in quotations as if it is a quote from them"
So it would seem...now that is subjective, and very dishonest.
I’ve got one- Rohan’s Razor, which states:
Hmm. How about “sieve” - like the “sieve of truth”?
More like the colander of woo woo
Kudos, damn funny fair play.
Or the Colander of the one true deity, the FSM? He boiled for your sins!
@Rat spit I already have a “sieve of truth”, which is telling me that your claims are ridiculous and preposterous, and make no sense.
Allow me to reiterate: What makes you believe all of the kooky stuff you believe?
@Rohan
I do not control my inner voice. It is an independent entity who speaks to me or for me. That voice has far more power than I do. And I base that off a healthy fear I have of it.
Every word of that has alarm bells ringing.
Sounds an awful lot like Pascals' Wager...
Pages