cuchulain

Thanks, and I will certainly be happy to compare and contrast when I get to the point of actually taking the class Youtube is a wealth of information, betimes. I might look up and see what I can find. Again, thanks.

Thanks. I may just take the course anyway. The worst thing I have to lose is a little bit of money.

I've been looking into Qi Gong lately, but really I'm trying to decide what the energy in the body is, if it is malleable and usable in such a way. I don't know really what I am looking for in finding this information. There is a place in town that offers Shaolin Qi Gong, Meditation, well...lot's of things really. I guess I was probably looking for opinions on the legitimacy of this energy, and whether it is always considered of a spiritual basis or not.

Johnathan. If you don't mind me asking, as it isn't precisely on topic, but I believe you have some experience with resources and such on the subject of internal energy and meditations and healing, etc...? I may be mistakenly thinking something else. I was wondering if there are any good references you could give for the skeptic? I am not trying to disprove or prove, simply seeking information. If you don't that's cool too, just thought I would ask.

I understand that humans can see in color, but dogs cannot. If that is a difference, then certainly there is room for other differences as well? But as you said, we don't know in the first place eh?

I see. I didn't mean it that way, I think I meant it the way it originally was intended. I will view things in a skeptical light, that is...not believe until there is evidence.

I'm still wondering exactly how the term skeptic is a problem word, lol.

I don't really care anymore if I offend someone's poor delicate sensibilities... Offended is a state of being that comes solely from the person who is offended, no matter what anyone says about them. And if words are the worst they have to deal with in life...That's just my opinion, of course.

Perhaps that was self projection. Sometimes, I think others think the way I do. I am often mistaken.

Not THE bad example, friend. Just the only bad example I could think of at the time, in that I usually participate negatively as well. Sorry...didn't mean to pick on you.

All interesting ideas about the soul. Perhaps there is some mechanism by which it interacts with the body, maybe that mechanism is the appendix? Don't take my appendix!!! Nah, but seriously maybe some day it will be discovered...or maybe someday it won't because it doesn't exist. Johnathan. You are quite right, Atheism doesn't necessarily preclude the soul. I should say skeptic. Again with the language, eh? I am not the best communicator, but am working on that.

It sounds fair to me...but I did apologize for it, before the tirade continued. I'm just trying to figure out what more to do, beyond trying to check myself in the future, you know? Guessing at this point that it's time to just let it go on my end.

Wherever you want. If you are offended that I occasionally make a mistake and lump all religions into one, something that I am working on by the way(but still occasionally fail), is the cause what I said, or how you took it? Will you honestly tell me that you could not view what I wrote in the sense that it was intended, that I meant those religions that actually have a concept of evil and a devil? I don't believe that...what I believe is you have a pet peeve on this particular topic and it simply gets to you when someone miscommunicates. Kind of like others have a pet peeve about specifics of their religion, philosophy(did I miss a word that could stand for religion? wouldn't want to offend someone...). It gets real monotonous to watch everything I say, if you can understand that. I don't communicate the best, I get that. But communication is a two way street. People that are offended by the occasional lack of specifics, they are allowing themselves to be offended rather than viewing the issue as it is. That's my opinion. As I said, I didn't intend to offend. I think intent should count for something, but apparently it doesn't. If you don't think you can handle the occasional slip, you are welcome not to respond, to use the ignore button, well...whatever you feel like really. That's because I have no control over you, or how you will take my message. That's the short and simple.

There have been many times that I have misunderstood someone on this forum. Usually, my impulse has been to attack that person in some manner, or to defend myself from what I perceived to be an attack. I have witnessed others misunderstand each other on a regular basis. Dan and Johnathan have that ongoing thing about Atheists and the definition thereof. ULCNeo had an issue with who could post on his topic, and many seemed to become disgruntled about that as well. It has been debated who has the burden of communicating effectively. But I have come to the conclusion that the onus lies on both parties. If I speak with someone with a lisp, I don't become offended because they didn't communicate as effectively as I think they should have. I take a minute to understand what they are saying to me, and I realize that they have a communication issue beyond their control. Some issues are within control, of course. Reference Dan and Johnathan. Dan could take the time to consider that Atheists don't believe in nothing, and rephrase. Johnathan could take the time to realize that's just how Dan says it and he might not mean anything derogatory by it. Of course the possibility exists that Dan is deliberately provoking Johnathan. But even if that is the case, without some proof that Dan is baiting Johnathan, I think(and it's just my opinion of that particular scenario) that Johnathan should simply give Dan the benefit of the doubt, or let it go. Recently, it seems I have been unintentionally offending Leopardboy. Apologies. I don't mean to be offensive to you. It was simply how I typed it on the computer, I didn't think it through all the way, I didn't view every particular of every sentence for the possibility that what I was writing might offend someone. I remember a topic a brief time back where you complained about wanting to post some other things but being afraid that if you did you might be criticized endlessly, referencing the contention with the Atheists and Christians of the forum. I don't know if you will recall. It has gotten to that point with me numerous times in the past. Then I realized that it doesn't matter how others interpret what I say, rather what I mean when I say it. The same holds true for you, for mererdog, for Dan and Johnathan as well. And for all others. This is all backstory of course, to the topic at hand. Political correctness, a thing that has been derided...yet persistently sought. If people are tired of the pc, why do they vigorously pursue it in their own favor? Hypocritical, a little. I have been guilty of that as well. But I try to do better, and I would like to think the attempt is worth something. If it isn't, there is an ignore button. Or willpower, or simply letting things go, you know? I don't come on this board and deliberately call people stupid, fools, sheep...some have. I try to refrain from that. I try to keep within the parameters that have been set. I try not to bait people, sometimes I fail. But part of that is because the burden of communication lies on both parties, and not just me. I can say something innocuous and someone can take it how they want, if they want to see an attack, they can find a way to make it sound that way I am sure. If they want to think it genius, they can equally find a way to make it sound that way. But in the spirit of being positive toward each other and trying to honestly educate or share points of view, does it do any rational good to find the worst way to interpret something someone says and focus on that? That is my question.

