Oh right, that kind of meditating.
For that kind of not-thinking, I tend to just run a hot bath and float for an hour or two.
2 Likes
Iâm not sure what you mean by âGod pointsâ or âsoul machineâ. If youâre asking what I would gain from helping your soul to find God, I would be comfortable in the knowledge that I did the right thing. Helping people feels good.
1 Like
So, like. 5 âfeel goodâ points?
Depends on the scale. Five out of what?
Itâs not a scale. Think of it as tokens.
Nope. I donât expect anyone to hand me proof. Experience has demonstrated that they donât have any. What Iâm doing is establishing that if you want your premise to be taken seriously, you need to support it. Otherwise, you might as well insist that youâre right because the Leprechauns said so. Or because the Amarr Empress agrees with you. Neither carries any weight.
Now now, thereâs no need to go lobbing around insults.
I love how you assume I havenât. I have. Iâve spent thousands of hours in discussions with spiritual folks from my Clan, my Tribe, the Empire, Wayists⌠Heck, Iâve talked to Sabik about it all.
Iâve got an idea. That idea is âI donât know, and will not assume.â
What is it that offends you so much about âI donât knowâ?
And you accuse me of not arguing in good faithâŚ
Then Iâd need to know the value of these tokens. How much âfeel goodâ does five âfeel goodâ tokens grant me?
Doubt.
Youâre passive aggressive attitude towards the topic tells me otherwise.
Baiting people to âprove itâ whenever itâs brought up knowing full well that itâs something that canât be proven and then following it with quips like
âOh, itâs just imagination.â Is a pretty telling sign that you have no interest in being in that place of âI donât know.â
Youâve figured it out for yourself just fine and your not fooling anyone. Including yourself.
Weâve seen this song and dance from you so wearily often that its lost charm 6 or 7 iterations ago.
It was funny the first time. The second, mildly amusing. Now itâs just plain annoying and low effort.
No, demanding that if people are going to use it to advance their position, they have to be held to the same standard as someone claiming that theyâre right because the physics says theyâre right.
Not challenging it would be dishonest. Itâd be setting one standard for physically-oriented arguments to advance a cause, and an entirely different, far more permissive standard for metaphysical âbecause God said soâ arguments.
Look, you wanna believe what you wanna believe? Thatâs great. But the discussion was about impacting other peopleâs lives. And if someone wants their metaphysical beliefs to hold sway over someone elseâs very much physically-demonstrable life, they need to be able to show thereâs some âthereâ there.
I canât help it if you canât support your position.
How predictable.
And I canât help it if youâre so closed minded.
And neither could, what was it, hundreds of shamans and spiritual leaders and, well anyone else.
Donât bring us into this.
Sorry mate! 
And thereâs that bad-faith argument again.
âYou should be curious! Talk to people!â
âI did, they werenât persuasive.â
âWell youâre just closed-minded!â
Like I said: What offends you so much about âI donât knowâ? Why do people have to decide your position is right?
And how is it not closed-minded to insult and denigrate people who did what you suggested, but didnât end up agreeing with you?
Hi pot. My names kettle.
Stop baiting people.
I donât know what sort of high youâre getting off of this, but itâs damned annoying.
Be honest from the start and instead of saying âprove it.â Be more tactful and say âhey, Iâm not sure this is something I believe, but Iâve been asking around. What do you think?
And instead of saying âoh, well itâs just your imagination, and you failed to persuade me because you canât find any evidence to support a metaphysical discussion.â You could try âhmm, interesting. Not really convinced itâs for me.â
Youâre being deliberately abrasive, trolly and down right argumentative with no real intention of actually having a meaningful discussion on the topic.
As Iâve said. This isnât the first time weâve seen you in this rodeo. And it plays out exactly the same way each time.
Maybe apply some of that imagination and try something new.
Iâm not. Iâm asking you a question. Your responses here have made it pretty clear that âI donât knowâ somehow upsets and/or offends you. So Iâm asking why, because Iâm curious.
