Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation
    #4027434 - 04/07/05 04:53 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If karma and reincarnation were real and the driving force behind why "stuff" happens, then nothing "good" or "bad" could happen to a first timer on this planet until he/she did acts to create karma. Because the whole "hypothesis" doesn't even make sense using it's own logic, yet another layer of B.S. must be added to attempt to fill the gaping hole/inconsistency.

This type of additional apology/explanation is ALWAYS a warning sign of a failed model.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (04/07/05 09:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,689
Loc: On the Border
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4027466 - 04/07/05 04:59 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Can you explain fully the Hindu model for this? I don't pretend to understand it and I find myself unable to agree or disagree with you on this because of my lack of information.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4027473 - 04/07/05 05:01 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Fuck "karma", that's a word. But do you believe that gasses will spread out to fill a vacuum? Same as it is with life, pressures tend to equalize. Reincarnation? Bah, i say bullshit too. I've have no reason to believe that I will ever have to do this shit again.


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLux
member
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 189
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027532 - 04/07/05 05:14 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

It is foolish to believe idea's given to you at face value without further reflection, I think most including Swami would agree with this. As an example, someone blindly following the metaphysical belief that their actions will ripple through space/time and come back to them and that their consciousness will be reborn. Another example, someone blindly following the skeptical belief that the former belief is how it was meant when concieved instead of the possibility that it was a metaphor and/or could have been meant to describe certain states of consciousness, or aspects of psychology however you'd like to say it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lux]
    #4027561 - 04/07/05 05:17 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

O.K., but I remain convinced that I'm never going to die and be reborn as "Joe Peterson".


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShagshow
Sit on It

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 575
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lux]
    #4027579 - 04/07/05 05:22 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

What is your take on the idea of things working in complete cycles? Not so much "Karma" per say 'You treat people like shit, a piano will drop on your head,' more along the lines of "If we continue to take resources from this earth, without putting back (giving to the overall wealth), then we will inevitably face disaster. What goes around comes around, too bland. I do adhere to things operating in an unavoidable cycle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027586 - 04/07/05 05:23 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Id like to see a little more instant karma. That would have a real impact on how we act. The other ideas of karma seem farfetched. But I'll find out in a few years now won't I. :grin:


--------------------
"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
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander]
    #4027619 - 04/07/05 05:29 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

"Instant karma". hahaha I always thought that sounded like a soup mix.


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShagshow
Sit on It

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 575
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027627 - 04/07/05 05:31 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Sound like a soup mix, and operates in a similar fashion right? haha

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Shagshow]
    #4027672 - 04/07/05 05:45 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Instant karma brand soup mix..

Directions:

Open package, add boiling water, pour on your head. Enjoy!


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShagshow
Sit on It

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 575
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027676 - 04/07/05 05:46 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Forgot step one..."Hurt someone else"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Shagshow]
    #4027681 - 04/07/05 05:48 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

You have to hurt someone else in order to get the soup in the first place.


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineShagshow
Sit on It

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 575
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027691 - 04/07/05 05:50 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Gotcha

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027692 - 04/07/05 05:50 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

And the other fine product:

"Sweet rewards" brand chocolate bars.

directions: do good towards others, open package, be raptured away in creamy sexual chocolate goodness.


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineslaphappy
Its just me
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 1,188
Loc: Norway, Eidsvoll, Råholt...
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Smallworlds]
    #4027841 - 04/07/05 06:42 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I just made up one sentance to prove entire generations of philosophy and spiritual searching wrong.

Yay me!


--------------------
The argent messenger of truth beyond truth, the antithesis of life, cruel and bleak as interstellar space, pulseless and frozen as absolute zero, dazzling with the frost of irrefragable logic and unforgettable fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4028203 - 04/07/05 07:49 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

>> If karma and reincarnation were real and the driving force behind why "stuff" happens, then nothing "good" or "bad" could happen to a first timer on this planet until he/she did acts to create karma.

All phenomena are effects which depend upon prior causes to sustain their existence. These effects serve as the sustaining causes of future effects. There is no single phenomenon that exists independent of it's previous moment of existence. Because this is true, phenomena are beginningless, and karma and reincarnation are necessary elements of life's continuity. There are no "first timers" on this planet or within any realm of existence, because all phenomena, including living beings, stretch infinitely backwards through time.

Behind all the arrogant fanfare the scientific community has decorated itself with by debunking the supernatural, science has allowed itself one miraculous inscrutibility: the "big bang". According to scientists, the big bang is the lone phenomena in all of existence that is causeless in it's origin. How does this differ from belief in God? A Christian would say that all things go back to God, and that God is the one causeless originating factor in existence. After such a history of mocking Christianity and other religious schools of thought, science has asked us to accept all phenomena as being traceable back to something called the "big bang", which is identical to "God" in that it is touted as the one origin independent of the otherwise incontrovertible law of causality.

And so we can see how science is essentially a religion of self-importance, arising quite appropriately at the time when our civilization began to conceive of itself as this planet's divinely ordained king and possessor, be it by the authority of God or of evolution. This rigorous intellectual process, called "scientific method", is merely a testament to our adherence to principle objectivity, and it's through this unique flavour of blind faith that we repeatedly assure ourselves that we are justified in what we do and that our lives have a very important purpose. Identical to any institutionalized religion, science is but another school of thought dedicated to the comfort and warmth of a population which finds the indefinability of it's own identity and purpose absolutely unbearable.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSmallworlds
Trippin' fool -Merry Prankster

Registered: 03/12/05
Posts: 4,207
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4028260 - 04/07/05 08:02 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

:cheers: :handth: :heart:


--------------------
Through the excercise of patience, one may learn humility..

Smoke plenty of green, and eat fungus!!!!
:peace::heart::slomo::gd_icon::gd_icon::gd_icon::slomo:


Trip Report

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4028309 - 04/07/05 08:12 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

gnosis pwns j00


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4028836 - 04/07/05 09:55 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Apparently you are either ignorant of how science works, or are feigning ignorance to attempt to make a point.

The Big Bang was not just some made up story, but a hypothesis congruent with much of the cosmic evidence, such as the apparent age of the universe, its uniform temperature, cosmic radiation, observing the birth and death of stars, rates of galactic expansion and so forth. This differs night and day from religious cosmologies based soley on ancient superstitions.

Yes, the Big Bang, if true, just leads to another mystery, but so what? Science is an incremental unraveling of life's mysteries. It has never claimed that all things can be understood at the deepest level; only that we can increase our understanding.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleniteowl
GrandPaw
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4028916 - 04/07/05 10:20 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

If a person believes that "karma" and "reincarnation" are true.

And living this "lifestyle" makes them a better person.


How is that B.S.




No one can prove or disprove "karma" or "reincarnation".

Just like no one can prove or disprove the "big bang" theory.


Both beliefs work......for different people.


Saying that one or the other is B.S. is ignorant because neither one can be proved.


