By the way Clog, I'm very happy that you have the patience, intelligence and insight to at least address this issue.
On Sep 24, 12:34 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi y'all - I think I'll jump in here before Jason does as you've > mentioned "Buddhist Friends." and > "Either way, we both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole does > not address such > things today. . . I hope! " > I think we need to separate soul and consciousness here. My > understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a soul, > without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana. Some souls > remain outside Nirvana to help others along. Science can find no > record of this. Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no > one posting in this thread would subscribe to that (yet.) > On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness via the > nervous system etc. When I talk to someone, I can assess their level > of conscousness simply from their responses. If they say they believe > in gods, I naturally assume they are close to being comatose. > > On Sep 23, 3:11 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
