A failure of understanding

[Balerion]

Although if I also say that I don't believe I need to believe in the thing you think you asked me about, except in the same sense that I belive the sky is indeed blue, and the sun gives off light, does that clear it up for you any more?

I know you like to keep taking these little jabs, as if your strange little version of religion should be so obvious to everyone.

See this? -------------------> O

That's your bubble. I'm about to burst it.

It's not obvious to anyone. So no, saying something like "The sky is blue" is NOT an answer to the question. If you want to make your religious beliefs clear, by all means do so, but don't act like we're so far fucking beneath you simply because we asked you a question that didn't meet your arrogant standards.

[Vkothii]

No, you seem to confuse the question with a question about a known fact.

They appear to be the same, to me. You think there's a difference? What do you think the difference is?

[Balerion]

It's rare to meet a man who can actually blow smoke up his own ass...

[Enmos]

They appear to be the same, to me. You think there's a difference? What do you think the difference is?

The obvious difference is that I already know that the sky is blue, I don't know whether you believe in whatever version of god.

Edit: Besides, it wasn't my question. It was the persona in the OP that asked the question, and you didn't make it clear that he already knew that you believed in god.
In fact, if he already knew, he's an idiot to ask the question. And in that case the point of this thread is moot.

[Vkothii]

So no, saying something like "The sky is blue" is NOT an answer to the question.

But you look like the one with the problem, here.
The sky is blue, though.
And that, is actually as good an answer as any.
Why do you still have a question, I thought I answered it?

[Balerion]

You answered nothing, Vkothii. All you did was argue in circles while I chased you down for a straight answer. I never got one. All I got was "But what is your definition of the word ____?" and things of that nature. As if the thing you believe in is too awesome for words, or something. You didn't make anything clear. At all. Ever.

Seriously, I'm starting to wonder if it's possible for a philosophical nutcase to think themselves into a coma...

[Vkothii]

The obvious difference is that I already know that the sky is blue, I don't know whether you believe in whatever version of god.

And the not so obvious difference is that I already know that I'm "god", and I know every other person is too. Anything at all, I guess.
But me, I have a "place"; I think you do too. Call it whatever you like, you're in it.
I don't have a "god-version", because "I am the version".
I'm it, do you not see what I'm saying?

[Vkothii]

As if the thing you believe in is too awesome for words, or something

Sort of, actually words that you can think or speak don't really come into it.

[Enmos]

And the not so obvious difference is that I already know that I'm "god", and I know every other person is too. Anything at all, I guess.
But me, I have a "place"; I think you do too. Call it whatever you like, you're in it.
I don't have a "god-version", because "I am the version".
I'm it, do you not see what I'm saying?

You knew that, not me.

Also, I am now confused as to what the purpose of the thread was. Explain.. ?

[Vkothii]

The purpose was to demonstrate the conflict in understanding between the Eastern paradigm (one which I can say I definitely am in), and the Western one. A failure of understanding.

Although the paradigms of both have counterparts, and there's a spectrum of course. The Yogic tradition didn't evolve for some time, religious historians see the mediating influence of the early Sikh guru line as something that was brought to bear for military and imperial reasons. Be that as it may, the Buddhist "mythology", asceticism. self-sacrifice, etc, more or less embody that side of it, Guatama was a Yogi.
A Western mind sees all the myriad Indian religions, gods, rituals, the caste system (which is also Vedic), and Yoga is something that appears to be a sub-set of those ritual practices. But that's not how an Indian sees it.
A true Hindu not only has a particular religious bent, but recognises all other forms of worship, since in reality, no god cannot be God. The Abrahamic tradition is that there is no other god that can be God.
I wasn't born a "Hindu" either, but that's just a detail.

[Enmos]

The purpose was to demonstrate the conflict in understanding between the Eastern paradigm (one which I can say I definitely am in), and the Western one. A failure of understanding.

Although the paradigms of both have counterparts, and there's a spectrum of course. The Yogic tradition didn't evolve for some time, religious historians see the mediating influence of the early Sikh guru line as something that was brought to bear for military and imperial reasons. Be that as it may, the Buddhist "mythology", asceticism. self-sacrifice, etc, more or less embody that side of it, Guatama was a Yogi.
A Western mind sees all the myriad Indian religions, gods, rituals, the caste system (which is also Vedic), and Yoga is something that appears to be a sub-set of those ritual practices. But that's not how an Indian sees it.
A true Hindu not only has a particular religious bent, but recognises all other forms of worship, since in reality, no god cannot be God. The Abrahamic tradition is that there is no other god that can be God.
I wasn't born a "Hindu" either, but that's just a detail.

