Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18735164 -

:confused:

Zombie thread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18738811 -

BRRRAAAIIINNNNSSSS!


--------------------
I'm not real, my posts aren't real & reality is really unreal.
OM NAMAH SHIVAAYA!
TAT TVAM ASI!
OM SHANTIH SHANTIH SHANTIH...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18738870 -

Lingabhakt said:
... In a nut shell, karma is cause & affect.
Now for reincarnation. I will say this: reincarnation isn't real insofar as life & death are not real. They are perceptions of different states, or vibrations of consciousness. According to John Hagelin, consciousness is none other than the Unified Field. He has many great lectures on youtube about what this is. In essence, though, it is everything. To Hindus this is called Brahman. Many Westerners misunderstand this to be simply be one of many gods, but this is wrong on many levels. For one, the Vedas (the source scriptures of Hinduism, AKA Sanatana Dharma) teach Advaita (Monism). There are some Hindus that are polytheists, but their beliefs are based on the Puranas (mythic stories). Now, Advaita & Quantum Physics both teach that there is no actual difference between one thing & another; both are one & the very idea of duality is illusionary. This illusion is generated by the mind for some unknown reason (depending on whom you ask). TBC...




Reincarnation -> recycling of atoms within a semi-closed system.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #18739003 -

Weren't adam and eve the first and didnt they commit the first original sin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18739010 -

Repertoire89 said:
:confused:

Zombie thread


:zombie3:

By god.... It's starting...


--------------------
Smile through our disguises.


A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Toe_Jam]
    #18739898 -

First zombie junkies, then zombie pigeons, now zombie threads

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Mastamike1118]
    #18740830 -

Mastamike1118 said:
Weren't adam and eve the first and didnt they commit the first original sin


No


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18741664 -

Copypasta on my thoughts on reincarnation from another thread. As for karma, wishful thinking and selection bias.

Quote:
Jung was able to identify archetypes in human personalities, Myers and Briggs were able to refine it further to 16 archetypes.

It stands to reason that primitive people were able to intuitively identify some of these archetypes. It also stands to reason that these people would have seemed even more similar, coming from an identical culture which would have been less diverse than the modern globalist culture. Therefore two people, one alive and one dead, who's personalities expressed identical archetypes and who likely had many of the same "favorites" and habits, would easily have provided the basis for reincarnation.

That is the perfectly reasonable reasons that a primitive person would have or might believe in reincarnation.

As for modern people, plbgbgbgb. Who knows? There are people who believe the world is 5k years old.



--------------------

Edited by crumblebum (08/22/13 10:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18753428 -

>> the Big Bang is a proven fact.

>> I repeat: the Big Bang is a fact

Certainly there is no disputing that the event encompassed by the term "Big Bang" qualifies as an actual occurrence.  As a descriptor of the universe and its origins, though, it contains no more inherent accuracy than the descriptor found in the book of Genesis, or in any other theistic religion.  Both versions of events are virtually identical in terms of their limited scope.

The biblical Genesis story was constructed within the limited framework of human understanding as it was in the past.  By the same, the Big Bang Theory is constructed within the limited framework of human understanding as it is in the present.  They share this trait irrevocably.  Problems arise when either construct is asserted as inherently superior to the other.  Not only is there very little justification for such an assertion, it is actually not possible to quantify knowledge according to any inherent attributes whatsoever. 

When scientific understanding is evaluated against theistic understanding, scientific understanding is qualifiedly more sophisticated.  When the knowledge contained in either canon is evaluated against all that remains unknown, the difference between them is unquantifiable and therefore null.  This is because knowledge is a phenomenon which cannot exist apart from an infinite continuum of the unknown.

The continuity of conscious awareness depends on two functionally irrevocable processes: the refinement of perception, and the accumulation knowledge.  If either process should stop, conscious awareness itself would immediately cease.  Furthermore, this field of conscious awareness we are each undergoing is inseparable from the field of existence experienced by it.  They are one phenomenon arising immediately in an interdependent cycle of mutual causation.

Because of this, no absolute limit to the accumulation of knowledge can be possible, because contact with this limit would result in the immediate cessation of all past, present, and future conscious-awareness-existence.  The potential for the accumulation of knowledge is therefore unlimited.  The unknown or as-yet-incomprehensible is an infinite continuum into which all existence and all experience eternally unfolds.

With this in place as context for comparing two different aggregates of knowledge from two different periods in human history, there can be no basis for conceiving the Big Bang Theory as inherently superior to the biblical Genesis story.  Sure, if the comparison is made within the much narrower context of human history, a clear difference in sophistication emerges, but calling attention to this is almost always detrimental because it almost always leads to conflict.  Such comparisons tend to rapidly deteriorate into arguments over which collection of knowledge is the most worthwhile, which only hinders the expansion of knowledge itself.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Edited by Ped (08/24/13 10:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped] * 1
    #18753502 -

One of your worse posts ever. :thumbdown:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18753543 -

That's only because its so far beyond what you can even comprehend, man!

