I would agree that some people can be addicted to feeling anger, but being addicted to something doesn't mean it's healthy. Someone can be addicted to smoking and not want to indulge in it. "Anger exists to protect that which we love, through fear or threat of loss." "To assist us in achieving victory over the world's wrongs." on from what I said in the previous round, if someone has a lot of love in their heart and exists in a state of duality, of tribalism and separation of "us" and "them" and "me" and "you", they naturally feel angry a lot and sincerely feel it. They even become addicted to it to want to see change. I argue this is still a poisonous emotion. Despite this, you can have determination to achieve victory without hate, without the sense of ego, without the ego emotion of anger.
I do not agree to defining as negative emotion as one that inherently is one a person seeks to end while feeling it because I even know of people who feel bad when too confident and happy, in fact it is very offensive to confuse the 'laughing' Buddha statue for a real Buddhist monk as they try to avoid getting addicted to happiness (and so to Taoist practioners and others).
I actually agree with you, and have even said so much in the comment section before you published this argument. I think happiness in the way we know it is a product of separation, therefore duality, and therefore is never going to create wholeness. I just never thought my debate partner would be insighted enough to bring that up, so I just never bothered and opted for a more kindergarten argument (in my laziness). Happiness, although it will not satisfy us, does feel good and can be considered the more positive side of duality. It is still duality and therefore never whole, as happiness can only exist in separation. It can never create a true sense of wholeness in oneself.
Imagine yourself now a really feisty heroine (or even villainess) and a really strong, mighty hero or cunning, wily and streetsmart male villain... They tend to be empowered by embracing the very 'negative' emotions Pro is saying are wanted to be ended. Anger gets them out of bed in the morning, they are prone to feel restless, angry and enjoy their aggressive way of being.
If you read my quote, you will already of had a sufficient answer to this.
The god/s of this reality, if he/she/it/they exist(s) is/are not concerned with only positive emotions, it is blatant why we were granted negative ones; it is a beautifully tragic and yet empowering part of nature. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that humans have dominated Earth not due to our raw intellect at all but due to the extent of motivation and emotional dissatisfaction we had with just letting things be without inventing and improving them. We are negatively motivated not due to an error in our connection with God and nature but because it is an intricate part of it.
I personally see our emotions as ego perversions of God's desires. Pride is the ego's perversion to attain a sense of peace, salvation, or equilibrium. Yet all of these desires express themselves through the ego, a sense of separation, therefore becoming destructive to all, not uplifting it. Anger is the perversion of the desire to achieve victory, and so on, but I digress. That's simply my own philosophy and not relevant to the discussion at hand.
it is a beautifully tragic and yet empowering part of nature. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that humans have dominated Earth not due to our raw intellect at all but due to the extent of motivation and emotional dissatisfaction we had with just letting things be without inventing and improving them. We are negatively motivated not due to an error in our connection with God and nature but because it is an intricate part of it.
When you can look at reality and see yourself within, there is no need for hate to get you out of bed in the morning, not even happiness. Emotional dissatisfaction has led to many scientific advancements and many improvements to material life. But what is this worth if you know that material life will never satisfy us? people will still suffer if they had infinite resources? It's obvious to me, removing anger and removing fear does not leave you empty. Removing duality does not leave you as nothing but leaves you whole. You still have the desire for victory, yet it is not based on separation. Your desire for victory is not based on uplifting one group and putting another down; therefore, anger ceases. When you realise you are the whole you realise you can only uplift yourself by uplifting all. I cant describe what you're left with when you're whole, as admittedly I'm not. Its a continual path of self-transcendence. A desire to be whole and not based on separation must then have no opposite. Since they have no opposite, there is nothing for me to contrast their experience with or define it in earthly terms if this emotional wholeness exists. It would be an experience indescribable in language, truly infinite with no opposite, no similarity. No language in the world could do it justice. Whether you believe this is up to you. Personally, I'm willing to follow this path even if it's fruitless, as I know that no matter how many women I fornicate with, no matter how much jewellery I have, I will still feel empty.
I think Pro has completely misunderstood life and god(s) that may exist to create this debate.
I agree, and that's really my fault. I was hoping to change the debate title to something not relating to God and more too "separation is why we suffer" but alas, you click too fast, madman!
You see, when you get properly in touch with a god that isn't batshit or the fundamentalist psycho sort, you probably realise that all god is is a sociopathic onlooker
I and my father are one. All suffering is self-inflicted, and God feels through us, God feels what we do. God is fine with letting extensions of itself act out their free wills. If you do believe in a God, to argue that you know more than they do and what's right is very prideful of your own capabilities, if you do think that. Unless you have all the moral answers to free will, I feel like it is best to refrain from making moral arguments against God. Pride is the spiritual poison of believing you've attained some ultimate state, some ultimate salvation or state of being. In reality, existence is movement, all is going to change and your pride will be shaken one day, one way or another.
Being overly friendly and giggly leads to stagnation and is why a super feminine world would probably have not invented much, they are too busy enjoying what is there and not what could be
Gigglyness and fun, too, can only exist in duality. I don't know what wholeness looks like. Even if I did, I couldn't describe its infinity to you, by definition. But why don't you try to follow it? What do you have to lose? Feminine and masculine are polarities and therefore, duality.
I do not even understand how all 'negative' emotions can spring from separation from god when I've met very emotionally healthy and happy people who are agnostic as it gets, atheistic even and met others who are severely emotionally deranged and who live and breathe their connection with the almighty deity they believe is behind/above/within this reality.
