But THAT IS your religion. Your religion is telling people that
religious confidence is bullshit. I support your right to believe
I didn't say it makes no sense. It doesn't make any sense to YOU.
What you say about religion makes sense to me, but it's your
interpretation and ours are different. It all doesn't matter. You're
entitled to your theories and I'm also entitled to mine.
I think the who faith based initiative is the bullshit, not the sects
which collect the money for their "community." In that we agree
I happen to agree with you on Bush. He is the worst president in US
history. He's an embarrassment. He's a dictator. It's what happens
when you have a fanatic of any sort telling you how to think.
I'm not telling anyone how to think. I'm not trying to convince you
Then why are you posting anything, especially to the rag-tag
collection of newsgroups as you have been?
I don't live in your wonderful United States, and am not bound by your
constitution, even in terms of my interactions with US citizens.
I would ignore it even if it did apply.
I rely upon my personal integrity as the source of my moral guidance.
Not laws made by christian business-men, nor incoherent 'holy' books,
nor moronic principles that have gained a patina of respectability
solely through being ancient.
And I have not told you how to think. I have pointed out that your
beliefs have no objective support; they are, in effect, based on
nothing. As such there is no objective difference between them and any
other irrational belief. If you believe in them anyway, that is your
right. I respect your right; but you have no right to have your
beliefs free of criticism.
We are discussing reincarnation. I stated that it has no objective
support. Either you have evidence or you do not. If you do not, my
above statement stands; there is no objective difference between your
belief and any other irrational belief. I am not attacking Buddhism. I
am not attacking you. I am not telling you how to think.
There is no way to disprove it either. It's rather important for you
to have some working knowledge about the whole picture than simply
making comments on pieces of a philosophy.
Buddhism is very closely related to science in that the historical
Buddha NEVER told anyone to believe him. He always said to go out and
check for yourself. There are many millions of Tibetan Buddhists who
have studied, debated, and defended their beliefs for many years.
Buddhism has been around for over 2500 years. To this day, the main
point is non-violence at any cost and simply to be a better person.
It doesn't much matter if rebirth can be proven or not. What is
tangible is that, I am a happy person and I know my mind through
meditation which IS proven to have amazing health benefits. So I draw
on a lot of different things.
At my core, I do not believe in god and am indeed atheist. Anyone
discussed as a Buddha was once a person who actually existed. Mind is
endless. Nothing I say will offer enough information to you and I am
not working all that hard on the challenge because you aren't really
Which does not contradict my point in the slightest.
I did not mention proof.
Once again (let's see if it sinks in this time), I have not criticized
Buddhism or your right to be a Buddhist. Why you insist that I am
making personal attacks on you or on your belief system is beyond me,
and why, if you think personal attacks are wrong, you feel so free to
insult me in every response is also a mystery. One could suspect that
they are meant as a smokescreen.
You didn't respond to my main point which is that, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. The Dalai Lama, when asked what he thinks of
the Big Bang Theory, he replied, "Big Bang, no problem, just not the
Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed. It
has to go somewhere so it continues, in its pure state to take a
rebirth into what I'll categorize as a good rebirth. Taking a human
rebirth is always best.
Look, I don't care much if you believe in anything. I also don't
believe because I do believe in things I can't always explain doesn't
make me an idiot. Far from it. But, you have your agenda of smacking
people down and that's your baggage as a person, not mine.
I think you are using the word "energy" somewhat metaphorically. In
physics, the word "energy" has a very precise meaning. In physics it
is true that there is a law of conservation of energy (or, to be more
precise, a mass-energy conservation law provided we equate mass and
energy via St. Albert's equation e=mc^2). But surely you are not
claiming that mind is energy in the exact physical meaning of the word.
If you claim that then I would remind you that energy, almost by
definition, is the capacity to do WORK (in the precise physical meaning
of the word "work"). If you claim that mind is physical energy, then I
challenge you to affect the physical behavior of even a single dust
mote using your mind alone.
Surely you don't claim that. You must be using "energy" merely as an
analogy or metaphor for your conception of mind. But if we have only a
mere analogy, you cannot blithly claim that mind cannot be created or
destroyed and invoke the physical principle of energy conservation to
do so. You are making mere word play here so as to give your concept
of mind a veneer of scientificity.
If you see my point here, then you must admit that you are making a
completely arbitrary assumption that mind cannot be destroyed --- an
assuption that relies only on faith and not on reason. Hence your
further inferences about reincarnation are null and void as far as
reason is concerned.
