Rara

This is exactly what I am talking about.

I was tempted to quote this and move back to the other thread...then I realised I didn't know how! Hehe. Certainly yes, the different type of atheist is something Iain too (I think) picked up on in that thread. The ritual argument is a bit loose though. Yes, atheists join in on the social norm of holidays, just without necessarily giving thanks to God and Jesus or mimicing any sort of wiccan ritual of burying bits of wood etc. The "Atheists" don't set up churches for non-belief (or if they do, they must be very scarce - unless you count the church of Satan) I don't know about you but I at least associate a house of worship (or temple for meditation) as a key component of religion. Sure, you then get the Christian that doesn't go to church, but that doesn't make the same difference - they still identify, willingly, that they belong to that religion and do the appropriate things they believe is required to be a member of that faith. All the atheists I know, struggle to get together for a common purpose, other than every day norms like watching football or going to dinner. Religious people do this too, but they also practice their religion. Similarly with university. When I went, it was full of people from all different walks of life. Islam, Christianity, Pagan, Atheist, Sikh and so on. I would hardly liken it to a religious institute - just parallels, like I answered to Iain's first response. To your last paragraph though, yes, right

Similarly, I'm trying to decode this... First part ok, but where does this "knowledge of subjectivity" come from, in your mind? The objective, or "3rd state"? I don't see how one is "burnt in transition". I could understand someone that is not honest, being "burnt" in subjectivity though. I can only assume that your argument is based on some "3rd state", or higher state of consciousness being the ultimate, collective of the two?

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Hi Iain, I don't have much I can respond to here as I have no experience of the Kashmir Shavite way. But in your response about me not understanding that the quantum split "underlies our reality", I will say yes. It's an experiment much deeper and inconclusive. Not to get confused with the fact that I understand the experiment and what it suggests, but it is a work in progress. To say "it is this" is exactly what I mean about the subjective nature of your argument. It represents an idea which makes perfect sense. A Buddhist teacher also told me their teachings make sense. Anything can make sense if you want it to, but that doesn't necesssarily give it substance. Then again, you did say that you would find it hard to be objective in your answer, so that's ok. Your yin and yang explanation is ok (of course I'm sure you do know that it is broader than this in terms of representing the unity and crossover of all opposite ends of polarity) I don't dispute what you say other than my argument in that it is only a philosophical idea, and I would like a reference for this so called "3rd state". However, we can't assume that philosophy can be put in the same ball park as science when it is unrelated in its approach. Science may be supported by philosophy, and vice versa, but as separate entities they stand alone in what their aims are. You can make as many links to spiritual teachings as you like, but this is only relation, or parallels. There is nothing that binds these together, solidly. If the science supports a subjective view, that is all well and good, but this still leaves us with something biased. Just look at how people who swear by diets using scientific information to sell it. The people that buy into it justify this because of the science, not stopping to think about the scientific information that was ommitted. Other than this, unless I look into the Kashmir Shavite way, I can't say anything else to what you have said other than politely nod. That said, you have got me curious and wouldn't mind a good link where I can find more information on these teachings

@Iain , I will respond later, just got a job to do

Ok, but can I ask, what rituals do atheists adhere to? Maybe my definition of ritual is different to yours Even dictionaries define words differently. I don't see your point of the Atheism as a religion being "irrelevant" though, consideing you just stated that they are due to ritual, obedience etc...

May I ask what was wrong with the Youtube clip? My point was actually in reference to the Twitter trolls' reaction as opposed to the video itself. Beneficial vs harmful preferences. That is a good question, as it is a tough thing to calculate. Reasoning differs too. For example, it makes sense for me to tell my girlfriend she is the most beautiful girl in the world. Despite the statement being completely subjective, an objective view definitely would do me no favours whatsoever! When discussing whether God created the world or not, a more objective approach is required, but it depends on the context. Here on this forum, that it more appropriate. In rehab, maybe it's better to push that dogma, but I know nothing about therapy, so it's tough for me to say. Who decides? Collectively we do already. There danger I feel, is that subjective thinking is over ruling logic in many cases, weather it is political correctness or genocide (two extremes) they are both coming from the same root. You can still be objective, logical and open at the same time. In fact, I argue that being objective is the only way we can be honest enough to become progressive. I recognise what you say about 500 years ago, and before. But it was "passed" as logic, not actual logic. Yes we still have this - let's look at the big bang theory. There is a huge difference between believing that the big bang happened than to be one that understands it as a concept. This is the difference I am talking about. Differentiating between fact and perceived fact.

I will respond bit by bit when I can

Ok, did it. It's long...enjoy! http://thetaobums.com/topic/36739-objective-vs-subjective-how-we-can-be-more-honest-with-ourselves-and-then-others/

But wisdom that came from experience, trial and error and seeing other teachers - even if this meant that they discarded a high percentage of what these teachers were saying or practicing. Guatama Buddha is a prime example. That guy went through some right BS before landing in the right place.

Damn, you just reminded me of another thread I wanted to open up. I will in fact do that and incorporate the said subject within it as there is some relation.

Come to think of it, when I began mindfulness practice, I had to do running commentary. Even when going to the fride, I would describe me opening it, what I was looking for, what I was reaching for etc. This helped me to stop getting lost in daydreams and mental conflicts... So I hear where you're coming from with your vocal ange. Each to their own!

Yes, exactly that. We are separate from them! There is you and then the thoughts around - you simply cannot trace the root of those thoughts, but you can be aware that they are there. And you can be aware of how they make you react. Then you can also be aware that you reaction is a choice and that those thoughts are not you, just simply presented in front of you. Let me know if you understand now...you're so close!

Also very good!

Just read it. Very Taoist! Very good

And if you don't, it still doesn't!

Foolish to a degree. Everybody needs a guide or mentor to tell them that they are doing it right (books and forums are good suplements) but also, be careful that you remain open to other teachings/teachers Really depends on what it is you're meditating for etc Though what I feel is that you do seem to do fairly well on your own regardless. The self-reflection i saw in your original post was quite admirable

I agree but I do hope that we can all do our best to accept more that is going on reliable info I am fully aware of bias, preference and belief that clouds rational and honest thinking...yet it is only normal to have such (perhaps uneducated biases (blind ones too) Wow, I could go deep with this. I don't have time now I'm afraid.

Scary or pointless? It's an illusion to a more pedantic extent, but in practicle terms, it being a material object that can be sat on is of more use. Let's not get confused by thinking we might fall straight through the chair one day

Thanks for restoring the links. Yes, power, greed, ego will always spawn violence. However, nowhere in any of these arguments, is evidence that "atheism" prompted such violence. Just because the offender is an atheist doesn't mean their belief made him do it. This was motivated by class divide, more than anything. Whereas an Islamic extremist/terrorist is sold/believes in a paradise reward for their actions...that it's what Allah wants.

Jealousy? It can only be. While I don't jump up and down for The Dalai Lama, hearing that he's been compared to Hitler etc is ridiculous. Derailing here hehe, but thanks for sharing

For some reason, these links send me back to page 1 of this thread when clicked on. I did manage to copy and paste them into my address bar when bringing your post up in "quote" form. Ok, I see what you're saying. But Atheists dont tend to kill in the name of atheism, or "non-God". Not the way an Islamic extremist will kill in the name of Allah...

Could you list a couple of examples? I'm curious just because it is easy for me to identify many examples of it being related to religion, but not vice versa... Not off the top of my head anyway.