• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Some free talk about the flow of religious wisdom

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Oh yeah, that is talking about astronomy, but "primitve astronomy". There could be suns with more or less than seven planets. Even our sun has many planets, though considering their size and nearness to earth, we say there are eight planets. The Kuiper belt is a repository of thousands of small planets.

"When thou gazeth at the planets with the naked eye, without the interposition of magnifying mirrors, they will appear to be in seven degrees."

"The Kuiper belt occasionally called the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt, is a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU*) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger - 20 times as wide and 20 to 200 times as massive. .. In 1992, Albion was discovered, the first Kuiper belt object (KBO) since Pluto and Charon. Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are thought to exist." Kuiper belt - Wikipedia

*AU: Astronomical unit, roughly the distance from Earth to the Sun, stndardized at about 150 million kilometres (93 million miles).

"Pluto fails to meet the third condition. Its mass is substantially less than the combined mass of the other objects in its orbit: 0.07 times, in contrast to Earth, which is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its orbit (excluding the moon). The IAU (International Astronomical Union) further decided that bodies that, like Pluto, meet criteria 1 and 2, but do not meet criterion 3 would be called dwarf planets. In September 2006, the IAU included Pluto, and Eris and its moon Dysnomia, in their Minor Planet Catalogue, giving them the official minor planet designations "(134340) Pluto", "(136199) Eris", and "(136199) Eris I Dysnomia". Had Pluto been included upon its discovery in 1930, it would have likely been designated 1164, following 1163 Saga, which was discovered a month earlier."

"In 2010, Gonzalo Tancredi presented a report to the IAU evaluating a list of 46 candidates for dwarf planet status based on light-curve-amplitude analysis and the assumption that the object was more than 450 kilometres (280 mi) in diameter. Some diameters are measured, some are best-fit estimates, and others use an assumed albedo of 0.10. Of these, he identified 15 as dwarf planets by his criteria (including the four accepted by the IAU), with another nine being considered possible. To be cautious, he advised the IAU to "officially" accept as dwarf planets the top three not yet accepted: Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar. Although the IAU had anticipated Tancredi's recommendations, as of 2013, they have not responded."

300px-Kuiper_belt_plot_objects_of_outer_solar_system.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Thief

Rogue Theologian
If you ask me - many things. Family, society, country, the world (that is people beyond my country). Belief or disbelief in existence of God does not make even an iota of difference in these things. Because it is 'dharma' - my duty.
hmmmm…...sounds like Borg assimilation to me
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Of course, I do not believe in any grand old man with flowing white beard sitting on a golden throne up there in the sky. I am a strong atheist.

200px-Blake_God_Blessing.jpg
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Is free will a common belief among us atheists?

I may be mistaken, but I think not.
Not an atheist, but close enough (an agnostic). And just to note: I think that to be a determinist almost requires one be an atheist or agnostic, which is why I think your question here is a reasonable one.

Because atheists and agnostics have gotten where they are by thinking things through, principally matters of religion, I think they have more of a disposition to consider other philosophic matters than do others. And having done so, I believe they're more likely to dismiss the idea of free will than your average Joe. So "Is free will a common belief among us atheists?" Yes, but not nearly as much as among other folk.



.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
@Aupmanyav

I had intended to respond to your last post to me but came across the following, posted by Salixncendium to AT-AT, which has moved me in another direction temporarily.

I'm not sure how you're defining "heaven" (or "greater hard truths" for that matter). If you are speaking of what the Abrahamics refer to as "heaven," I have no such concept in my worldview. As I see it, one creates their own truth...one creates "heaven." Heaven is not a place; it's state of mind.

If you are speaking of "heaven" in terms of existence after the death of the body and mind...existence beyond relative reality, I see this as absolute truth, pure consciousness, and bliss...satcitananda. But one can exist as such on earth if/when one realizes one's true nature.


I note that Salixincendium also claims to be an advaitist Hindu. Above, he writes: ...[E]xistence beyond reality, I see this as absolute truth, pure consciousness, and bliss ... satcitananda."
"Saticitananda" is a new word to me, so I looked it up and found: What is Sat-Chit-Ananda? - Definition from Yogapedia where I'm told that:

Definition - What does Sat-Chit-Ananda mean?
Sat-chit-ananda is a Sanskrit term that describes the nature of reality as it is conceptualized in Hindu and yogic philosophy. Some consider sat-chit-ananda to be the same as God or Brahman (Absolute Reality). Others use it as a term to describe the experience of realizing the unity and wholeness of all existence.

