US: Donald Trump launches 2024 comeback bid, makes his 'very big announcement'

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism 101: Answers, Explanations And Rebuttals [eljq1rpdkw41]

??????

 

[wellwisher]

Nirvana is a concept to represent the reality that is present to the mind of the meditator when there is no ego self present, iow, it is in a state of non-duality.


When they understand the conceptual teaching that the reality represented by the concept Nirvana can only be realized when the mind is free from conceptualization, then they may go forward to realize it.



The monk must understand that the reality of Nirvana is a state of mind free from conceptualizing, if they don't understand that, they may waste their life believing the concept of Nirvana can be experienced by the personal self.


No, no ,no, it is not, it means that the the reality represented by the concept truth, is not truth, it is an idea, a concept. To realize truth, one must cease all thought.



Atheism and Theism are concepts, ideas, religions teach that absolute reality is inconceivable, it is non-dual.



A mortal is a mortal, an entity that is in the state of Nirvana permanently is a Buddha, not a mortal.



A Buddha who has realized Nirvana permanently means they no longer reincarnate, Nirvana isn't a place, it is universal awareness.



Apprehending reality for what it is, is what it is.



It is because you are using your rational mind to try and understand that which is non-dual, using duality to find non-duality is to be down an eternal rabbit hole.



Read back through your conceptualizing is this post and tell me that where you understand that the rational mind, dualistic mind, can not realize Nirvana, non-duality.



Inferiority complex or sense of humor, which do you have?

Written and spoken language is the medium that the ego uses for thought. This is not the only language of the brain. We also have a sensory type language, based on electrical and chemical inputs that help us sense and define reality through the senses and into the brain.

Spoken/written type language is subjective, since there is no rule that says there needs to be a natural cause and affect between the sounds of language and what it describes. I have never heard a cat make the sound cat, so why was it used? This was subjective and completely arbitrary. There are 7100 languages in the modern world since anything goes in terms of assigning sounds and symbols to any aspect of reality. We can reason with language, but the matrix itself is not firm but spongy; adds subjectivity.

The natural sensory languages are different; firm matrix. The light we see coming off an object; apple, has certain wavelengths; red, and certain shades and photon densities; shadows and hi lights, which when processed by the human brain, creates a common human picture of the reality; apple.

Science has to see to believe. A written paper is not enough. There may be 7100 words for the critter we call dog, but the reflected light from this particular dog, will be the same for all people, even if each uses one of the 7100 different languages. Scientists from all over the world can see to believe, even if they cannot read each others language.

Nirvana is when you get past the spongy subjective matrix of spoken and written language, and only have the firm natural sensory languages. Data processing is still occurring, but it is not attached to words. It is often comes as internal sensations, feelings, imagery, beyond language; inner voice of the inner self.

The ego appears to exist due to the matrix of the spongy languages. The spongy and the firm both act together, with the ego sensing the differences; I think with human language, thereby I am; different from the universal languages of the senses. There the ego can escape sensory reality, based on the subjectivity of the sponge.

For example, the Oxford Dictionary recently redefined the words male and female to be a subjectives state of mind, instead of sticking to visual evidence such DNA. Written language allows one to fool themselves thereby never experiencing Nirvana. One has to get past the sponge of the ego and stand on firm ground; to be without being.

There are also internal sensory systems. The terms gut feeling or heart felt are examples of internal data processing, creating an internal sensory awareness, but without written or spoken language. These feelings or intuitions may trigger the ego to use spoken language so it can explain this gut feeling to others. This may fall short since is connected to a denser language; esoteric. But if you did not have to explain it, you can use this denser language, to process internal sensory data, directly. Spoken language is slow and cumbersome for this faster processing. It would be like speaking paragraphs as single sounds. Nirvana is this place where less is more; calm.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Written and spoken language is the medium that the ego uses for thought. This is not the only language of the brain. We also have a sensory type language, based on electrical and chemical inputs that help us sense and define reality through the senses and into the brain.