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4028978 - 04/07/05 10:38 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

The Big Bang theory is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history. Creationism is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history. It's the same. In their time, the now-largely obsolete religious schools were as incremental in unravelling life's mysteries as science is today. There is no reason to lend significance to one system or the other. Either system is reflective of developmental processes of it's surrounding culture.

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLe_Canard
The Duk Abides

Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4028997 - 04/07/05 10:44 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

While I personally don't believe in the concept of "Karma" as a mystical universal force that rights all wrongs, I do think there can be a "social Karma" at play. For example, someone might go around being a total asshole to everyone, and most people oftentimes retaliate by treating that guy as an asshole. At least, that's been my observation....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4029263 - 04/08/05 12:10 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

So now a theory is the same as a fairy tale?  :rolleyes:

Please show evidence for the creation theory and the knowledge on which it was based.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleniteowl
GrandPaw
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4029278 - 04/08/05 12:21 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

All "theories" are "fairy tales" untill they are proven as facts.


Neither the "creation" theory nor the "big bang" theory have been proven.(and never will be)


They are both "fairy tales"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4029299 - 04/08/05 12:33 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

:lol: Good stuff.

I hear where your comming form Swami... however, I feel that you haven't explored reincarnation to it's fullest extent.

Their recently has been a scroll found in the ground, by an old tree, to the left of a trash can somewhere in India that contains the the "missing link" that will help explain why this occurs. The scroll's contents deal with a new concept, that when roughly translated to english comes out to be preincarnation.

Preincarnation explains why we are still affected if this is our first lifetime. It and reincarnation are part of a dualistic philosophy with great implications.

Preincarnation asserts that we are affected by our actions of our future selves, and that's why we are today... think going ahead, while slipping behind. The fundamental difference where preincarnation differs is that the doctrine asserts that we should piss people off and harm them as much as possible. It's the yin to the yang.

Not much is known about it of course, but evidence suggests that it's the missing counterpart to why we're affected by everything the way we are regardless of our actions. Now with the yin accompanying the yang of the philosophy, we can now truly understand that the net result of our dis/position's in life are a result of our future selves and past selves.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4029308 - 04/08/05 12:37 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.




Isn't it? :lol:

Sure, not all science is cracked up to be, nor are all beliefs.

But if we are to generalize... sooner or later the truth becomes known regarding the nature of science through proofs, and testing of theory when applicable as well as through deductive reasoning.

Please attempt to apply that to belief. One cult is as good as the next I suppose.

On another note... please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong. If it's not possible to do so, we can get into the tenants found within.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/08/05 12:43 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleniteowl
GrandPaw
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4029318 - 04/08/05 12:44 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong


cant be done

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: niteowl]
    #4029349 - 04/08/05 12:54 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I know... funny thing about beliefs... :grin:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4029987 - 04/08/05 08:05 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

>> So now a theory is the same as a fairy tale?

Yes, absolutely. Just as new discoveries completely supplanted everything that was widely accepted as true in previous generations, so discoveries in future generations will completely supplant everything that is conventionally understood now. Any and all systems of thought are reflective of developmental processes of their surrounding culture. Until we can break away from this, any canon generated by the pursuit of knowledge will be seperate from the truth. If you believe that science is the be all and end all of knowledge in the universe, or that science possesses such awesome capacity as to sustain all the knowledge of the next eternity, you are as bewitched with awe in it's fantasm as any religious zealot of past millenia.


>> Preincarnation asserts that we are affected by our actions of our future selves, and that's why we are today... think going ahead, while slipping behind.

>> please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong

If we are to accept the idea of preincarnation, we'd have to simultaneously accept that every event in the universe is entirely independent of causality.

From our point of view, causality flows forward with the momentum of time. Events of the past are the sustaining causes for the events of this present moment. Events of this present moment serve as the causes for events in the future, and so on and so forth. It is not difficult to see that this is so. If we are to suppose that causality were to somehow flow backwards while time maintains it's forward momentum, and that the actions of our future selves served as causes for effects observable here in the present, we must first suppose that those future events occured independent of the causal factors occuring here in the present, because if future events are to be dependent on past causes, those past causes must not fluctuate. Since the momentum of causality is easily observable, and since the idea of preincarnation must operate independent of actual causal law, the idea of preincarnation is wrong.

If Event A serves as the causal basis for Event B, then Event B cannot reversely affect Event A, because that destroys the causal basis for Event B, thereby destroying the basis for Event B to affect Event A in the first place. If, as a facet of causal law, preincarnation were to come in to effect in the universe, the universe would be instantly nullified. Since the universe it not nullified, this law is not in effect and is not true.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4030024 - 04/08/05 08:30 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:


The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.




I think there are alot of the similarities between science and religion you mentioned. Why I prefer science is that it moves along at faster clip then most religions. Christianity for example is loath to give up outmoded notions and to incorporate new information. It often represses freedom to think and question our lives. Science is more open to growth IMO, and so serves human evolution better. Now this is only more or less true depending on the religion.  :mushroom2:


--------------------
"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
OfflineLux
member
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 189
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander]
    #4030059 - 04/08/05 08:46 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Why choose? Take what you need and leave what you don't, no need to conform to one school of thought.

Also, I do not believe that what is presented to us as religions are presented to us in the way that they were inteded, some more than others. There are many layers of distortion. Linguistically for one; through the process of translation. Culturally; the difference between cultures is so significant that one could say there are completely different cognitive processes between those in the great age of religous founders and that of now. Then the most common, I believe, is mis-interpretation. Over time it is bound to happen, and in the vast amount of time that most modern religions have stood it is clear, and there is even historical evidence for most cases that there has been a great deal of manipulation and distortion by man.

Edited by Lux (04/08/05 09:06 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male

Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lux]
    #4030096 - 04/08/05 09:01 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Well Lux, I do not choose. I was speaking in general, as to the population at large, and our evolution.

Personally I see science in very similar ways as religion as I said.

I use it all and everything. I adhere to no one philosophy and welcome new information. I realize no ultimate truth other than Love. And I can not prove any of my current beliefs. :heart: :mushroom2:


--------------------
"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

Edited by Icelander (04/08/05 09:02 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLux
member
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 189
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander]
    #4030127 - 04/08/05 09:13 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Oh I wasn't accusing you of anything. I absolutely agree with the view of seeing religion and science in the same light. Simply different paths all with the same objective of truth, each bringing it's own unique insight, though also bringing it's own limitations.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4030171 - 04/08/05 09:30 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
The Big Bang theory is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  Creationism is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  It's the same.  In their time, the now-largely obsolete religious schools were as incremental in unravelling life's mysteries as science is today.




It is not the same. It is only the same in principle, and looking at it only through that lens belies the substance and reality of both systems. It is the same as saying that "John Paul the Second was a man born in a specific place and Adolph Hitler was also a man born in such a place at such a time, and they are the same". They have similarities in some characteristics, but they also show great differences. I would imagine that past religious schools pursued different interests and used different methods to pursue those interests than what shall be known as science does. Different methods that apply to different areas of study.