None of these people are happy, and if they are, What does it matter? You admitted it yourself that even if they're happy, they're not whole. They're not whole because they have egos. The ego is the "I." We must continuously transcend our old identities and die daily. People who claim to be one with God but live in the duality of "me," "us," and "them" are not one with God, they're false teachers. How can something with a limited identity of believing they're a human act as one with that which has an infinite identity? If you create distinctions and duality among people and natures, You're not one with anything but your own ego.
Fun debate my beloved.
Keep crying straw boy.
"Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism."
suspension definition: An interruption or temporary cessation
denialism definition: To declare untrue; assert to be false.
To refuse to believe; reject.
yeah, clearly the same.
"do you like chocolate ice cream"
suspension of belief would go: i dont know i havent tried.
denial would go: no i havent even tried i just know i wont like it.
Way to demonstrate the classic strawman fallacy.
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
You've directly said there is no God, within this comment.
Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism.
Potentiality does not equal actuality. Neve has. Never will.
No one knew anything about evolution, realistically, until Darwin made that discovery and addressed it.
Unknown knowledge becomes knowable. Which is precisely why much if Bible (written over thousands of years by hundreds upon hundreds of men with a scripted agenda) has been discredited.
Try agian.
there's a difference between refraining belief and saying something isn't true or potentially true. You've previously made the statement God DOESNT exist at all. In the past we also couldn't prove evolution. Does that mean it wasn't true that evolution happened back then? I'll leave you to ponder that one.
"..and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools."
That makes no sense. You do not know me. You have no info to substantiate this tripe.
I am no fool. I never get into any discussion where I cannot bold my own. When people like you reply as you just did, that just demonstrates it is to you who are in over our head.
#DunningKrugerEffect
The fact that you cannot prove the existence of any deity you claim to exist is all the evidence I (we) need.
It is no different than trying to prove ghosts, poltergeists, etc. exist.
You are at a loss. Period. Fact. Period
"no one can prove god exists, therefore no god." is essentially what you're saying.
Just as i may or may not be able to prove Gods existence, you too cannot disprove it. So it strikes me as odd you're just as dogmatic and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools.
Nice #intellectualcoward retort/thinking
Nice black and white thinking.
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
"here is absolutely nothing about this that requires one to either be non-separate nor separate from god"
we'll see about that. I could of even conceded that argument you presented there, as long as getting rid of separation gets rid of duality and necessitates a new emotional inner world. All of that science stuff is irrelevant. Your argument also presented as extremely generalising of men and women's roles. at the end of it all, if we both agree we feel angry due to expectations. You give me a very powerful foothold there regardless of what makes different people angry. if you choose to take the debate again in the future. It will be far far stronger of an argument too, i always win in the end.
That's hot
I'm not sure why you thought that was mocking. I'm not sure where there was any statement of ridicule or contempt. Sorry if it came across that way.
Not sure why you are mocking someone's theological beliefs but sure.
As fir the real diety in charge, she couldn't care less if you mock her or not, she is more sadistic than she is egotistical.
That's hot.
If 'god' is either, she is a mother figure, a big sister figure.
God has nearly nothing other than omnipotence to render it as a he over a she. The human is female in the womb and transforms from XX to XY later on, the clitoris is what is transformed into the penis head and the original body being female is the only reason males have nipples. The raw/original being of reality is a feminine creator that birthed us akin to a mother.
the Goddess? can you explain that? I'm confused, you believe in a goddess?
There are three separate things here.
My views
Taoism
This debate
I am allowed to completely lie in a debate and represent what I disagree with, as long as I play to win. I have in my own life experienced emotional anguish that became lessened when i found the real goddess, in my eyes but she is sadistic and responsible for almost all our agony.
I have subjectively experienced this resolution being true, nothing in my theological outlook or the deity I bow before has anything ruling out lying even about my belief in her (note I bow and do not kneel before, she is not actually into that at all, which is why she kept herself hidden in the subtext if religions rather than ever revealing the full truth in one).
Taoism simply talks of the "Tao" which in my eyes, is the the universe being described As being indescribable, as being infinite so you cant attach characteristics or images too it as nothing can do its reality justice. Its very similar to pantheism. It then goes on to say we find union with this indescribable reality at death. My philosophy is wholly consistent with this. I argue we suffer due to our sense of separation from the whole.
When i say "God" it must be clarified i more so mean the universe as God, or our sense of ego or "I" causes us suffering. I don't see God in the sense you're probably imagining.
the personality and agenda of the original consciousness/creator is pretty unattainable in Taoism and easily the god is responsible for emotional issues... so...
that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not all emotional issues during one's human life stem from separation from god. If anything Taoism explicitly tells us to be balanced and not get too obsessed with god.
Taoism literally teaches in spiritual immortality, where the spirit of the body joins the universe after death. Although, id argue it already is joined with the universe in life.
It does much more than you think. I'm simply talking about one aspect or the negative aspect of duality. I think to find wholeness, duality or labeling of good and evil must cease all together. Only then can you express your true individuality. As soon as you create separateness you create duality, good and evil. To feel good you now open yourself up to feel bad. This can only be fixed through the breakdown of group categorisations which can only be done through changing boundaries between things, changing identity.
nothing in taoism at all agrees with this and I am my own thinker I accidentally realised I have a lot in common with how Taoists think, especially with regards to animals.
I'm curious how you can argue against this philosophy, considering you're a Taoist. Maybe you thought i was arguing for the Abrahamic God? My pantheism is perfectly in alignment with the way of Tao, and its philosophy of duality. I just deify the universe a bit more.