On Jan 30, 12:10 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure. A Brahman would be one with the Atman, which then replaces the concept > of God for the rest of the religions listed.
Not at all, because it advises : All This is Brahman ; and, That Thou Art. Which isn't about " concepts " anymore. > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > To be fair, Chris, Hindus have gods and gods and a GOD, and more, and > > a Brahman that renders God as an ultimate product of ignorance ! Can > > you believe it, in writing, black and white, which of course few > > people read and fewer still believe ! And, I do find it > > intellectually aesthetic, in the sense of liberation. > > > The Advaitis go a step beyond, in saying that no one can be truly > > enlightened without having left behind all gods, all icons, all books, > > all thoughts ... it was mind blowing, to me, when I first came across > > their fundamental premise : complete awareness, joyous action, > > absolute freedom and unconditional love. > > > On Jan 29, 11:36 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Christianity > > > Judaism > > > Islam > > > Hindu > > > Shinto > > > > Say again? > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > “…Religion, on > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > > > changes to > > > > the ideology.” – chris > > > > > I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no one > > > > claims to know what god actually is. > > > > > On Jan 29, 6:38 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical > > > > > > stance? > > > > > > > I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth > > revolves > > > > > > around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any > > experiments > > > > > > ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have perfomed > > > > > > such experiments. > > > > > > > So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is > > > > > > certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I > > trust > > > > > > the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? > > > > > > Aha!, he says...I've got him! But not so much, my friend. This is the > > > > same > > > > > argument that's been bandied about forever; I'm surprised you don't > > have > > > > my > > > > > response memorized. In scientific axioms, we do accept that the data > > > > > provided by someone else is accurate. We have the option, however, to > > > > > approach that experiment for ourselves, and measure and test those > > axioms > > > > > using the scientific process. The hallmark of empirical observation > > is > > > > > reproducibility, and we know that a billion times out of a billion, > > > > dropping > > > > > this rock in my controlled laboratory will result in it landing on > > the > > > > > floor. Ah, but wait! Isn't it possible that on the billion and first > > try, > > > > it > > > > > might float? We have a certain surety in our empirical processes due > > to > > > > the > > > > > reproduction factor, but since we accept that our knowledge is not > > > > absolute, > > > > > we (or our proxies) continue to study and test the data, perform more > > > > > complex observation, and keep a healthy sense of skepticism with > > regards > > > > to > > > > > ALL of our learned scientific knowledge. > > > > > > A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > > is > > > > > that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; it > > is > > > > ever > > > > > evolving and growing as the volume of total observations grows. > > Religion, > > > > on > > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > changes > > > > to > > > > > the ideology. > > > > > > > To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every > > teenager > > > > > > will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not be > > > > > > telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I am > > certian. > > > > > > By her words, by her actions, know all of this, empricaly I know > > it. > > > > > > She could though be living a lie, there is really no way for me > > know > > > > > > that for sure, other than her telling me. So I belive that all of > > her > > > > > > words and all of her actions that have lead me to the conclusion > > that > > > > > > she loves me are true. There is certianly an element of faith in > > that > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > Ultimatly though, we will all belive as we will, for good or for > > ill, > > > > > > logic, empricalism, faith, can you really tell me which methoed of > > > > > > though is best? Can you then show me the evidance why you belive > > > > > > this? Can you show me certian objective evidance? > > > > > > > Myself, I 'belive' that all three are important for all of us, I > > deny > > > > > > that anybody can live by logic, empircalism, or faith alone, and > > > > > > further I 'belive' that to even try to do so does a person no good. > > > > > > Hah but that is just a belief of mine, based on some faith, some > > > > > > logical deductive reasoning and some empircal experiance. > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 14:39, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On each of those topics, no faith is required in an empirical > > stance. > > > > > > > Emotions exist, are measurable, have an underlying physiological > > > > > > mechanism, > > > > > > > which can be fine tuned or adjusted via externalities. Intuition > > is > > > > > > > subconscious analysis. We do it, it's observable, and as would be > > > > > > expected, > > > > > > > is certainly nothing like "ESP". Vitality, attention? I don't > > > > understand > > > > > > > their inclusion. By vitality, do you mean how energetic someone > > is, > > > > or > > > > > > how > > > > > > > healthy? Why would that be a matter of faith? Same with > > > > attention...how > > > > > > is > > > > > > > focus a faith issue? Charm? Do you mean an accelerated > > understanding > > > > and > > > > > > > capability within interpersonal ritualistic behaviour? Love is > > easy > > > > as > > > > > > > well...assuming you're willing to define it first. > > > > > > > > Those who think that science doesn't cover all the tenets and > > facets > > > > of > > > > > > > human behaviour, aren't viewing those things from a scientific > > > > > > perspective, > > > > > > > which makes sense...once you begin to analyze them from a > > scientific > > > > > > > perspective, they lose their mystery, and there is an appeal to > > the > > > > > > mystery, > > > > > > > for those who need faith. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, > > intuition, > > > > > > > > vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one > > > > require > > > > > > > > having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left > > ‘love’ > > > > > > > > off of the list too. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many > > > > theists > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > I will believe something when I am presented with empirical > > > > evidence > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is > > no > > > > > > empirical > > > > > > > > > evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a > > thing. > > > > You > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. > > You > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > > that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is > > not a > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that > > concept is > > > > so > > > > > > > > > difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start > > out > > > > with > > > > > > > > faith, > > > > > > > > > and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not > > > > > > implicitly > > > > > > > > > proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no > > > > soul, > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we > > can't > > > > have > > > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > > in it. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that > > > > there is > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if > > someone > > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that > > claim > > > > must > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that > > ther > > > > eis > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any > > evidence. > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul > > is a > > > > > > 'field > > > > > > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... > > Yes, I > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, > > but > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means > > it > > > > > > hasn't > > > > > > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when > > > > Uranus > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into > > > > existence > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > the telescope landed > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