:cheersyoufuck:

I don't mean that at all.  Let's not let our history repeat.

What is your objection?


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18753574 -

Comparing a fictional non-testable myth to a falsifiable theory based upon many hundreds of thousands of detailed observations is a major fail. Other than that...

Of course every generation AFTER the scientific method became widely accepted comes up with the best hypothesis possible to fit the current facts as the knowledge base expands and the accuracy of the tools increases; however early stories made no real attempt to fit the facts and were pure fabrication.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18753706 -

From a conventional point of view, that's completely valid and I completely agree. 

My post was about how making these kind of comparisons rarely serves a useful purpose.  By framing the comparison in an ultimate context, the intent was to illustrate its ultimate insignificance.  At least, that's how the post started.  By the end of it I had become so engrossed in playing with words that the post amounted to little more than speculative metaphysical sophistry.  Sorry if that bothered you. 

So, a more down to earth approach:

One of the most common objections raised by atheists takes issue with accepting "God created it" as an explanation for the origin of the universe.    Such an explanation really explains nothing, because the question "what created God" remains. 

Is the Big Bang theory really so different from this?  The idea that all the matter and energy in the universe spontaneously burst into existence: does this explanation really explain anything?  Doesn't the question "into what did it burst" remain?

Of course, the difference between the two is clear: the former stops investigating while the latter pursues it aggressively.  From the point of view of humanity's quest for knowledge (at least in its current form), the scientific approach is clearly the more effective one.  Yet, at the same time, there is a trend among atheistic and scientific-minded types which regards theistic creation myths as laughable fairytales adhered to only by those of inadequate sophistication to grasp the inherently superior Big Bang theory.  In my view, this attitude is conspicuously lacking in its objectivity insofar as it is basically references its validity from itself.  This is the same error made by theists, except is more subtle in this case.

There will come a time, I think, when the scientific method itself is as dated and functionally irrelevant as theistic traditions.  The scientific method contains a few hidden assumptions about reality which, while practical right now, may one day find themselves rendered obsolete by conceptual modalities which can't yet even be imagined.  After all, just about everything we know today would have been completely unimaginable during the stone age.  Is there any reason to suppose that we are now immune to this?  Have we progressed to a point where we can be confident that every aspect of reality is knowable to us within our present scope of imagination or comprehension?  Does such a supposition have a basis?



--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Edited by Ped (08/25/13 12:54 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754813 -

I think you would be well served by familiarising yourself with the discovery of the Unified Field. When God is thought of in terms of which he is related in Abrahamic mythology, it is easy to dismiss with authority. But when you look at the Vedic understanding of God you see that this is validated by science time & again. The Upanishads are thousands of years older than the bible (as well as part of the oldest know religious text in the world) & the Big Bang & all other solid science (not to mention some ideas that are unproven, "undisproven", as well). In Genesis "night & day" as well as the earth, & seasons were created before the sun & other stars. Does that sound even remotely reasonable? I understand metaphor, but the creation story of the bible is intended to be literal. There are christians who say the Big Bang was the work of their god (as they know to deny the Big Bang is silly & thus want their god to have credit), but such christians are heretics.


--------------------
I'm not real, my posts aren't real & reality is really unreal.
OM NAMAH SHIVAAYA!
TAT TVAM ASI!
OM SHANTIH SHANTIH SHANTIH...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18754831 -

This is where dead threads speak....

Never venture where dead threads walk....

:zombie5:


--------------------
Smile through our disguises.


A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754837 -

Quote:
Is the Big Bang theory really so different from this?  The idea that all the matter and energy in the universe spontaneously burst into existence: does this explanation really explain anything?  Doesn't the question "into what did it burst" remain?


The Big Bang theory was the answer to the question "Why are the galaxies all moving away from one another?" This question was formed after an earlier question "Why are galaxies further away more red-shifted in visible light spectrum?" And so on...

Each question answered expands the limits of knowledge. I never get why detractors whine about the lack of Ultimate Knowledge. It is just plain silly.

Quote:
There will come a time, I think, when the scientific method itself is as dated and functionally irrelevant as theistic traditions.


More moronicity. You actually believe that sometime in the future no one will need to outline the steps as to how they came to a conclusion and their work will not need to be replicated/validated?

And you wonder why I gave you a 'Worst Post Ever Award?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754868 -

There will come a time, I think, when the scientific method itself is as dated and functionally irrelevant as theistic traditions.

