OK
On Sep 24, 11:36 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Orn,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I will adress some points and make clear some
> of my thoughts at a later time when not rushed. I think we are on the
> same page...or at least in the same ball park on this.
>
> stemcell
>
> On Sep 23, 4:13 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh, as to who I am, I'm just one more atheist on the list! :-)
>
> > On Sep 23, 1:11 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > “Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting foreward?”
> > > - Stem> Even if one posits that the moment of conception
> > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then
> > > > realize that it is a scientific question. – Stem also
>
> > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other
> > > such notions." - orn
>
> > > Well Stem, I’m not clear about your questions either nor am I meaning
> > > to be obtuse here either. I’ll guess as to what you are asking and you
> > > can correct me if I am wrong OK?
> > > I’m guessing you are asking about my words above that you included in
> > > your post. That said, most of my words in this thread follow from a
> > > short aside I made about when consciousness enters the body according
> > > to some Buddhist sects. I do know that most of the focus here is on
> > > antitheology and antichristiandom in particular which is fine. I find
> > > most of such believers troublesome at best. I merely added something I
> > > learned from some Tibetan Buddhists to the mix because I thought it
> > > was interesting. This even though the context here was your link and
> > > comments about embryos and fetuses. Next Taylor brought up soul. The
> > > underlying and rather tacit topic here is abortion. Yes? At least for
> > > the fundies.
> > > Since you asked about me, I’ll comment about this too. Over the years
> > > I’ve had different positions about abortion. I think I’ve even posted
> > > to this group about it in the past. Currently, I feel that abortion is
> > > killing and that it should remain legal. Please do not question what
> > > appears to be a contradiction here…like do I think that killing should
> > > be legal. I’m aware of how this appears.
> > > However, your question addresses my comment about consciousness/soul
> > > and perhaps science, I guess. Again, I’m retelling what was told to me
> > > by some Buddhist friends. In a rather simplistic overview and using
> > > symbols, they see that the eternal continuum – consciousness – enters
> > > the ‘body’ at the moment of conception. This is when the red gem/drop
> > > and the white gem/drop unite …it is at that moment that the blue gem/
> > > drop enters this realm and joins the red and blue. The iconography is
> > > well known. The existence of this particular cosmology itself can not
> > > be questioned. If one wishes to say it does not match their own
> > > view(s) of reality, this is fine and I’d even hasten a guess that most
> > > Buddhists would agree with the use of such skepticism.
> > > Continuing…
>
> > > “I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get
> > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science
> > > of the soul.. Zeus does not throw lighting bolts. It is non-
> > > existent....like Zeus...god...reincarnation, etc. When I said that it
> > > is a science question, I was referring to the science of development.
> > > In other words, Zeus does not throw lighting bolts.” - Slip
>
> > > I can see you are trying to clarify what you meant and, unfortunately,
> > > I still don’t grok. I’m ignorant about what you mean by ‘science of
> > > development’.
> > > I just googled it and guess you mean the science of child development?
> > > If so, I think I can guess what you mean. Are you saying that
> > > consciousness can not enter at the single and/or double cell level
> > > because the brain has not yet developed? If so, I do understand your
> > > stance and do not deny your logic.
>
> > > You continue with some comment about a Greek god. So, I’ll guess that
> > > your meaning there is that, in your view, science does not nor ever
> > > will address such things as soul (consciousness/reincarnation?)
> > > because you don’t believe they exist. If I’m not getting your meaning
> > > here, I apologize. And, I can only guess that you understood my
> > > meaning that science does not address these things at all as well as
> > > my view that it doesn’t because they are not within the purview of
> > > science which is slightly different from your reason. Either way, we
> > > both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does not address such
> > > things today. . . I hope!
>
> > > I almost hesitated to go into it this much because of my not being
> > > clear about what you were asking. I hope that at the very least I
> > > haven’t confused things further.
>
> > > On Sep 22, 9:12 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting
> > > > foreward?
>
> > > > > Even if one posits that the moment of conception
> > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must then
> > > > > realize that it is a scientific question.
>
> > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul or other
> > > > such notions."
>
> > > > I like your thoughts....somewhat. I am not arguing, nor will I get
> > > > into argument about, that science has further to go to reach a science
> > > > of the soul.. Zeus does not throw lighting bolts. It is non-
> > > > existent....like Zeus...god...reincarnation, etc.
>
> > > > When I said that it is a science question, I was referring to the
> > > > science of development. In other words, Zeus does not throw lighting
> > > > bolts.
>
> > > > On Sep 22, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Oh, you are not interested in such imaginary things as the
> > > > > 'irrational', are you? (…other than as a means to hone debate
> > > > > techniques.) If I misread you, please advise.
> > > > > In general, I don't discuss things that specific people reject with
> > > > > them. An analogy would be to attempt a serious debate with a
> > > > > fundamentalist Christian about the true age of the earth. Most times
> > > > > the result is just further entrenchment into an already crystalized
> > > > > belief system.
>
> > > > > On Sep 22, 3:28 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <<Yes, these are all common memes of the day and no new news at all.
>
> > > > > > And dodges a defense of the irrationality. (as usual)- Hide quoted
> > > > > > text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Memphis Freethought Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