Yogapedia explains Sat-Chit-Ananda
The meaning of the individual words of sat-chit-ananda are as follows:
  • Sat: truth, absolute being or existence-- that which is enduring and unchanging
  • Chit: consciousness, understanding and comprehension
  • Ananda: bliss, a state of pure happiness, joy and sensual pleasure
A common translation of sat-chit-ananda is "truth-consciousness-bliss." Sometimes sat-chit-ananda is considered to be a triple consciousness, where all three elements can be taken separately or considered as one because, in reality, each element is found in everything.

Some say that the experience of sat-chit-ananda is only accessible to a few advanced spiritual masters. Potentially, only 20 or 30 masters have ever been able to reach and remain in this state. It is easier for people to achieve an illuminated mind, but sat-chit-ananda is a higher state even than that.

In the philosophy of Vedanta, sat-chit-ananda is used as a synonym for the three qualities of Brahman. It is the supremely blissful experience of pure consciousness, unity and ultimate reality. Sri Aurobindo considers sat-chit-ananda to be the eternal and unified concept of the soul, which is beyond space, matter and time.

Though it is a lofty goal that may not be achieved in the practitioner's lifetime, practicing yoga can help move the individual closer to sat-chit-ananda.

The portions that I highlighted and underlined in red above leaped out at me:
  1. Some consider sat-chit-ananda to be the same as God or Brahman (Absolute Reality).
  2. Potentially, only 20 or 30 masters have ever been able to reach and remain in this state. It is easier for people to achieve an illuminated mind, but sat-chit-ananda is a higher state even than that.
  3. Sri Aurobindo considers sat-chit-ananda to be the eternal and unified concept of the soul, which is beyond space, matter and time.
  4. Though it is a lofty goal that may not be achieved in the practitioner's lifetime, practicing yoga can help move the individual closer to sat-chit-ananda.
Although I may be merely imagining doing so, I almost think that I can connect some aspects of your Brahman to my Universe. It's not a problem for me though, nor for you I hope, because neither of us is fixated on converting the other.

Regarding #2: That's a bummer, I would think.

Regarding #3: Bummer # Two. "Sat-chit-ananda" ... "is beyond space, matter and time." Aurobindo's claim raises the first IID between me and those who are in agreement with him. I'm a Monist at this time and my Universe only consists of things always moving through space over time. Thus, an Insuperably Irreconcilable Difference exists between Aurobindo claim and my Monist worldview.

Regarding #4: Bummer # Three. I'm 70 years old and my time on earth is fast approaching an end under the best of circumstances. From where I sit, I have a better chance of getting into heaven than I would trying to achieve sat-chit-ananda in this world. Especially if it's true that only 20 or 30 masters ever actually reached and remained in that state. More so if trying to achieve it ends with death.

With that, I'll close. Thanks for your time and information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I had intended to respond to your last post to me but came across the following, posted by Salixncendium to AT-AT, which has moved me in another direction temporarily.
@Terry Sampson , why do you think that all 'advaitists' should have the same view? Just check here for the various views. If Salix has a slightly different view then it is no problem either for him or for me. If it does not have variety, then possibly it is not Hinduism. :)
Vedanta - Wikipedia, Vedanta - Wikipedia
You don't seem to know what "Atheist" means, as you keep demonstrating.
Tell me, where have I done something unbecoming of a strong atheist? Yeah in the Hindu forum when I post with theists, I do not try to demolish their beliefs.
(Have you ever heard of "Elevatorgate"? Have you ever spent any time in any atheist forums?)
I am sure that Skwim has done that as I too have done since more than 13 years (IIDB - Internet Infidels Discussion Board). Of course, as I said, I do not try to run down theists in Hindu forum, because that would be against the spirit of Hinduism. Do you think that is a bad thing?
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Not an atheist, but close enough (an agnostic). And just to note: I think that to be a determinist almost requires one be an atheist or agnostic, which is why I think your question here is a reasonable one.

Because atheists and agnostics have gotten where they are by thinking things through, principally matters of religion, I think they have more of a disposition to consider other philosophic matters than do others. And having done so, I believe they're more likely to dismiss the idea of free will than your average Joe. So "Is free will a common belief among us atheists?" Yes, but not nearly as much as among other folk.



.
I have such a hard time with the idea of Free Will that it may be a neurological difficulty for all I know. Although I am not sure that the alternative must be determinism, either - but it may well be.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Ah, you are here to salvage/emancipate others, you are here on a mission, to make the whole world Bahai. I understand, all monotheistic religions do that. Some get paid for it. Well, for me it is entertainment and social interaction. IMHO, it is the same for Luis also.
Nope. I want to save the monotheists' Anatta. :)
 
Top