Most of the dogmatic people I have come across have low level of intelligence.

When I try to explain Christian non dual mysticism to these people , they find it very difficult to handle the assertion that Bible and teachings of Jesus are about non personal god Absolute - there is no god other than us , body dies not us , we are eternal non personal god Absolute, personal god of dogmatic people does not exist.

2) these dogmatic , people start saying all kind of things including - "you talking gibberish"

3) so the set of posts that I am compiling now , I am writing each statement in that as a mathematical statement.

4) <a mathematical statement is a sentence which is either true or false. >

https://www.math.toronto.edu/prepar...

5) now , if to these dogmatic people, even mathematical statements occur as gibberish , then of course , they are beyond help.

6) I would post these sets of posts in the forums of <keypusher>/<Johnlspouge> for 'peer review' /inputs.

". Harris is particularly opposed to what he refers to as dogmatic belief, and says that "Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a betrayal of science – and yet it is the lifeblood of religion

Harris holds that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion, and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have."[16]

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Harris rejects the dichotomy between spirituality and rationality, favoring a middle path that preserves spirituality and science but does not involve religion.[52] He writes that spirituality should be understood in light of scientific disciplines like neuroscience and psychology.[52] Scienc- e, he contends, can show how to maximize human well-being, but may fail to answer certain questions about the nature of being, answers to some of which he says are discoverable directly through our experience"

< OhioChessFan: <Rbd>, I wish to remain with the points we have under discussion. I don't care if you respond to <GW>>

Great , then perhaps , we can together help increase 'goodness' in the world and this forum by having a productive/constructive conversation outside the domain of 'right/wrong' and instead try to expand/deepen our understanding through this conversation .

And therefore , I would invite <Gregor samaa Mendel> also in this conversation . I like <gsm> . He too is civil , mature , honest and sometimes when talking with him in past , I was not as mature as I would have liked .

However , encouraged by the attitude of <ohiochessfan> , I intend to expand my maturity through this conversation.

<Gregor samsa Mendel > asserts that objective moral values do not exist . I disagree . My position is - objective moral values exist but personal god is not needed for omv to exist.

Also , Encouraged by the response of <ohiochessfan> , I commit that from today onward I would be civil towards <big pawn>/<george Wallace>, <diceman> , <Keyser soze> , <gezafan> - at least as long as they are civil towards me .

Well , may be <ohiochessfan> is right in a way . We will see.

We need to understand <objective moral values> deeply.

And we need to inculcate teachings of Jesus - especially impersonal love of Jesus .

Swami is an atheist . Moral values of atheist ?

2) <johnlspouge> is an atheist/agnostic and he asserts that objective moral values exist.

3) people like <bureaucrat> and <george Wallace>/<big pawn> , <Gregor samsa Mendel> , <al wazir> have created a lot of mess as they do not understand <objective moral values>

And if they do not have choice , then how is it subjective ?

Objective moral values can be known only subjectively .

Definition of objective moral values is that they are objective because every normal human experiences them (as opposed to mentally ill people)

But this 'fact ' can be tested only subjectively . When you dissolve all anger , pride , fear , jealousy , lust for fame/power/status/domination etc , when you dissolve all conditioning to reach delta brain wave activity level (level of krishna/jesus) , then you see (subjectively) that 'we are impersonal love and intelligence in action '

How many time this guy has whined <<rdb> trolls people in their own forums >

Dishonesty/hypocrisy , thy name is <gw>/<bp>

User: big pawn

1. GSM: omv do not exist
2. GW: evidence?
3. GSM: I take it back now I'm agnostic.
4. GW: why the sudden flip flop?
5. GSM:___________
This is where we are and it's your turn to move the discussion forward in a meaningful way. >

What had <nok> told you ? You keep forgetting unicorns

Let me fix it for you .

<1.GSM: unicorns do not exist 2. GW: evidence?
3. GSM: I take it back now I'm agnostic.
4. GW: why the sudden flip flop?
5. GSM:___________
This is where we are and it's your turn to move the discussion forward in a meaningful way.>

Now , simulation hypothesis that you and I had already discussed in detail - there is no way to know that this world is not a simulation as long as we are in this time-space.

This world could be a computer simulation - all the homosapiens computer programs in a computer system . And in that case , objective moral values too are computer programs . That is what their ontology is .

Very clearly , first premise of omv argument is stupid and false.

Only way to know the ontology of omv is to transcend time/space . Is that possible ? Yes , says christian non dual mysticism (and any other mysticism)

Mysticism is about knowing ultimate reality through first hand direct transcendental experience (we already know that we can not know ultimate reality through logic, rational thinking - simulation hypothesis)

And christian non dual mysticism says that personal god does not exist. Ultimate reality is non personal god Absolute. There is no god other than us . Body dies not us . We are eternal Absolute.

What an idiot !

Definition of <omv> is very clear .

Moral values are objective if they are experienced by all 'normal' humans (as opposed to 'mentally ill ' humans) .

Nowhere in the definition it says that omv exist apart from humans.

2) if there where no humans/animals in the universe , there would be no moral values in universe - christian non dual mysticism is very clear on that .

3) <nok> , <gsm> and others - don't let this fool escape on this.

That is one of the most important questions.

Many religious dogmatic fools have this moral value that <killing for blasphemy is right>

They have this moral value because of their brainwashing , religious conditioning.

How do we know that the moral values that people have are not result of conditioning of society, religion etc.

How do we know that in the absence of conditioning all homosapiens would have this moral value that 'torturing children for fun is wrong' ?

1) <gsm> is like <I would go to the bottom of this <omv> stupidity of <george Wallace> /<big pawn> this time without getting in 'right vs wrong' domain - like mature adult , I would try to understand dispassionately , spending a few minutes every day or so .

However , I would either listen to the most stupid moron of forum , that is <gw>/<bp> , or I would listen to the most intelligent genius of forum , that is <johnlspouge>

Nothing in-between , so I would not listen to <rdb> or anyone else in the forum on this subject (occasionally , I may deign to listen to <keypusher> too , if I am in a generous mood , but that is that . Not going to dilute my parameters any further)>

2) now , <johnlspouge> is like <like <keypusher> , I too stand for clarity/depth of understanding/thinking and like <kp> , I too like to contribute but occasionally because only an idiot would post more tha that in this noisy cacophonous hell called rogoffland (no offence to <saffuna> ) and like <kp> my interest in <omv> argument is limited. After all , <gw>/<bp> has been thoroughly defeated in this debate umpteen times already ...>

3) so , if <gsm> has to be helped , and this omv sh.t has to be taken to logical conclusion for once and all , then three things

(I) I would need to do all the heavy lifting

(ii) <johnlspouge> would need to do 'peer review' of all that I post (otherwise <gsm> not going to listen)

(Iii) <gsm> would need to continue showing same level of commitment to take it to its logical conclusion.

<Gsm> : how do you know that omv exist apart from humans ?

<Gw>/<bp> is like : I have heard so . People have been saying this for more than 1000 years , I have heard . How else would I know ? Everyone knows and their grandmas know that omv is just a concept for me, hearsay , dogma , I have never experienced omv. How can I expeerience omv ? After all I am a psychopath , for crying out loud .

Me : this guy is a joke. This fool does not know diddly squat about omv and omv argument.

<George Wallace>/<big pawn> stopped nagging/hounding <gsm> after reading the refutation that I provided for omv argument.

Refutation was so succinct and focused that he got it this time.

2) question is : is <gw>/<bp> cured forever or he would bluff dishonestly about omv argument in future ?