Quote:


  There is no reason to lend significance to one system or the other.  Either system is reflective of developmental processes of it's surrounding culture.




The effectiveness of one system as compared to another underlines said system's signifigance. Obviously, each system reflects the developmental processes of the culture it arose from. Is that the definitive summation of that system? Of course not. Each system is a method to be used for a specific end. The success it meets at arriving at that specific end determines the signifigance of that system at accomplishing precisely that.

Quote:


The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.




How does science, a conceptual organization of thoughts and ideas, consider itself a superior school of thought? Science is a method, not a conscious entity deriving from itself a sense of self-importance. In this same vein, it doesn't ridicule anything, either. I'm surprised that one would project onto conceptual thought processes in this way. :shocked: I never knew the last step in the scientific process was "I am the omnipotent science! I am superior to other concepts! Relinquish control of yoursel to me!' :lol:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
Offlinethe_phoenix
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4030192 - 04/08/05 09:38 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
If karma and reincarnation were real and the driving force behind why "stuff" happens, then nothing "good" or "bad" could happen to a first timer on this planet until he/she did acts to create karma. Because the whole "hypothesis" doesn't even make sense using it's own logic, yet another layer of B.S. must be added to attempt to fill the gaping hole/inconsistency.

This type of additional apology/explanation is ALWAYS a warning sign of a failed model.


This makes sense if the "first timer" arrived from an external source. But we all come from the same place.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4030487 - 04/08/05 11:25 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

>> They have similarities in some characteristics, but they also show great differences.

Those differences are merely reflective of the differences in cultural perspective from then and now.


>> Science is a method, not a conscious entity deriving from itself a sense of self-importance.

Science is practiced by a community. It's this community which is, generally speaking, arrogantly self-assured and self-important, just like practioners of popularized religion were in their time.


>> The effectiveness of one system as compared to another underlines said system's signifigance.

>> Each system is a method to be used for a specific end. The success it meets at arriving at that specific end determines the signifigance of that system at accomplishing precisely that.

Both science and popular institutionalized religion are used to accomplish the same primary (but of course not exclusive) end: the comfort and warmth of a population which finds the indefinability of it's own identity and purpose absolutely unbearable. In their time, either side has proven itself equally effective at accomplishing this single objective, and for this reason (and many others) there is no real distinction.

I understand that I'm not being very friendly to science or the scientific community. There is no special reason to be. Popular science and popular religion are different manifestations of the same process, possessing the same faults and the same strengths as relevant to their cultural context.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4030569 - 04/08/05 11:41 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
>> Preincarnation asserts that we are affected by our actions of our future selves, and that's why we are today... think going ahead, while slipping behind.

>> please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong

If we are to accept the idea of preincarnation, we'd have to simultaneously accept that every event in the universe is entirely independent of causality.

From our point of view, causality flows forward with the momentum of time.  Events of the past are the sustaining causes for the events of this present moment.  Events of this present moment serve as the causes for events in the future, and so on and so forth.  It is not difficult to see that this is so.  If we are to suppose that causality were to somehow flow backwards while time maintains it's forward momentum, and that the actions of our future selves served as causes for effects observable here in the present, we must first suppose that those future events occured independent of the causal factors occuring here in the present, because if future events are to be dependent on past causes, those past causes must not fluctuate.  Since the momentum of causality is easily observable, and since the idea of preincarnation must operate independent of actual causal law, the idea of preincarnation is wrong.

If Event A serves as the causal basis for Event B, then Event B cannot reversely affect Event A, because that destroys the causal basis for Event B, thereby destroying the basis for Event B to affect Event A in the first place.  If, as a facet of causal law, preincarnation were to come in to effect in the universe, the universe would be instantly nullified.  Since the universe it not nullified, this law is not in effect and is not true.




bah! You'r just using a generalized stance on time, reincarnation doesn't follow either with that line of thought.

Your just thinking in terms of science... you can't use science to prove or disprove beliefs (or so I've read...).

Your thinking that time is just one way, if one were to look at the basis and the flow of time, and look at the backwards adaptation and evolution till we achieve one instant, which indeliably promotes an evolution of order by looking backwards, it makes perfect sense.

Think outside the box, it's equally valid to look backwards as it is forwards. In terms of causality, it is still applicalbe, only we are seeing the effect prior to the cause, and hence causality still applies in a backwards sense of the word. Even in a forward sense of the word, it all depends on how far you wish to dwelve into it.

It's like watching a movie where someone jumps out of a plane to go skydiving and watching it while rewinding. Altogether the nature of the event is unchanged, the only difference is the order in which it took place.

BTW I do believe it's wrong, hence why I contrived the B.S. notion of preincarnation... but one could make it seem as sensible as any other belief if one were to take the time to refine it, and explain why dynamic change happens backwards through time, independant of fluctuating variables, as one could omit such variables, and provide some "mystic" explanation as why they aren't part of the determinant of said event (In terms of dynamic future events affecting the past which you're percieving as static and already written in terms of causality, but that is only applicable if you're reasonable... ). :shrug: Either way, the point of the example wasn't how valid it was, the point is that any belief can be made to justify anything befalling it in terms of it's effects.

Causality would be but a minor road block in way of preincarnations potential to revolutionize how we act on the basis of our future selves. It's easy enough to suggest in terms of beliefs why it isn't valid to look at it in terms causality because one can't really apply scientific method to a belief, as a belief holds itself above and beyond proof. One must have faith in their future selves, and hope that in the future they did good, as they're paying for it now (prekarma anyhow). Can one live a good life in the future in hopes of changing the past as a result of having knowledge of prekarma? No, one cannot do that with reincarnation either, it's not an ironclad fact...

~shit happens, doesn't mean that we all need to be assholes and the like, but we needn't stick to a belief that is unsubstantiated beyond what is suggested, as I've seen no real result of it beyond what people suggest, and link events to actions, that are for the most part just a consequence of life...

Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/08/05 12:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4030733 - 04/08/05 12:17 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
Those differences are merely reflective of the differences in cultural perspective from then and now.




Perhaps they are. I was referring to the actual distinctions between these processes for accumulating information and understanding, the concepts themselves. They may have arisen from a certain perspective, but the nature of these concepts themselves are distinct from other concepts and stand seperate from the perspective that they perhaps reflect. Different perspectives produce different thoughts, but that doesn't mean that these thoughts produced through this perspective have nothing to distinguish them from these thoughts over here, thought from that perspective.

Both perspectives are indeed the result of the knowledge available to said culture at said time. This, although it is a common link, does not place both perspectives on a level playing ground, where both are equal, are the same, and have no real meaning that reflects reality in more truthful ways than the other. If one perspective has access to more accurate knowledge and a better thinking process to make use of that knowledge, that perspective will be more reflective of reality itself, as compared to another perspective that simply makes assumptions, instead of observations.

Quote:


Science is practiced by a community.  It's this community which is, generally speaking, arrogantly self-assured and self-important, just like practioners of popularized religion were in their time.