Ok well, I wasn't focusing on what your belief was in my posts because I was under the impression that the thread was about the question being asked and the (lack of an) answer to it.
But I do understand your belief.

In your case you could have answered any one of the answers, "yes" and "no". An then offer an explanation.
I don't really see the problem here.

[Vkothii]

The title didn't give the game away?

You had the impression of evasive answers, of your question not being answered in a straightforward way?

But you understand why the Yogi's POV, when asked such a question, is: "why, or are they asking if I believe in the air I'm breathing?"; it's a strange thing to ask someone. Hence the apparent side-stepping.

[Enmos]

The title didn't give the game away?

lol
Well, that's the conclusion the evasive person reached, isn't it ?
It only shows that he didn't realize he was being evasive.. or is lying.

You had the impression of evasive answers, of your question not being answered in a straightforward way?

It wasn't exactly my question, but yes.
As long as I don't actually ask you about it, you can safely assume I don't give a rats ass about your beliefs. (<- this is meant in general)

But you understand why the Yogi's POV, when asked such a question, is: "why, or are they asking if I believe in the air I'm breathing?"; it's a strange thing to ask someone. Hence the apparent side-stepping.

No, I don't understand that.
If not intentionally evasive, it's at the very least confusing and not helping the person that posed the question at all.

[Vkothii]

it's at the very least confusing and not helping the person that posed the question at all.

That could be because the expectation the person asking the question has, goes straight past the answer.
Or, there is no answer I can give, that anyone with that expectation asking such a question, would not think was evasive, confusing, a "non-answer", etc.

But then, I think the question itself is evasive, confusing, a "non-question".
For example:

as if your strange little version of religion should be so obvious to everyone.

See this? -------------------> O

This is a common kind of reaction a questioner has when they believe the person is evading their question.
As you can see, there's already an assumption being made: that I "have" a religion. I do not, but then, I'm not areligious as such, more a fence-sitter.

The bumper sticker version of an answer to one's belief "in" God is then: I don't need to (because I am).

Which is in fact, the case for every one of us.

[Balerion]

Which is in fact, the case for every one of us.

Actually, it's not.

Unless you feel like showing us some proof, don't put your wacky acid dreams on me, pal.

[Vkothii]

Well, you say that, but I don't need to 'show' you a thing.
Since you're already you, I know you already know what I do.

Put it this way, since I know there is no possibility of being able to prove to any other sentient being, that I am aware of myself, only of them and the external world, and only in their and the world's terminology, if you see what I mean.

I cannot, in fact prove a single solitary thing to you or anyone else - except to some degree of "certainty", whatever that might be seen to be at the time, by myself or anyone else. I can only prove stuff to myself - with my sense of sight, sound, touch, etc.

[Enmos]

Well, you say that, but I don't need to 'show' you a thing.
Since you're already you, I know you already know what I do.

Put it this way, since I know there is no possibility of being able to prove to any other sentient being, that I am aware of myself, only of them and the external world, and only in their and the world's terminology, if you see what I mean.

I cannot, in fact prove a single solitary thing to you or anyone else - except to some degree of "certainty", whatever that might be seen to be at the time, by myself or anyone else. I can only prove stuff to myself - with my sense of sight, sound, touch, etc.

But you can describe to us how you proved it to yourself using sight, sound, touch, etc.

[Enmos]

That could be because the expectation the person asking the question has, goes straight past the answer.
Or, there is no answer I can give, that anyone with that expectation asking such a question, would not think was evasive, confusing, a "non-answer", etc.

There is no expectation when I ask someone whether or not they believe in a god.
I am well aware of the different beliefs people have.
In fact, I leave open the possibility that they believe in something I never considered or heard of before.
Still, without explanation, a simple "yes" or "no" is possible.
Of course this leaves the questioner wondering what exactly it is the other person believes in, but that is a separate matter.

[Vkothii]

I'm not sure, are you asking me for an explanation of my "proof" of the existence of "God"?
In English (not Sanskrit)?..

[Enmos]

I'm not sure, are you asking me for an explanation of my "proof" of the existence of "God"?
In English (not Sanskrit)?..

Well you basically said that you can only prove it to yourself, through your perceptions.
So I'm asking you to tell us the story