Ajackson17
New member
zzombie;9013896 said:Ajackson17;9013846 said:zzombie;9013758 said:Ajackson17;9013727 said:BiblicalAtheist ;9013677 said:Ajackson17;9013643 said:Lmfao, basically you pretty much said humans live in their imagination lol. Everyone got the best idea in the world when a natural disaster hits and nothing else matters after that point.
Lankavatara-sutra says:
All things appear as perfect reality to the mind.
Apart from the mind no reality as such exits.
To perceive external reality is to see it wrongly.
Vajrapanjara-tantra says:
Neither ordinary beings nor enlightened ones
Exists outside of the precious mind.
Neurological components that is affected by stimuli to their environment that is reality.
Except at it's deepest level science has begun to dispute that base reality and also you still cannot grasp what I am saying... I am not actually questioning the realness of reality (although science itself does question that) I am questioning how much "reality" actually matters compared to what humans think.
I say, what we think is more important because it has more effect on human life. Therefor there will always be a battle of ideologies.
Hitler thought the Nordics were superior we thought otherwise and as a result millions of people died. Compare that reality to the "reality" of any natural disaster which is more pertinent???
There are a few that think because of the mathematics that reality maybe simulated and as well the universe has a grid. There is a lot of controversy and the scientific hypothesis of that reasoning really is radical which we need radical thought, but sometimes we have to ask even deeper questions which some scientists are really asking. But anyway.....
What is being thought and what is being actually played out and what actually is happening are very different things. Hitler did thought the Nordics were a superior people, but if he actually paid attention to history, he would have realized that Nordics were the last to make significant amount of history to the global world. Their biggest fame was the Spartacus rebellion which ended due to their ability to separate and not a lot of resources while living in the mountains and hills. So his judgement wasn't based on anything logical, but based on what he thought should happen and he lost a war the and his life. Also, his paternal nephews who are paternally related to his father have all E markers in which you only get from your father on the Y chromosome haplogroup and Hitler would have had a E marker and probably descended from East/North Africans which destroys his own theory.
I'm not denying that man's imagination isn't pertinent to the discussion, I'm saying how it is shaped and the irrationality/false rational conclusions can cause way more harm than any good without doing the proper research. If DNA existed in Hitler's time before his rise, his own ideologies would have marked him DEAD.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html
I'm saying be careful what your ideologies lead you because they sure can lead you to your demise and show you are very ignorant of who you are.
@ the bold which is why i have been saying that what people think is more important than "reality"
The reality judging by the historical record is that nordic people were more primitive but like i just told you that reality meant nothing. HIS genealogy and family history all of that means absolutely nothing what mattered more was what Hitler perceived. Dna exist now but nazis with hitler like thoughts still exist because the reality of the DNA IS OF INFERIOR IMPORTANCE. The whole hitler was jewish thing is dubious
proper research once held that all black people were inferior, is was once consider a rational conclusion that what slaves ran away they were suffering from drapetomania When it come to certain subjects don't put so much stock in "proper research" BECAUSE research is only the compiling of information gathered from human beings and Humanity is not logical nor do we often truly understand what we perceive.
This is why you have me homo sapien indominus. Lol, joking, but that's why we have peer review and among other things to help us go against what we think. The difference between pseudoscience and science is that Science attempts to disprove and while pseudoscience attempts to prove. The proper method is to disprove to not prove. I think if humanity thinks with that in mind, we'll be much better off.