You've got to be kidding.  That method has been around since early man and is the only thing that has likely got us this far.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18754872 -

for Orgone:thumbup:


--------------------
I'm not real, my posts aren't real & reality is really unreal.
OM NAMAH SHIVAAYA!
TAT TVAM ASI!
OM SHANTIH SHANTIH SHANTIH...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18757227 -

>> The Big Bang theory was the answer to the question "Why are the galaxies all moving away from one another?" This question was formed after an earlier question "Why are galaxies further away more red-shifted in visible light spectrum?" And so on...

>> Each question answered expands the limits of knowledge. I never get why detractors whine about the lack of Ultimate Knowledge. It is just plain silly.

>> That method has been around since early man and is the only thing that has likely got us this far.

>> You actually believe that sometime in the future no one will need to outline the steps as to how they came to a conclusion and their work will not need to be replicated/validated?

Each of these responses seem to indicate that I have not expressed my point clearly enough, or that my use of certain terminology has accidentally aligned my ideas with the sort of mentality I'd also find unpalatable.

I am not interested in diminishing or devaluing science or the scientific method.  Both historically and presently, the contributions of scientists remain paramount to virtually all human knowledge and technological progress.  What concerns me is how this recognition has yielded an attitude which has elevated science as not only the best methodology ever conceived, but also as the best methodology conceivable.  This is a subtle form of sanctity.  By definition, such a view regards scientific methodology as an adequate vehicle for the conquest all unknowns, itself an instrument with the potential to yield ultimate knowledge. 

There simply isn't any basis for such an exaltation, and in fact its only function is to cause distortion.  Furthermore, it is reminiscent of other schools of thought which held themselves in similar regard, and it is quite clear that no good has come of it, nor has any progress flown from it.  It is useless, and it has nothing to do with reality.  This is the heart of my meaning. 


>> The Big Bang theory was the answer to the question "Why are the galaxies all moving away from one another?" This question was formed after an earlier question "Why are galaxies further away more red-shifted in visible light spectrum?" And so on...

Yes, I get it.  What I am suggesting is that it cannot be ruled out that there may exist questions answers completely beyond the scope of this otherwise totally legitimate and totally valuable sequence of progressive inquiry called science.


>> You actually believe that sometime in the future no one will need to outline the steps as to how they came to a conclusion and their work will not need to be replicated/validated?

At the present time, I cannot conceive such a future.  It is unimaginable.  Where you and I depart is at the juncture between possible and impossible.  You seem to be of the disposition that the emergence of a better methodology than this is impossible (correct me if I'm wrong).  I am of the disposition that it is more useful and more realistic to regard the eventual obsolescence of all methodologies as not only possible but virtually assured, even if such obsolescence is unimaginable.

When I consider the potential depth of what is not known or presently knowable, it seems not only possible but likely that everything we understand as true and functional today will eventually be destroyed by the emergence of realities as yet unimagined or unimaginable.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander]
    #18757605 -

Icelander said:
There will come a time, I think, when the scientific method itself is as dated and functionally irrelevant as theistic traditions.

You've got to be kidding.  That method has been around since early man and is the only thing that has likely got us this far.


Science may have moved us somewhere, but wouldn't you need to know where we were and to where we were meant to be going before you could judge whether it had moved us forwards or backwards?

My favourite thing about the scientific method is that it can be used to weigh the merit in the claims of those who act as if they know how people ought to live. Demanding some proof for the question "Where is your God?" meant a big change in the nature of the human experience.


--------------------
"They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reincarnation and Christianity
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Jellric 8,044 60 12/04/04 05:31 PM
by Fucknuckle
* If reincarnation was proven.. would you? (poll) (MORE SPECIFIC)
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 giza 6,433 91 03/01/11 08:37 AM
by DisoRDeR
* Reincarnation...do you believe in it?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 niteowl 8,492 114 03/05/05 07:48 PM
by niteowl
* Can someone explain reincarnation to me?
( 1 2 all )		 michael_lifshitz 2,719 28 07/01/06 07:46 AM
by redgreenvines
* Screwed Karma
( 1 2 all )		 EvilGir 3,885 36 12/08/03 07:33 PM
by Ped
* Yet another reincarnation thread
( 1 2 3 all )		 amuzakat 2,714 44 12/06/10 08:11 AM
by desert father
* Reincarnation?
( 1 2 all )		 Rahz 3,611 34 12/30/08 07:31 PM
by Rahz
* Possible evidence for Reincarnation/Brain as Filter Theory
( 1 2 all )		 soldatheero 3,511 38 01/05/15 10:34 AM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,876 topic views. 0 members, 295 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.