Spoken/written type language is subjective, since there is no rule that says there needs to be a natural cause and affect between the sounds of language and what it describes. I have never heard a cat make the sound cat, so why was it used? This was subjective and completely arbitrary. There are 7100 languages in the modern world since anything goes in terms of assigning sounds and symbols to any aspect of reality. We can reason with language, but the matrix itself is not firm but spongy; adds subjectivity.

The natural sensory languages are different; firm matrix. The light we see coming off an object; apple, has certain wavelengths; red, and certain shades and photon densities; shadows and hi lights, which when processed by the human brain, creates a common human picture of the reality; apple.

Science has to see to believe. A written paper is not enough. There may be 7100 words for the critter we call dog, but the reflected light from this particular dog, will be the same for all people, even if each uses one of the 7100 different languages. Scientists from all over the world can see to believe, even if they cannot read each others language.

Nirvana is when you get past the spongy subjective matrix of spoken and written language, and only have the firm natural sensory languages. Data processing is still occurring, but it is not attached to words. It is often comes as internal sensations, feelings, imagery, beyond language; inner voice of the inner self.

The ego appears to exist due to the matrix of the spongy languages. The spongy and the firm both act together, with the ego sensing the differences; I think with human language, thereby I am; different from the universal languages of the senses. There the ego can escape sensory reality, based on the subjectivity of the sponge.

For example, the Oxford Dictionary recently redefined the words male and female to be a subjectives state of mind, instead of sticking to visual evidence such DNA. Written language allows one to fool themselves thereby never experiencing Nirvana. One has to get past the sponge of the ego and stand on firm ground; to be without being.

There are also internal sensory systems. The terms gut feeling or heart felt are examples of internal data processing, creating an internal sensory awareness, but without written or spoken language. These feelings or intuitions may trigger the ego to use spoken language so it can explain this gut feeling to others. This may fall short since is connected to a denser language; esoteric. But if you did not have to explain it, you can use this denser language, to process internal sensory data, directly. Spoken language is slow and cumbersome for this faster processing. It would be like speaking paragraphs as single sounds. Nirvana is this place where less is more; calm.

Thank you, nice explanation and understood.

This is not established science yet. Consciousness is the collapse of the wavefunction | Stuart Hameroff

 

[Ben Dhyan]

??????

???????

 

[SkepticThinker]

???????

There are no "teachings of atheism." Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). It's a position on one single claim. That's it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are no "teachings of atheism." Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). It's a position on one single claim. That's it.

You apparently also lack a belief in the teachings of Atheism, even though I posted a link to an Atheism 101 guide for those curious about Atheism.

But seriously, let me ask you, what is your preferred name to represent the universe in entirety, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You apparently also lack a belief in the teachings of Atheism, even though I posted a link to an Atheism 101 guide for those curious about Atheism.

But seriously, let me ask you, what is your preferred name to represent the universe in entirety, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest?

You may have been fooled. You should wonder why no atheists here ever took "Atheism 101". It simply does not exist. Atheism is not an organized belief. It is not a belief at all for most. It is merely a lack of belief that recognizes the fact that no religion can seem to meet its burden of proof.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You may have been fooled. You should wonder why no atheists here ever took "Atheism 101". It simply does not exist. Atheism is not an organized belief. It is not a belief at all for most. It is merely a lack of belief that recognizes the fact that no religion can seem to meet its burden of proof.

Atheism isn't even deserving of a capital letter at the start, in and of itself, much less a document outlining it's tenets. It's the counterpoint to 'theism', which is also underserving of a capital letter.
The very first line of that linked document is 'This book is not a manifesto.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheism isn't even deserving of a capital letter at the start, in and of itself, much less a document outlining it's tenets. It's the counterpoint to 'theism', which is also underserving of a capital letter.
The very first line of that linked document is 'This book is not a manifesto.'

Yes, and I had to check my post again. Both of my uses of "Atheism" were with an upper case first letter. But the first time was a quotation of part of the post that I was responding to and I said that class does not exist and the other time it was the first word in a sentence. And when I used the word "atheists" that was lower case. Whew!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You may have been fooled. You should wonder why no atheists here ever took "Atheism 101". It simply does not exist. Atheism is not an organized belief. It is not a belief at all for most. It is merely a lack of belief that recognizes the fact that no religion can seem to meet its burden of proof.

