feralcatlady,

It's hard to explain, but I was very moved to read your reply to the post I wrote to you yesterday (sorry for the late reply, I was out sailing!).

You received my message in the spirit that it was written.
Always touched when 'spirit' is allowed between people!!!

Thanks feralcatlady.


:)

Voil.....aaaaahhhh thanks voil....I also e-mailed ya back. And I look at the above words by the fellow JSH members and I want to scream and.....wait Im trying to be productive here...and I guess to spew what I know to be truth....is not someone elses truth....yea I got it Voil.......And as long as not bashing or saying anything negative about certain things...I happy to let them carry on this thread......But I have a new rattling in my brain to bring to the table at a later date.

Heart ya big guy.....

feralcatlady,

You wrote:
"... But I have a new rattling in my brain to bring to the table at a later date..."


Look forward to it!!!

Skidoo,

On the Burden of Proof:

After my last post I went to bed and thought about what I had posted. Just on a purely logical level I feel the following needs to be said,….

Skidoo wrote:
“I hope now you understand better what I mean by "burden of proof" and why it should logically be handled by those who make assumptions.”

I do agree with this, as this is the way of logic. But I just realized that how we view a situation can be a deciding factor in where the burden of prove needs to lie.

In other words, in my last post I showed that the basic difference between our views boils down to the following question(s).

I ask:
“Are you just the form? Or are you the thing that’s taking a form?”

This is basically spirituality boiled down to it’s essence.

You are saying that you have no reason to believe that you are the thing that is taking the form, therefore you must conclude that you are nothing but the form.

I’m saying that I have no reason to believe that I am just the form, therefore I must conclude that I am the thing that is taking the form.

In other words, we are on precisely the SAME GROUND.

You talk about the “burden of proof”. But which one of these hypotheses should be required to carry the burden of proof? There is no reason to choose on over the other!

You can’t prove either one! You can’t disprove either one! Therefore you seriously have no reason to jump to one conclusion over the other based on “burden of proof”.

So your argument that Atheism holds until you know otherwise doesn’t hold water. Because you have no more reason to believe Atheism than you do to believe Theism (where Theism is being used here to simply imply that you are indeed the THING that is taking the form, rather than merely being the form itself).

I’m glad that we had this discussion now. You have helped me place things in a better perspective and the next time I run into a “burden of proof” argument I’ll know how to clearly blow it out of the water.

The “burden of proof” is equal for both of our hypotheses neither hypothesis has an advantage over the other from a purely logical point of view.

I'm sure I would be lucky to date Abra... if I weren't already in a committed relationship.

But I adore Abra... you- umm to be honest not so much so far... you seem to like to go from the theorhetical discussion to the personal insult.... not something I particularly care for... I can only hope you'll settle down, relax, and grow on me...



I will pray for you. Perhaps you could try meditating.... it's not particularly "new age" by the way... more like a practice to focus the mind that's been around for thousands of years...

Or maybe my middle of the night quadruple stuck button posting was *really* that annoying??!!??

Yes he is. All religion is a construct of man used to explain things they do not understand and give them something other than a cold grave to look forward to after death. It' a comfort thing.

Q-... AND JUST WHAT DOES "THE BOOK" have to do with "religion?
ANS- Nothing.
you can disprove every so called religion in this country and you havent disproved what the Bible says.

oh good its one u i was worried my fellow philosophers would tear eachother apart (philosophically speaking)!
plz say something christian to get them out of eachothers throats!

oh good its one u i was worried my fellow philosophers would tear eachother apart (philosophically speaking)!
plz say something christian to get them out of eachothers throats!

oh good its one u i was worried my fellow philosophers would tear eachother apart (philosophically speaking)!
plz say something christian to get them out of eachothers throats!

not sure y i posted 2wice oops i mean thrice

something Christian

something Christian

Oh Lizard King and Cat Lady- you are both so sweet, you both multiple posted on purpose to make me feel better about quadruple posting last night didn't you??!!?



Let's see how many times this ends up posting...

i didnt do that on purpose my pc is slow to load so i pressed the button multiple times n hey there it was

I heart the anoasis.....

I heart the anoasis.....

I didn't do the others on purpose....but the one above I did just for anoasis.....

Ok - I'm coming in late - so sorry to rehash, but I had to stop and answer at this point, before I get lost in other conversation. Sorry if this has already been resolved.

Abra:
3) "you have no choice but to share this view especially in light of the fact that you claim that humans have no spiritual element. As an atheist you are this universe, and you are conscious. Therefore the universe has consciousness."
Skiddo
... Well, now you're becoming presumptuous too :-)

I think your error is to declare : conscious = spirit

It is, in my humble opinion, 2 separate things

Red –in reply:
Skiddo –The way that I view this (my take on it) Abra is not equating consciousness with spirit. He’s talking about an energy that has achieved consciousness . Try to consider that we’re using a language acquired through the physical here. Now the physical realm we are currently inhabiting is three dimensional, there are many dimensions and the form that each requires in order to relate to it, experience it, is also different. So perhaps this form of pure energy, that is the consciousness of the universe, perceives all dimensions by assimilating the form from which it can experience them.

Does that make more sense?


Skiddo wrote:
Unfortunately, as far as I know, you can't add apples and bananas in an equation. Each of us has a different conscious, his own perception and even his own reality. Not even to mention animals consciouses. Therefore, because your conscious is different than mine (because your reality is different than mine), you can't add them up to create a kind of "supra-conscious". But again, that's me, and i fully respect your point of view.

Red – in reply:
But you can – break them down to their lowest form and you will find the common denominators.
The unconscious forms that exist in our universe are just some of the many features of this universe that can only be experience through the senses of this physical form that we currently maintain.