First off, denoting the difference between a community that practices something and the thing that is practiced itself is an important distinction to be made. Science as a concept and a practice cannot be contaminated by such arrogrance and self-assuredness and -importance, it is the failing of those who utilize science.

I personally do not feel that I can stand on ground upon which I can make claims concerning the general attitudes of the community who uses science. I am not privleged to the thoughts of these people. I would also like to note that almost every single person, if not everyone, uses science in their own thinking. It is almost as if it is a natural aspect of our thought processes. :wink:

Quote:


Both science and popular institutionalized religion are used to accomplish the same primary (but of course not exclusive) end:  the comfort and warmth of a population which finds the indefinability of it's own identity and purpose absolutely unbearable.  In their time, either side has proven itself equally effective at accomplishing this single objective, and for this reason (and many others) there is no real distinction. 





I cast doubt upon this. The reason is that, while perhaps some utilize both science and institutionalized religion to accomplish these ends you describe, and even if that is the reason they were established in the first place, both can be used by people of different mindsets, looking to accomplish different ends. Perhaps science might be used in order to find knowledge that can be applied in an invention, instead of seeking a stable understanding out of fear. etc. etc. etc.

My point is to acknowledge the actual differences within these concepts and what they encompass themselves. *shrugs*

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4030952 - 04/08/05 01:31 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I understand that I'm not being very friendly to science or the scientific community. There is no special reason to be.

You mean other than the fact that you are hypocritically using the fruits of science (electricity, computer, Internet; etc.) to denigrate the same?  :rolleyes:

Now try passing the same simultaneous message to us using religion or another cultural derivative.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4030955 - 04/08/05 01:32 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

:lol:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4031789 - 04/08/05 04:58 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

>> Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?

While it can't be proven except through direct experience, there are very many logical bases for reincarnation and karma.

That is what differentiates reincarnation from preincarnation in terms of this poor attitude you have toward any kind of belief. It would be absolutely senseless to believe in preincarnation, because so much evidence to the contrary is readily available. Reincarnation is not like this. There is absolutely no evidence which can be used to disprove reincarnation or karma, and in fact there is a great amount of logical evidence to sustain either idea.



>> You mean other than the fact that you are hypocritically using the fruits of science (electricity, computer, Internet; etc.) to denigrate the same?

I have not done this, Swami. Show me where you got that impression and I will show you how you have misunderstood me.



>> First off, denoting the difference between a community that practices something and the thing that is practiced itself is an important distinction to be made. Science as a concept and a practice cannot be contaminated by such arrogrance and self-assuredness and -importance, it is the failing of those who utilize science.

Of course that's true. Do you think so low of me as to believe I need this lecture? Are you trying to discredit me by suggesting that I can't tell the difference between a community and a practiced engaged in by that community? You and I both know that this is just semantics, Fireworks. You know what I meant.


>> If one perspective has access to more accurate knowledge and a better thinking process to make use of that knowledge, that perspective will be more reflective of reality itself, as compared to another perspective that simply makes assumptions, instead of observations.

"Better" is a highly subjective term.

Please provide a good reason to suppose that science's discoveries are any more reflective of reality itself than those discoveries of ancient schools of thought. During the pinnacle of those old religious systems, the bank information compiled by them was universally accepted as truth. For someone to doubt the creation story was unthinkable. It was true because the majority believed it be true.

Science is the same. What we presently understand as true is such only because the prevailing majority believes it to be so. When much time passes we will learn new things that undermine our present knowledge entirely, and we will look back upon science and scientific method and think "what a bunch of barbarians." It is already happening. There is a huge rift forming between modern physicists and classical physicists, because modern physicists have happened upon new ideas that completely undermine what has been "known" about physics and how things exist for hundreds of years.

The knowledge accumulated through science is reflective of our culture only. There is nothing about science which was found "out there". The knowledge accumulated by religious schools is also reflective of their prevailing culture only. There was nothing about those beliefs which could be found "out there". And that is why what is "known" rapidly becomes myth, regardless of who discovered knowledge through which method. It happened then and it will happen now, so long as we persist in the belief that there is an objective quality to any kind of knowledge. The Story of Genesis is a creation myth. The Big Bang theory is a creation myth. The next big idea will be another creation myth.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4032427 - 04/08/05 08:30 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Show me where you got that impression...

I guess juxtaposing your SPECIFIC quote next to my response was somehow being obscure.  :rolleyes:


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4033107 - 04/09/05 01:22 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
Of course that's true.  Do you think so low of me as to believe I need this lecture?  Are you trying to discredit me by suggesting that I can't tell the difference between a community and a practiced engaged in by that community?  You and I both know that this is just semantics, Fireworks.  You know what I meant.




It isn't just semantics, it is the difference between a tool and that which uses the tool. I don't think so low of you to believe that you need this "lecture"; however, I do know that it is an important distinction that needs to be made. You described characteristics and imposed them onto science, when these characteristics cannot be laid upon science at all, by the very nature of what science is. The attitude of a carpenter is not the attitude of the hammer itself. :wink:


Quote:


Please provide a good reason to suppose that science's discoveries are any more reflective of reality itself than those discoveries of ancient schools of thought.  During the pinnacle of those old religious systems, the bank information compiled by them was universally accepted as truth.  For someone to doubt the creation story was unthinkable.  It was true because the majority believed it be true.




These discoveries of science are reflective of reality itself because these discoveries have been applied. They have demonstrated themselves to be true through application. Regardless of whether or not a majority believes in the concepts of thermodynamics, regardless of whether or not these concepts are merely a reflection of the cultural perspective that "created" (observed, of course, would be the correct term :wink:) them, the fact remains that these concepts of thermodynamics exist in reality, that they are at work in reality, and that this has been tested by using and applying these concepts. I don't understand how this can be denied and downplayed. :confused:

Quote:


Science is the same.  What we presently understand as true is such only because the prevailing majority believes it to be so.  When much time passes we will learn new things that undermine our present knowledge entirely, and we will look back upon science and scientific method and think "what a bunch of barbarians."  It is already happening.  There is a huge rift forming between modern physicists and classical physicists, because modern physicists have happened upon new ideas that completely undermine what has been "known" about physics and how things exist for hundreds of years.




You make it seem as if our understanding has no basis, or rather that our understanding has no meaning because it is in a state of change. There is a rift between classical physicists and modern physicists because these modern physicists have developed more insight into the nature of reality, because they have taken more variables into account, because they have taken the previous knowledge and put it into new perspective. This doesn't negate any meaning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems as if you are dismissing the substance and meaning of these systems because of the nature of how these systems develop, and this has been what I've been focusing upon from the beginning of this thread. Has science portrayed a more accurate representation of the nature of this reality than previous systems that did not have access to more experience and knowledge? Indeed it has. :wink: Of course we shouldn't look down on previous systems, as that would be an ignorant thing to do. But that doesn't mean that this current system or any system doesn't have any validity. blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.... :shocked:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:


--------------------
: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
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4033108 - 04/09/05 01:23 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
>> Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?

While it can't be proven except through direct experience, there are very many logical bases for reincarnation and karma.