I was referring to this book, you may like to read and pick up a few points to help you debate.

Atheism 101: Answers, Explanations And Rebuttals [eljq1rpdkw41]

Oh and welcome back, I thought you had run away.

 

[F1fan]

The monk must understand that the reality of Nirvana is a state of mind free from conceptualizing, if they don't understand that, they may waste their life believing the concept of Nirvana can be experienced by the personal self.

I'm glad you finally learned something from me. You finally acknowledge that Nirvana is a state of mind.

Atheism and Theism are concepts, ideas, religions teach that absolute reality is inconceivable, it is non-dual.

Atheist and theists are just categories. And religions seldom get anything right.

A mortal is a mortal, an entity that is in the state of Nirvana permanently is a Buddha, not a mortal.

I'm not sure where you pick this up. The only permanace in Buddhism is when everything no longer exists. There won't be any Buddhas, too. Nirvana is temporary since the body still exists, and the mind has to carry on it's path.

A Buddha who has realized Nirvana permanently means they no longer reincarnate, Nirvana isn't a place, it is universal awareness.

This isn't consistent with what I understand Buddhism to be. You may have read some other person's view of this.

It is because you are using your rational mind to try and understand that which is non-dual, using duality to find non-duality is to be down an eternal rabbit hole.

You are definately unable to explain it rationally and with facts. Your philosophy sounds like metaphysics.

Read back through your conceptualizing is this post and tell me that where you understand that the rational mind, dualistic mind, can not realize Nirvana, non-duality.

I never said otherwise.

Your language style is really hard to follow. Is it your second language? You use way too many words to convey what you are trying to say.

But seriously, let me ask you, what is your preferred name to represent the universe in entirety, known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest?

My preferred name for the universe is Jim, Jim the universe. But then my girlfriend asks why it's a boy's name and not a female, and I have to admit I don't know, so I might have to change my preference.

I hope this answers your question adequately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was referring to this book, you may like to read and pick up a few points to help you debate.

Atheism 101: Answers, Explanations And Rebuttals [eljq1rpdkw41]

Oh and welcome back, I thought you had run away.

It looks interesting. Though of course no one speaks for all. By the way, the author of that book properly writes about "atheism" with a lower case a.

So how do you think that the atheists here are not following what he said? By the way, I have not read it all. He may be right or he may be wrong. But you made a charge, can you state it more clearly and how atheists are not following the source of your choice?

 

[F1fan]

I was referring to this book, you may like to read and pick up a few points to help you debate.

Atheism 101: Answers, Explanations And Rebuttals [eljq1rpdkw41]

Oh and welcome back, I thought you had run away.

It's is a tutorial for how to reason. It isn't dogma. Math class isn't about dogma, it is a tutorial on how to use rules to do math. Science class isn't about dogma, it is a tutorial on what experts in various sciences have discovered and report. Sunday school IS about dogma, not facts. Church services IS about dogma, not facts.

For example, if a Christian, Mormon, Hindu, Shinto, Baha'i, Muslim, and a Jew walk into a bar and I'm there drinking, and I ask them all to describe their Gods. And I listen and they say what they believe, and I say, OK, now provide credible evidence that any of those versions of God exist, or at least that a rational mind is compelled to accept as likely existing. As critical thinkers know, theists have no such evidence, so since I can't just accept all of their claims of Gods existing then what I am I to do? How would I pick just one of them when there's no evidence for any of them? The only thing a rational mind can do is reject all of them.

I would send them all into a roon and let them fight it out until there was only one God left, and then that claim can be presented. Will there be any evidence since the fight? No. Any reason to believe this last God exists? Not if there is no credible evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nirvana is the One Mind, the Universal Mind, here is a good book for you to read. You should be able to find a free pdf copy on line. The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind by Huang Po
The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind

Nirvana is all there is, was, or ever will be, the one universal mind.

