Duck!

Well, as an atheist, I don't care about nobody but myself.

I'm just glad to hear that I've been practising my atheism properly. I thought maybe I wasn't sacrificing those kittens properly or that I had to cook my babies a certain way before munching them.

But as long as I'm not suffering from colds or flu, at least I know I'm practising it properly. Phew!

p.s. My Catholic brother had a cold over Xmas, do you have a link to a site where he could learn about practicising Catholicism properly. Obviously he's not practicing Catholicism properly if got a cold...


Duck!

Capn_Danger

Other's people's interpretation of their experiences are also subjective. You can't count their testimony (hell, you can't count anyone's testimony) as objective evidence.

Although you seem sure about your ideas concerning sceintific method, I'm not sure that you're familiar the process of ruling out alternate explanations. Valid experiments are conducted so as to not allow alternate explanations for the results of that experiment. Your personal experience and anecdotal evidence doesn't even approach such a method.

The mind is subjective...what does that even mean? I don't even know what you mean by subjective anymore. Let us consult the dictionary:

Subjective:
adj.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

Ah, it is time for clarity at last. You are saying that the mind, (or thought or consciousness, which is what I assume you mean by "mind") is subjective. Now, taking our definition into account, you have just argued that a person's mind takes place in or comes from his or her mind.

Wow. That is profound.

Ooops, I almost forgot: even if your argument had more than just a trusim and an unrelated conclusion, it would still be true that the forms and rules of logic don't depend upon someone's mind or state of mind, but the nature of our external reality.

I think I'm finally tiring of these circles we've been running. I agree with that. I hoped it was implied in my post, but I guess not. I think I've forgotten what this little debate is even about. What the hell were we talking about, anyway?

Oh yeah, "science and religion can both be cults". How did we end up debating the subjectivity of logic and the validity of your conclusions regarding meditation? I'm not exactly clear anymore on what you're even saying about meditation.

Are you saying that it is as helpful as science as a means of understanding our external world? If so, that's totally preposterous. If mean that they give us understanding regarding different things (our internal state of mind -vs- the nature of our external reality), then we've been arguing a lot over nothing.

Dharma

Of course you are assuming I am a herectic theist...I am a religious athiest...now go figure that one out... :devil3:

Dharma

that is what scientists do, count experiments performed by various "scientific instutions" and their scientists, independantly and see if they come up with the same results...only then is any scientific finding excepted...then those experiments are no longer just in one scientists mind, but many...thus is no longer subjective but objective knowledge...similarly, if I can REPRODUCE constantly the same results by a group of people practicing some meditative excercise, that is no longer subjective...but objective knowledge.

good you are getting it...eastern philosophy states that this world is mind only, in other words, all your scientific findings are subjective, coming out of your own mind...THERE IS NO EXTERNAL REALITY SEPARATE FROM INTERNAL REALITY.

that is why I would consider theistic philsophy to be heresy, since all religions say that the "kingdom of God is within"...everything is coming from your own mind, your own body...there is no OTHER GOD....God himself is coming from your own mind...

JGL53

I think I figured it out. E.g., a person can CALL him or herself a Nazi Quaker, a Buddhist Pentecostal, a one-eyed Episcopalian kangaroo, etc.

Don't mean shit. :Cheeky:

radagast

Straw man argument - no I don't.

Each person's only reality is internal. However, that said, there is a branch of endeavor that specifically wishes to limit the area of inquiry to that where internal realities match, within the limits of communication available, between people. The reason, because I cannot present my internal reality and compare it to yours directly. Prior to this type of inquiry, opinion, poor logical thinking, and desires, clouded how certain aspects of externally comparable reality worked. For example, prior to science, much disease was viewed as caused by bad odors and an imbalance of bodily humors.

Modern science is just a way to try and keep us from fooling ourselves, as to the nature of the way things are, within a prescribed area of investigation.

This type of limitation, by the definition of that word, limits investigatoin to certain areas. To try and turn it around and criticize it, because of that apriori limitation is neither logical, fair, or even within the bounds of common sense.

Does this mean there are valid areas of research and endeavor, outside the objective - most certainly. However, if you redefine science to mean something different, something more expansive, fine - just don't try to turn around and use that term as synonymous with how the rest of use it.

I sense the irritation you have with science is less to do with science, than to do with the successes of science, and because of that, how laymen to view it. Do not confuse what they believe, with what most scientists, and how science is intended.

radagast

a-theism : without god(s)

Buddhism: an eastern religion not requiring belief (in gods or dogma).

Since there are millions of practicing Buddhist, and many hold no belief in god(s), denying their existense makes about as much sense as denying that the earth is round.

But, don't let me stop you, it's flat if you want it to be...

Capn_Danger

The important thing isn't how many people agree with you. The important thing is the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions- many confirmations using a valid method give support to a theory. Many confirmations not using a valid method just means that people can agree on it, regardless of their being right or wrong.

I hope you're being facetious right now, because I was being sarcastic when I said that statement was profound.

How do you know that the world is mind only? If it is, you can't tell- and you also can't tell if it isn't (if you don't agree, give me a test whereby I can clearly tell the difference between two such worlds). Plus, that thinking leads directly into solipsism (the idea that only I exist, and all else is in my mind). Lets not even start on that.

Not all religions say the kingdom of god is within. Mine didn't. Your statements also seem contradictory: you said that everything is dependant upon internal reality, but that the problem with theistic religion was that it taught that the kindgom of god was within. Then you said that god comes from within. What are you trying to say, anyways? And just what does "god is coming from your own mind" even mean? A lot of what you say is spoken in vague, cryptic phrases. I'm sorry, but I don't even know what you're arguing for, Dharma. :huh:

radagast

I wouldn't want to put words in anyones mouth, but the way I would interpret that (coming from a similar meditative background), is that external reality is only an abstraction - each person only has access to their own subjective reality.

All external reality, all objective results, etc. have to be filtered thru the senses and perceptive mechanism to our personal subjective, internal reality.

Dharma, if I've mistated your intented meaning, here, I apologize.

Capn_Danger

That makes perfect sense, and I easily agree with that.

An abstraction? Do you mean that there isn't such a thing as a concrete reality, or are you just saying again that we only experience it through our perceptions and our particular mentality, and thus our experience of reality is to a degree subjective?