That is what differentiates reincarnation from preincarnation in terms of this poor attitude you have toward any kind of belief. It would be absolutely senseless to believe in preincarnation, because so much evidence to the contrary is readily available. Reincarnation is not like this. There is absolutely no evidence which can be used to disprove reincarnation or karma, and in fact there is a great amount of logical evidence to sustain either idea.





My poor attitude towards a belief? Nah, that's your belief of my attitude. I just require a little more proof, then hearsay that associates serendipity with universal mandates on the basis of our actions.

I could refine preincarnation to be sensible if you'd like... and justify it to any extent possible in any situation... Or we can stick to karma and reincarnation and assert it can do such.

I could refine and create a story that links coincidence with past events, and further promotes an ideology based on the certainty of fortuanate events happening on the basis of fortuitious actions... but I don't think you would believe it, as I'm essentially telling you that it is going to be made up.

It's your belief, I'm ok with that, I'm glad you feel so strongly about it. I simply don't choose to believe in something that suggests that everything that befalls us is in part due to who we were in our past lives, and what will affect us in our future will be determined by the morality of our past actions. Their is a logical basis for karma in respects to the general function, but not as a law for universal actions. I'm simply asking for Karma and reincarnation at work, an exampe with known controls, no manipulation, and pure evidence to support that indeed karma was at work beyond subjective qualification on the basis of our beliefs.

What evidence do you have to disprove the big-bang theory that you hold to be fallacious? Theirs a great body of evidence used to sustain and support such, but i suppose if we don't look to some form of grand cosmic mysticism, and a super organism of conscious thought that it isn't inspired enough to catch your attention.

Why not share your theories as to the creation of the universe, and furthermore please support it, as you suggest that you know a touch more then the rest of us do, who hold some merit in the big bang theory.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4033115 - 04/09/05 01:27 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


Please provide a good reason to suppose that science's discoveries are any more reflective of reality itself than those discoveries of ancient schools of thought. During the pinnacle of those old religious systems, the bank information compiled by them was universally accepted as truth. For someone to doubt the creation story was unthinkable. It was true because the majority believed it be true.

Science is the same. What we presently understand as true is such only because the prevailing majority believes it to be so. When much time passes we will learn new things that undermine our present knowledge entirely, and we will look back upon science and scientific method and think "what a bunch of barbarians." It is already happening. There is a huge rift forming between modern physicists and classical physicists, because modern physicists have happened upon new ideas that completely undermine what has been "known" about physics and how things exist for hundreds of years.

The knowledge accumulated through science is reflective of our culture only. There is nothing about science which was found "out there". The knowledge accumulated by religious schools is also reflective of their prevailing culture only. There was nothing about those beliefs which could be found "out there". And that is why what is "known" rapidly becomes myth, regardless of who discovered knowledge through which method. It happened then and it will happen now, so long as we persist in the belief that there is an objective quality to any kind of knowledge. The Story of Genesis is a creation myth. The Big Bang theory is a creation myth. The next big idea will be another creation myth.



This shows a complete ignorance of what science is, if not a disingenuous slander of it. Science is not dogma, it is a self-correcting process. Science is testable and falsifiable. Religion starts with a belief and then looks for evidence to back it up, interpreting everything within the context of that belief. This is why religious dogma is rigid, whereas science is constantly advancing. The rift between modern physics and classic physics is testament to this virtue.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4033116 - 04/09/05 01:28 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
While it can't be proven except through direct experience, there are very many logical bases for reincarnation and karma...... Reincarnation is not like this.  There is absolutely no evidence which can be used to disprove reincarnation or karma, and in fact there is a great amount of logical evidence to sustain either idea.




Please share with us this logical evidence of either or both ideas. :wink:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: fireworks_god]
    #4035491 - 04/09/05 08:41 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

>> These discoveries of science are reflective of reality itself because these discoveries have been applied.

>> the fact remains that these concepts of thermodynamics exist in reality, that they are at work in reality, and that this has been tested by using and applying these concepts. I don't understand how this can be denied and downplayed.

>> Science is not dogma

>> Religion starts with a belief and then looks for evidence to back it up, interpreting everything within the context of that belief. [Science does not do this]


The problem here is that we are supposing that science is different or "better" than religion because science is pursuing truths that are exist objectively. It's this idea, that truth occurs on the outside, that is the core dogmatic principle of science. It's from this starting point that hypothesis are formed and then investigated. It does not matter whether or not the hypothesis is confirmed or disproven, because when the scientific ritual is complete, either outcome is taken as affirmation of the notion that science is a jewel which possesses the capacity to reveal objective truths. To borrow your own words, science starts with a belief, and then interprets all of it's findings within the context of that belief. The belief I'm referring to is the fiercly defended and highly exalted (and completely untested and unverifyable) notion of reality's principle objectivity.

And it's with this same idea of principle objectivity that science -- ahem, pardon me -- the scientific community continuously draws distinction between itself and other schools of thought, in the same way that any dogmatic bully of a religion with the happenstance of a popular majority has done over the past ten thousand years.


>> You make it seem [that] our understanding has no meaning because it is in a state of change.

Yes, exactly. It has no inherent meaning and no intrinsic value. That the scientific community has supposed itself and it's methods to possess value, and, as a necessary result of that feeling of value, a sense of superiority, is it's very downfall. It is the same downfall that has afflicted every other failed or failing school of thought in history, as it obscures their discoveries and creates a distance between what is observed and what actually is. As it is said, the map becomes the territory.


>> What evidence do you have to disprove the big-bang theory that you hold to be fallacious? Theirs a great body of evidence used to sustain and support such, but i suppose if we don't look to some form of grand cosmic mysticism, and a super organism of conscious thought that it isn't inspired enough to catch your attention.

A great body of evidence used to sustain and support what? That all things came from out of nowhere and without cause? Okay, so scientists did a whole lot of number crunching and head scratching and traced events back through time all the way back to... what? A great, all-encompasing causeless mystery that is completely invisible and unapproachable. Isn't this just another form of grand cosmic mysticism?

There is a great body of evidence to describe the way the cosmos have taken shape in terms of their physicality, the way life forms have progessed from states of great simplicity to enormous complexity in response to changes in their surroundings, and so on and so forth. All of this I accept as solidly reliable interpretations of a conventional reality, but there is no ultimate truth to be found here, as science professes. It's not science or it's methods that I am challening. It is science's unfounded sense of pride and self-certainty.


>> Why not share your theories as to the creation of the universe,

>> Please share with us this logical evidence of either or both ideas. [Karma and reincarnation]

For something to be created, it requires a beginning. If there is no distinction between the moment something appeared and the previous moment in which it did not appear, then there cannot be a beginning to that object and therefore that object cannot be created. Taking existence as our object, existence was not created because it did not begin. We know this because all things exist in absolute dependence upon their own prior existence. Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless, except in relationship to objects which are self-aware and which have conceived of themselves as being self-existent. Objects only begin, behave, interact with other objects, age, break down, and finally altogether cease when these discriminations can be made relative to other phenomenon. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which objects undergo these changes can only be described relative to other phenomenon, which are seen as seperate but are not in fact so. When we remove those discriminations, we understand existence, and we understand that it's nature is without beginning or end.