There is THAT which was never created, was never born,
If it were not so, there would never be any way there could be any relief,
From being created or being born.
THAT is Nirvana. - Buddhist saying..

Now you are getting closer to understanding the meaning. Conceptualizing is necessary in the teaching that conceptualizing is the obstacle to realizing Nirvana. Since teaching requires conceptualizing, and given that the real is on the other side of the concept, the true teaching is that is no true teaching. Nevertheless since there is no other way to convey what the path is to realize the state of Nirvana, the teaching that there is no true teaching, is the true teaching.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It looks interesting. Though of course no one speaks for all. By the way, the author of that book properly writes about "atheism" with a lower case a.

So how do you think that the atheists here are not following what he said? By the way, I have not read it all. He may be right or he may be wrong. But you made a charge, can you state it more clearly and how atheists are not following the source of your choice?

Just a teasing remark to Skeptic Thinker, she said there was no teaching of Atheism, after I raised this book as an example earlier.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's is a tutorial for how to reason. It isn't dogma. Math class isn't about dogma, it is a tutorial on how to use rules to do math. Science class isn't about dogma, it is a tutorial on what experts in various sciences have discovered and report. Sunday school IS about dogma, not facts. Church services IS about dogma, not facts.

For example, if a Christian, Mormon, Hindu, Shinto, Baha'i, Muslim, and a Jew walk into a bar and I'm there drinking, and I ask them all to describe their Gods. And I listen and they say what they believe, and I say, OK, now provide credible evidence that any of those versions of God exist, or at least that a rational mind is compelled to accept as likely existing. As critical thinkers know, theists have no such evidence, so since I can't just accept all of their claims of Gods existing then what I am I to do? How would I pick just one of them when there's no evidence for any of them? The only thing a rational mind can do is reject all of them.

I would send them all into a roon and let them fight it out until there was only one God left, and then that claim can be presented. Will there be any evidence since the fight? No. Any reason to believe this last God exists? Not if there is no credible evidence.

Ok, let's say I am in the bar, I would say to that the reality represented by the concept of God is all that exists, the universe known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest.

Do you deny that all the exists exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, let's say I am in the bar, I would say to that the reality represented by the concept of God is all that exists, the universe known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest.

Do you deny that all the exists exists?

You misunderstood what he said. He did not deny existence before, why would you expect him to deny existence now? You need to read that little "book" that you linked.

By the way, your version of God that you just gave is rather worthless. As defined that God could not even be sensate much less moral or immoral.

 

[F1fan]

Ok, let's say I am in the bar, I would say to that the reality represented by the concept of God is all that exists, the universe known and unknown, manifest and unmanifest.

Do you deny that all the exists exists?

Obviously not. I will dispute your assignment of the word "god" to represent the universe as a trick, misleading, inaccurate, and absurd. I will ask you why you assign this particular word in an inappropriate way and I will expect an answer. When there are multiple options to use a word for some application and meaning it is best to use the LEAST ambiguous word. Your assignment of "god" seems consistent with word games that theists tend to use when they can't present a coherent argument.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Obviously not. I will dispute your assignment of the word "god" to represent the universe as a trick, misleading, inaccurate, and absurd. I will ask you why you assign this particular word in an inappropriate way and I will expect an answer. When there are multiple options to use a word for some application and meaning it is best to use the LEAST ambiguous word. Your assignment of "god" seems consistent with word games that theists tend to use when they can't present a coherent argument.

What is there to dispute, all that exists exists. The ultimate reality is God, there is nothing existing that is not an integral of God.

This is not new, it is not a word game. What's up with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is there to dispute, all that exists exists. The ultimate reality is God, there is nothing existing that is not an integral of God.

This is not new, it is not a word game. What's up with you?

The universe exists. The cosmos exists. But we do not have any evidence of anything beyond that. Diluting the definition of God to the point that it is a synonym for the Cosmos is self defeating since there is no reason to assume any intelligence or morality to the Cosmos.