So do you want me to be honest, or do you want me to say that? Because I know itâs not something I believe. Itâs just also something I donât disbelieve. There is a middle-ground there that you donât seem to get. Itâs not a question of not being sure of what I believe, itâs a matter of not believing in either proposition.
Here, an example: what color socks do you believe I have on right now? Your options are black, or day-glo neon orange (which I do own! Ask Mizhara, sheâs seen 'em, they offend her just by existing!)
No, Iâm being blunt, and direct, because I have as little investment in whether or not you get offended as I do in whether or not supernatural stuff exists.
I donât see the need. Iâm not trying to change your mind. Iâm not asserting âyou are wrong to believe in thatâ. Iâm not even seeking your input on whether or not such a thing exists.
All I am saying is that if you want to insert âsoulsâ into a discussion about âwhose ways are better and whyâ, then before your âsoulâ argument can be taken seriously, you need to demonstrate that thereâs even a shred of substance to it.
Just like when I say (as an example), âAmarr slavery is bad because little girls are raised to be raped until their bodies give outâ, and someone says it doesnât happen, I can provide CONCORDâs official âyes, it doesâ description of the breeding facilities. Before I can expect my position to be given any consideration, I have to be able to demonstrate that the thing Iâm citing actually exists.
I see no reason to give metaphysical claims any special dispensation in that same conversation.
And thatâs all this is about. Not about your beliefs, not about me seeking enlightenmentâwhich, when I do, I donât do it here, FFS. I ask my questions in person, discuss things over drinks, meals, just relaxing and doing deep dives into each othersâ perspective1. Because doing that, opening up for real examination of the topic, of beliefs and fundamental truths⌠that takes trust, and trying to do that here is like offering everyone who hates you a gun, and a free shot between your eyes. Hell, you got Kybers, Sansha, and Napkins running around here.
And thatâs why my discussion here is about the topics and points raised here. The topic in question, youâll recall, is about âthe absurd and abhorrent ways in which the people of the lesser empires choose to conduct themselvesâ, and the posterâs declaration that all who are not Amarr must change because âsoulsâ.
And itâs great if she wants to believe in them. Itâs great if you want to believe in them. But before that gets pushed on other people, there needs to be some support for it.
1. Some of the most productive discussions have taken place in the sauna, too. Itâs very conducive to relaxing and letting the stress fade out while you contemplate deeper things.
And I answered it. You chose to chalk it up to âimagination.â
No, thatâs what you want it to be about. Itâs about your behavior.
I answered that as well. Deliberately baiting people.
Okay, and?
What?
I have no idea what is trying to be conveyed here.
Ditto
Youâre the one that wanted proof. If you didnât want my input, you wouldnât have asked.
Except I didnât do that. Bat â â â â Crazy Bride Of Naupalis Lady did. All I said is that souls exist, and I wouldnât entrust anything to that woman. Which I think you would agree on.
I mean hell, she couldnât save herself from a paper sack, how in the world would she save a soul?
And furthermore, how in the world would anyone even prove there is a soul? Just because there isnât proof doesnât mean people canât talk about it. Why does it offend you so, to the point that you want to effectively censor it from conversation?
So what, I donât have a concrete objective argument on the topic? But Iâm still going to say that I believe in it. Even if it offends you -Iâm not clear if it does or does not at this point. I guess youâll let me know.-
You know, just as well as I, that thatâs false equivalency. Those are two very different things. One is physical and has mass and substance (and political), the other is metaphysical.
It partly why I disagree with the Amarr in making political policy that affects physical people based on metaphysical interpretations. Or as you said âBecause god said soâ nonsense.
Wise. The best and most meaningful conversations are personal, and not on an open forum.
Sheâs bat â â â â crazy as I said. I certainly donât want to push a âsoulâ on you. I said earlier, that itâs personal, and no one elseâs business. I ribbed you a bit earlier on about it, but at the end of the day, itâs your choice to believe it or not.