For a living being to be created, it requires a beginning. Since we are not seperate from existence, we share it's same essential nature, and following the same logic describing the nature of existence we can conclude that living beings did not begin and do not end and thus are continuously reborn as the concious faculty of organisms which possess a nervous system adequate to sustain gross, subtle, and very subtle levels of awareness.

The mind is not seperate from existence, and therefore shares the same essential nature as existence. Following the same logic describing the nature of existence, we can conclude that the mind engaged in no original action, and that it will not undergo a final experience, because the existence of the mind is predicated upon it's previous moment of existence. Since the mind is of the same essential nature as existence, it is subject to the same principles sustaining existence, that actions of mind serve as causes which necessarily follow with effects of the mind, or experience. Since the function and capacity of the mind is to know, to impute, and to perceive, we can further conclude that the knowledge, imputations, and perceptions of the mind are in fact effects identical to their cause, which is action, or a unified term describing both actions and their effects: "karma".

If living beings and the mind did not share the same essential nature as existence, they would not exist, for all things exist as part of that from which nothing can be removed. For something to exist outside of or in discordance with the sustaining principles of that from which nothing can be removed is for it not to exist at all.


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


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4035646 - 04/09/05 09:39 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless...

How do you cook soup in a formless bowl in a formless oven in your formless house on a formless planet? Can you do such a thing because * ta da * objects actually DO have form; mystical-double-speakian nonsense aside?


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleflowstone
blustering

Registered: 01/25/05
Posts: 6,485
Loc: precious
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4035676 - 04/09/05 09:48 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Either you missed his point or you are just being sarcastic, who knows :confused: . Read what you quoted with an open mind. Such a long reply deserves more than a cheap one liner, but who am I to offer such wisdom  :sun:


--------------------
these long agonizing months without you...have been long and agonizing..
"War Doesn't Decide Who's Right... It Only Decides Who's Left."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4035959 - 04/10/05 12:04 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
>> What evidence do you have to disprove the big-bang theory that you hold to be fallacious? Theirs a great body of evidence used to sustain and support such, but i suppose if we don't look to some form of grand cosmic mysticism, and a super organism of conscious thought that it isn't inspired enough to catch your attention.

1) A great body of evidence used to sustain and support what? That all things came from out of nowhere and without cause? Okay, so scientists did a whole lot of number crunching and head scratching and traced events back through time all the way back to... what? A great, all-encompasing causeless mystery that is completely invisible and unapproachable. Isn't this just another form of grand cosmic mysticism?

There is a great body of evidence to describe the way the cosmos have taken shape in terms of their physicality, the way life forms have progessed from states of great simplicity to enormous complexity in response to changes in their surroundings, and so on and so forth. All of this I accept as solidly reliable interpretations of a conventional reality, but there is no ultimate truth to be found here, as science professes. It's not science or it's methods that I am challening. It is science's unfounded sense of pride and self-certainty.


>> Why not share your theories as to the creation of the universe,

>> Please share with us this logical evidence of either or both ideas. [Karma and reincarnation]

2) For something to be created, it requires a beginning. If there is no distinction between the moment something appeared and the previous moment in which it did not appear, then there cannot be a beginning to that object and therefore that object cannot be created. Taking existence as our object, existence was not created because it did not begin. We know this because all things exist in absolute dependence upon their own prior existence. Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless, except in relationship to objects which are self-aware and which have conceived of themselves as being self-existent. Objects only begin, behave, interact with other objects, age, break down, and finally altogether cease when these discriminations can be made relative to other phenomenon. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which objects undergo these changes can only be described relative to other phenomenon, which are seen as seperate but are not in fact so. When we remove those discriminations, we understand existence, and we understand that it's nature is without beginning or end.

For a living being to be created, it requires a beginning. Since we are not seperate from existence, we share it's same essential nature, and following the same logic describing the nature of existence we can conclude that living beings did not begin and do not end and thus are continuously reborn as the concious faculty of organisms which possess a nervous system adequate to sustain gross, subtle, and very subtle levels of awareness.

The mind is not seperate from existence, and therefore shares the same essential nature as existence. Following the same logic describing the nature of existence, we can conclude that the mind engaged in no original action, and that it will not undergo a final experience, because the existence of the mind is predicated upon it's previous moment of existence. Since the mind is of the same essential nature as existence, it is subject to the same principles sustaining existence, that actions of mind serve as causes which necessarily follow with effects of the mind, or experience. Since the function and capacity of the mind is to know, to impute, and to perceive, we can further conclude that the knowledge, imputations, and perceptions of the mind are in fact effects identical to their cause, which is action, or a unified term describing both actions and their effects: "karma".

If living beings and the mind did not share the same essential nature as existence, they would not exist, for all things exist as part of that from which nothing can be removed. For something to exist outside of or in discordance with the sustaining principles of that from which nothing can be removed is for it not to exist at all.





1) Indeed it is, but it has more relevance as it can be deduced as to it's beginings, and it attempts to come to some logical conclusion... reincarnation and karma don't with the exception of being good with the typical dose of fear instilled if one doesn't indulge the belief and/or follow the mandates set forth as they'll be a lesser form in the next life (which hasn't been proven), as well as suffering as a result of such in this one.

It's really great in terms of principles, but... the big-bang-theory has a little more credence then karma as well as reincarnation... last I saw their weren't huge government agencies working on ontology to further mankind. However, their are many agencies that have utilized th4e big bang theory and helped to stabilize it in terms of evidence... do a googl searche, it's out their and numerous, do a search on the Doppler effect, hope it will lead you to a more logical conclusion as to the big bang theory... it doesn't assert any deleterious effects by not believing it, so you don't have to if you don't wanna.

2)  :thumbup: I like it... Nothing cannot simply exist, their has to be something that created it, and further in turn a paradoxial event occurs in which in terms of human understanding their always had to be a precursor for this to arise... such that it always existed in terms of what we comprehend.

It's like someone giving you proof that god created the universe... and god existed throughout time... the creator can't create themselves, they just had to be, a god, of a god, of a god, of a .....  :laugh:

Beyond that, you've merely been giving postulates as to the creation of the universe in terms of ideas... but is their anything greater to back it up then words? I dunno that whole bit on karma didn't feel to good on the stomach...

The mind is not seperate from existance really doesn't imply much... it's like saying you can't drive an SUV with an empty tank of gas... it's well known. The nature of existance... can you expand on that for me? Last I checked, their is no unified form and/or nature to existance other then the fact of existing, where I see no logical paradigm which further promotes the idea that the mind shall not enter a final experience. Your implying karma in the loosest sense of the word, in terms of causality, not in terms of what karma implies in way of it's associated action and either a negative and/or positive action as a result thereof. I agree with you in terms of cause and a resulting affect in sequence therof, I don't think many will disagree with you, it's the nature of the universe...