St. Albert? Isn't that a Catholic thing?
Indeed I am claiming mind is energy, but it isn't physical. The mind
can thing and meditate, sleep and we only use a tenth of its capacity.
See how mind works by doing just one minute of single pointed
meditation and tell me you have the ability to be completely empty
with nothing leaking in and I will bow at your feet at once.
I am using the term energy because pure mind is energy. Everything is
connected to everything else. In string theory, the science community
is having a hard time distinguishing theory and philosophy when
addressing the subject of quantum mechanics.
I am by no means an expert on eitherthe science of nature, or Buddhism
as I'm a practitioner for just a bit over two years.
Mind has absolutely no matter as a component. Not one particle. The
mind is a complex thing to discuss. An analogy is tea in a cup.
Break the cup and it is no longer a cup. It's broken shards of
matter. The tea, is still tea. Mop it into a towel, still tea.
Contents and container. All sentient beings have mind. Humans can
develop. Animals cannot develop in a lifetime as a human can. I'm
swaying off topic, sorry. Maybe I'm not qualified to debate this, but
I like the challenge.
No, the science community is drawing these conclusions through the
Mind Science Conference and other large bodies of professionals who
invite The Dalai Lama annually. They do this because the brain
function of an adept meditator is different than the average person.
Meditators use much more of their brain function. This is being
studied very closely with proper testing in blind studies in labs at
four major universities.
Do you love anyone in your life? If the answer is yes, prove it. You
can't. You just love. I don't know if we are on the same life track
so this may become an irritating discussion for most. All I'm asking
is for people to consider what I'm saying, not agree. I also don't
think being called an idiot, moron, jerk, whatever, is relevant. I am
none of the above, and to close I will say there is a relative amount
of faith involved in Buddhism, but not in the same way we rely on a
man in the sky. I respect those who believe in god, but I don't
Actually a Jewish thing, though he was not a practicing Jew, nor did he
believe in a personal kind of God. But by my lights, he deserves
canonization more than anyone else who has ever been called a saint.
Translate: You agree that whatever kind of ``energy" you associate
with mind has absolutely NOTHING to do with physical energy. You
create a deliberate obfuscation by even using the word ``energy". It
is unnecessary to say that ``mind is energy" in some kind of vague
analogous way since you already have a perfectly good word for mind
(namely the word ``mind").
I am a bit skeptical about these opinions as to what exact percentage
of our mind's capacities we use. Mind is not sufficiently understood
to make these statements meaningful.
And I am using the term mere analogy because your words are mere
analogy. If you must use the word `"energy" then perhaps we could
clarify discourse this way: Let us agree never to use the word
"energy" without a qualifying adjective. Thus we can say ``physical
energy" when we speak in the sense of physics and we can say ``mind
energy" when we speak of your mysterious kind of energy that you
associate to consiousness. That way you will not only communicate more
clearly with me and others, but you will think more clearly in you own
mind and you will never arrive at confused ideas like citing the
physical conservation of energy law as if it had the slightest
relevance (it has no relevance) to your hypothetical conservation of
Slight overstatement. You don't need to go as far as string theory.
Ordinary old-fashioned classical quantum mechanics is philosophically
``An analogy is tea in a cup" you said. And another mere analogy is
your confused usage of the word ``energy". I am by no means opposed to
making analogies, but only to drawing unwarranted inferences from mere
The pseudo-scientific community draws all kinds of idiotic conclusions
of this type. If you are a big fan of this kind of New Age fluff you
should check out the crackbrain theory of the ``morphogenic field" and
other such absurdities. The world is full of idiots who dabble in
quantum mechanics and other au courant fields of physics and draw
preposterous philosophical and even spiritual conclusions from what
they think they understand about physics. BE WARNED: Charlatans
abound in these areas.
I you have a reference to any of these studies and if you think that
any of them qualify as science, let me know.
I can give very strong evidence (short of proof) to those I love by
simply being good to them. I have a naive idea that if a person
practices good will and generous conduct to others than it is
reasonable to believe that this is a loving person. This is not the
kind of "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician but, to borrow a
lovely phrase from Anglo-Saxon law, it is "proof beyond a reasonable
But friend, others on this thread have called you "idiot, moron, jerk".
Go back and read my post and you will see that I did not.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.