Maybe one day youâll come across a person that can offer you a compelling reason or argument. Maybe not. But I do respect your position on it. And again, Iâm not trying to force you nor am I offended by you not believing it.
And thank you for opening up a bit and letting me see this side of you. I was a bit harsh saying you were closed minded. That was wrong of me.
But I will say youâre stubborn! 
Itâs a simple question. Which color do you believe Iâm currently wearing on my feet?
But, just to cut off potential acrimony, let me explain⌠there is a correct answer, of course, but itâs neither of the options chosen. Itâs âI donât knowâ. And thatâs a perfectly valid middle ground, acknowledging ignorance without asserting adherence to either proposition.
For the record? Iâm not wearing socks. 
No, I wanted you to support the premise you put forth. Someone else put it forth earlier, but there were other things to point out there. When you began amplifying the âsoulâ aspect, I asked you to support it. nothing else.
Great question. I eagerly await an answer from literally anyone.
Of course they can talk about it. But talking about it as a matter of abstract discussion is not the same as using it in a discussion about why some peoplesâ ways are abhorrent and must change.
It doesnât, and I donât. I just want it held to the same standard as any other argument.
Exactly my point: if policy decisions are to be made about physical peoplesâ lives based on âsoulsââas that conversation hinges onâthen compelling reason to take such a basis as credible is required. Without it, they have no place in a discussion on public policy.
Maybe I will! If so, itâll be interesting. Itâs always nice to learn new things.
And arrogant, and an ass. Iâll deny no charges, so long as theyâre true. 
I would agree. âHow would I know?â Is a valid answer.
Ah, the fourth option. And possibly the best.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) I canât because there is no empirical proof.
But, I would say this. Any premise set forth by the Amarr should be taken with a strong healthy dose of skepticism. Or just flat out rejection. I havenât seen or heard a singular argument from the Amarr on faith, souls, spiritual stuff so far that hasnât made my skin crawl. I am however meeting with a Friar in the hopes of learning more about the subtleties and any positive aspects of it, if any. But Iâm not holding my breath.
Ya, that pisses me off. Itâs none of their business. Itâs a piss poor excuse for them to justify their abhorrent behavior and social doctrines.
Keep me updated.
It was, after all, a Minmatar that helped convince me that there was more to this Universe than what I can physically comprehend. That there was more to my connection with Cold Wind then just saying it favors the strong. But thatâs another story.
1 Like
Nothing exists but the physical world. There is no supernatural or metaphysical. All that is, is in the same reality.
Our thoughts can be observed and so in some sense, they exist.
It follows that all your thoughts, feelings, ideas and imaginings must also be part of the one, only physical world that exists. They are not immaterial, something other than reality.
They are material phenomena, arising from the world on their own.
The experience of having a particular, stable, eternal soul is very common in distinct cultures that have not been in contact with each other.
This experience seems to be innate to human nature.
This experience is also part of the natural world and rises from it.
What we experience like that is our soul.
It exists.
The question of whether a soul exists is the wrong one. It undoubtedly does.
The real question is what is a soul? Is it separate from your body? Should it be? Is it immortal? Should it be? Is it inherent to the physical world or not? Is it a distinct part of the universe, or a part of a network of all things? Is it stable over time? These are the questions we disagree on.
1 Like
Gotta disagree there, Else. All of these cultures stem from a singular root. Thereâs just no other reasonable explanation for multiple spacefaring nations and inhabited worlds full of genetically identical primates. Even the Jove were essentially the same species. That all points to common origin, and so itâs impossible to say things like the concept of a âsoulâ isnât a cultural atavism. If thatâs the case, itâs easy to see why it was retained in so many places: when you wanna control a populationâor even just bind them together for survival in desperate circumstancesâsuperstition and religion are among the very best tools.