However, as per actual Karma in respects to the functioning of the universe, I've failed to see it taking place in one instance beyond coincidence... if it isn't absolute, and if at times it isn't applicable, and/or it can't be replicated and predicted... I won't choose to believe in it. I'm merely asking for one solid example, or some method that you can provide that will convince us all that Karma, is indeed effecting us at this very moment or an experiment that we can perform to see Karma in action; beyond just suggesting it as an end result and tying positive/negative actions to un/fortuitious consequences.

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/freenet/rootd...ths/karma2.html

"In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)"


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetomk
King of OTD

Registered: 09/22/04
Posts: 1,559
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4036059 - 04/10/05 01:01 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Karma is very misunderstood, here is my interpretation of it.

Karma and reincarnation have everything to do with cosmic consciousness and egolessness. It's all that "We are all one mind" stuff. So, something happens to me. I am attacked by a mugger. The western understanding of Karma is roughly "you must of done something bad and are getting paid back for it." Thats not Karma. Where Karma stems from is the realization that we are all one mind, so the person doing the mugging and the mugger is the same. It is not the illusory ego that is acted upon by karma, but the underlying unity of all things. So, when I get mugged, it's Karma, not because of anything my ego did, but because of what the unity of which I am a part did.

Like Karma, reincarnation has everything to do with cosmic consciousness. It isn't the ego that gets reincarnated. It's the fact that the unthinking awareness that is present in me will be awakened again in someone else. It is this egoless thing that is subject to reincarnation, not the ego.


--------------------
"I am eternally free"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #4036790 - 04/10/05 10:25 AM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Ped said:
The problem here is that we are supposing that science is different or "better" than religion because science is pursuing truths that are exist objectively.  It's this idea, that truth occurs on the outside, that is the core dogmatic principle of science.  It's from this starting point that hypothesis are formed and then investigated.  It does not matter whether or not the hypothesis is confirmed or disproven, because when the scientific ritual is complete, either outcome is taken as affirmation of the notion that science is a jewel which possesses the capacity to reveal objective truths. 




I'm not personally proposing that science is "better" than religion, and I understand that, in essence, there is nothing "different" between the two, either. I have only made the case for recognition of the differences that are apparent within the substance of both, in the context they exist within.

I agree with you, the worldview that science has been used to create, that of an objective world with truth existing on the "outside" does not encompass the more subtle mechanics of the universe. However, I think that science can be used effectively by those who take these subtleties into consideration without creating for themselves the notion of an independantly existing universe. Perhaps the method has obscured a lot of these intricate, less obvious dynamics relating to the nature of the observer from those who use it (in certian fields, however, I think science itself has brought more awareness of these dynamics). That which we do not directly experience is not readily apparent to us. The very nature of the illusion of the individual perspective, especially taking into consideration the ways that it is reinforced, somewhat veils the actual nature of one's perspective and one's relation to the universe.

Quote:


And it's with this same idea of principle objectivity that science -- ahem, pardon me -- the scientific community....




:laugh:

Quote:


Yes, exactly.  It has no inherent meaning and no intrinsic value.  That the scientific community has supposed itself and it's methods to possess value, and, as a necessary result of that feeling of value, a sense of superiority, is it's very downfall.  It is the same downfall that has afflicted every other failed or failing school of thought in history, as it obscures their discoveries and creates a distance between what is observed and what actually is.  As it is said, the map becomes the territory.




I agree with you. :wink: I was never referring to any inherent meaning, in fact, I see no meaning at all as being inherent. I was simply speaking up for the relative meaning that we have created... It might not have universal value, but it has our own value, in its own right, and it has proven useful to us. I see some requirement, at this point in time, of keeping a balance between both perspectives...

I also think it is important to realize abstractions for what they are, to make sure that the map is merely the map. :wink: I am still curious as to whether it is science itself or the misuse of science that you have concerns with....

Quote:


For something to be created, it requires a beginning.  If there is no distinction between the moment something appeared and the previous moment in which it did not appear, then there cannot be a beginning to that object and therefore that object cannot be created.  Taking existence as our object, existence was not created because it did not begin.  We know this because all things exist in absolute dependence upon their own prior existence.  Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless, except in relationship to objects which are self-aware and which have conceived of themselves as being self-existent.  Objects only begin, behave, interact with other objects, age, break down, and finally altogether cease when these discriminations can be made relative to other phenomenon.  Furthermore, the mechanisms by which objects undergo these changes can only be described relative to other phenomenon, which are seen as seperate but are not in fact so.  When we remove those discriminations, we understand existence, and we understand that it's nature is without beginning or end.

For a living being to be created, it requires a beginning.  Since we are not seperate from existence, we share it's same essential nature, and following the same logic describing the nature of existence we can conclude that living beings did not begin and do not end and thus are continuously reborn as the concious faculty of organisms which possess a nervous system adequate to  sustain gross, subtle, and very subtle levels of awareness.

The mind is not seperate from existence, and therefore shares the same essential nature as existence.  Following the same logic describing the nature of existence, we can conclude that the mind engaged in no original action, and that it will not undergo a final experience, because the existence of the mind is predicated upon it's previous moment of existence.  Since the mind is of the same essential nature as existence, it is subject to the same principles sustaining existence, that actions of mind serve as causes which necessarily follow with effects of the mind, or experience.  Since the function and capacity of the mind is to know, to impute, and to perceive, we can further conclude that the knowledge, imputations, and perceptions of the mind are in fact effects identical to their cause, which is action, or a unified term describing both actions and their effects: "karma".

If living beings and the mind did not share the same essential nature as existence, they would not exist, for all things exist as part of that from which nothing can be removed.  For something to exist outside of or in discordance with the sustaining principles of that from which nothing can be removed is for it not to exist at all.




:thumbup: You've made my day, man. :wink:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
: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
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: flowstone]
    #4037349 - 04/10/05 02:02 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

Either you missed his point or you are just being sarcastic, who knows . Read what you quoted with an open mind.
How could I read anything if the letters had no form?

Such a long reply deserves more than a cheap one liner, but who am I to offer such wisdom
How many cheap one-liners is it worth and how is that objectively determined?


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineslaphappy
Its just me
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 1,188
Loc: Norway, Eidsvoll, Råholt...
Last seen: 14 years, 6 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #4038045 - 04/10/05 05:46 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

I'm the grand master, swami. I left such pathetic ponderings(denials) about karma and what-have-you behind when I turned 15.

You live. Deal with it. :smile:


--------------------
The argent messenger of truth beyond truth, the antithesis of life, cruel and bleak as interstellar space, pulseless and frozen as absolute zero, dazzling with the frost of irrefragable logic and unforgettable fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: slaphappy]
    #4038301 - 04/10/05 06:57 PM (18 years, 11 months ago)

and so it continues :tongue:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #18734014 - 08/20/13 08:01 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Namaste,
I'm not sure everyone here actually knows what karma & reincarnation are. But before I go on let me clear up one little side note: the Big Bang is a proven fact. The only reason it's called a "theory" is because telling it like it is would upset all of christiandom by devalidating one of the fundamental teachings of their mythology. I repeat: the Big Bang is a fact. "Where's the proof", you ask? We can bloody see it! This may take two posts because I can only post so much from my PS3, but I can safely assume I lost a few of you there. "How can we see the Big Bang if it happened so long ago", you wonder. Well, thanks to the nifty discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation we can see where the Big Bang happened; like a video of one's own birth proving their existence. I wont get into the mechanics of it, as its easy enough to look up. As for karma, how scientific is it to disbelieve karma. Karma is directly related to causality generated according to the second law of thermodynamics. TBC...


--------------------
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
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt] * 1
    #18734138 - 08/20/13 08:26 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

... 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...


--------------------
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
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18734203 - 08/20/13 08:40 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

... Since everything is "one", to be a bit dramatic, then the only way for death to occur would for existence to unmanifest. That's not likely. But the vibration of consciousness (or the Unified Field) can change the shape of a perceived manifestation. To paraphrase Swami Tadatmananda, the nature of Brahman (AKA consciousness, the Unified Field, etc) is like that of clay. You can shape the clay into a pot, but is still clay. If you shatter the pot into little pieces, it is still clay, though it is a pot no longer. You can render the clay back to a moldable state & reform it into a pot, but still it is clay. This is like the nature of Brahman. I could go on & on, but I'm sure someone is sick of me by now. HariH Om!:pipesmoke:


--------------------
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
Offlinehandwaveee
Stranger
Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 94
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18734446 - 08/20/13 09:26 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

yeah I'm sick of it all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: handwaveee]
    #18735103 - 08/20/13 11:37 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Smile, it pisses off the government.


--------------------
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
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,852
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18735164 - 08/20/13 11:59 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

:confused:

Zombie thread

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18738811 - 08/21/13 05:35 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18738870 - 08/21/13 05:50 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

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
InvisibleMastamike1118
Male

Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Swami]
    #18739003 - 08/21/13 06:20 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleToe_Jam
Bluefoot Bandit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 3,693
Loc: Around some corner... Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18739010 - 08/21/13 06:21 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
:confused:

Zombie thread



:zombie3:

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


--------------------
God lay his finger at the Mouth of the Serpent

March 1984


A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye,
And of gay castles in the clouds that pass,
For ever flushing round a summer sky. -Castle of Indolence

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,852
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Toe_Jam]
    #18739898 - 08/21/13 09:26 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

First zombie junkies, then zombie pigeons, now zombie threads

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Mastamike1118]
    #18740830 - 08/22/13 03:33 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

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
Offlinecrumblebum
The Guy Who's Really Bad At Sex


Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18741664 - 08/22/13 10:28 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18753428 - 08/24/13 10:42 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

>> 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
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped] * 1
    #18753502 - 08/24/13 11:07 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

One of your worse posts ever. :thumbdown:


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18753543 - 08/24/13 11:25 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18753574 - 08/24/13 11:39 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18753706 - 08/25/13 12:39 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754813 - 08/25/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
InvisibleToe_Jam
Bluefoot Bandit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 3,693
Loc: Around some corner... Flag
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18754831 - 08/25/13 11:21 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

This is where dead threads speak....

Never venture where dead threads walk....

:zombie5:


--------------------
God lay his finger at the Mouth of the Serpent

March 1984


A pleasing land of drowsy head it was,
Of dreams that wave before the half-shut eye,
And of gay castles in the clouds that pass,
For ever flushing round a summer sky. -Castle of Indolence

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754837 - 08/25/13 11:22 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Ped]
    #18754868 - 08/25/13 11:35 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #18754872 - 08/25/13 11:35 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

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
OfflinePed
Interested In Your Brain
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18757227 - 08/25/13 09:30 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

>> 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
Offlineviktor
psychotechnician
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand Flag
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander]
    #18757605 - 08/25/13 10:50 PM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

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
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: viktor] * 1
    #18758216 - 08/26/13 01:31 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

viktor said:
Quote:

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.




I would say no.  The scientific method (as far as we know) was used to create fire and all the early tools not to mention finding foods and medicine.  It was being used long before it was called the scientific method.  It very unlikely that there is anything better out there.  Forwards and backwards are meaningless anyway. There is only here and that we got here.


--------------------
"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
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Icelander] * 2
    #18758247 - 08/26/13 01:46 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Sometimes conversations on here seem like what my cats must be talking about when they're looking at me weird. Cat 1: "Why do they use those stupid metal things to eat?" Cat 2: "It must some ritual tool to fend off the evil Hairball, who is ever in conflict with the mighty Meow-who-bats-at-string."  Cat 1: "Do you think it works?" Cat 2: "I've never seen them get a hairball." Cat 1: "So why don't they make some we can use?" Cat 2: "They must want us to hack up hairballs for them." Cat 1: "So let's go hack one on their pillow." Cat 2: "Let's!"


--------------------
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
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,852
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Lingabhakt]
    #18758316 - 08/26/13 02:23 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Lingabhakt said:
Sometimes conversations on here seem like what my cats must be talking about when they're looking at me weird. Cat 1: "Why do they use those stupid metal things to eat?" Cat 2: "It must some ritual tool to fend off the evil Hairball, who is ever in conflict with the mighty Meow-who-bats-at-string."  Cat 1: "Do you think it works?" Cat 2: "I've never seen them get a hairball." Cat 1: "So why don't they make some we can use?" Cat 2: "They must want us to hack up hairballs for them." Cat 1: "So let's go hack one on their pillow." Cat 2: "Let's!"




Maybe lower the dosage of all those drugs you're taking :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLingabhakt
Seeker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/13
Posts: 98
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The B.S.(*ding ding*) of Karma and Reincarnation [Re: Repertoire89]
    #18758334 - 08/26/13 02:35 AM (10 years, 6 months ago)

:goodluckwiththat2:


--------------------
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
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   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Reincarnation and Christianity
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Jellric 7,643 63 12/04/04 05:31 PM
by Fucknuckle
* If reincarnation was proven.. would you? (poll) (MORE SPECIFIC)
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
giza 6,021 91 03/01/11 08:37 AM
by DisoRDeR
* Reincarnation...do you believe in it?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
niteowl 8,105 114 03/05/05 07:48 PM
by niteowl
* Can someone explain reincarnation to me?
( 1 2 all )
michael_lifshitz 2,653 28 07/01/06 07:46 AM
by redgreenvines
* Screwed Karma
( 1 2 all )
EvilGir 3,670 36 12/08/03 07:33 PM
by Ped
* Yet another reincarnation thread
( 1 2 3 all )
amuzakat 2,639 44 12/06/10 08:11 AM
by desert father
* Reincarnation?
( 1 2 all )
Rahz 3,457 34 12/30/08 07:31 PM
by Rahz
* Possible evidence for Reincarnation/Brain as Filter Theory
( 1 2 all )
soldatheero 3,427 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
9,472 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.067 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 14 queries.