Was that offensive in some manner? I did not mean it as such...I assume at this point that you are upset that I lumped all religious into one group. Looking back, I realize I should have said the main stream religions. My bad. But a point here. I am not saying I was not wrong to lump it all together, but don't you think perhaps you could have taken it with a grain of salt, perhaps a little less critically? Just a thought.

"waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one." Marcus Aurelius. I like that quote, and it seemed to fit the context. We often bicker back and forth, as you said...it's high drama. Or as I say, low drama. Either way, we bicker a lot about how horrible we each are. I am guilty as well of that. But...rather than point to the others flaws, I would like to try to be a good person instead. I may fail, that is the nature of humans I think. But the attempt is important.

It has been said by some, and I can't remember who or I would quote, that laughter at that which is morally offensive is necessary, else we would cry. I think sometimes that laughter at the misfortunes of others is our way of coping with something negative that otherwise we would have to figure out how to deal with, a defense mechanism against negativity so to speak. Maybe I am wrong though.

I read an interesting objection to the soul's existence, or relevance anyway. Someone wrote on another board that if the soul is incorporeal, it would have no method of interacting with the corporeal mind and body and so would be irrelevant. I don't know if it exists or not. Just something I have been wondering lately, one of the questions I have gone back to reevaluate, since it's always something that seems taken for granted. I understand the idea of the soul as an afterlife vessel, but wonder if the soul exists, does it actually serve that purpose or does it serve another that we are unaware of? I agree with your take on the afterlife, Johnathan, to a point. Either we will know, or we won't...that I do not contest. But I do not think a surcease to be a bad or unpleasant thought. If there is nothingness after life, we won't care Brother Kaman, I can agree that the soul and sentience are not necessarily the same thing. The religious would have the two linked inextricably while convincing us that are mortal souls are in peril of the devil, quite the sales pitch I believe. You are correct in that if the soul exists, we don't know what form or properties it exists in, perhaps a definition of the soul would be in order? The dictionary. Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. That doesn't really help in this case, does it? How does one find the soul, how does one point to it and say "there it is"? I guess the best answer so far is Johnathan's. It's my understanding. Lacking evidence, I should as a good atheist reject the idea until good evidence comes along, eh?

It's something I have been thinking about lately, trying to determine if I can believe logically in a soul. There are many cultures and philosophies and religions that insist it exists, and that it is obviously self evident and cannot be questioned. I question it. I know the Christian answer presupposes it's existence, and I can appreciate that they believe it, but what I am looking for is philosophical or scientific evidence, if possible, either way. I understand(perhaps wrongly) that Buddhists don't believe in a soul but DO believe in reincarnation? Not sure how that works without a soul...

I personally feel the line must be drawn internally. All we can be is the best us we are capable of as often as possible. As I said in another topic, I have failed my own ideals on numerous occasions. I try to do better. Each of us is a unique individual. Each of us has different upbringing, different DNA, different world views, and sometimes those conflict in ways we cannot see online, as Brother Kaman said. But sometimes the fault is not within, sometimes it's the person we are communicating with who failed. The tricky part of online, to me, is mood. I have different moods dependent upon what is happening in my life, and sometimes I post in a whimsical mood. I can take everything with a grain of salt, laugh it off, and come back with a quip. Sometimes there are things happening in my life that frustrate me to no end, and shouldn't. It's one of my failings, personally, that I filter things I encounter through my current mood. I really try to correct this, and sometimes fail. Maybe the person you were interacting with had something similar happen? Or perhaps you were doing something similar? I don't know. There are so many circumstances we cannot see online, cannot feel personally, cannot connect with...it makes it difficult at times to know what to say and what not to, especially if you are the type of person who second guesses yourself like I am. Lately I have simply been trying to be myself, my ideal self. It's something that took me a while to decipher, what with all the options available to me. I researched religion and philosophy as a child through my entire adult life. It's just something that's always interested me, but more than that, it's something that I have always felt could provide answers in my life. The last few months(time is relative, I often lose track of months), I have been examining more from a personal stance instead of what has been written by others. Something I have found is that a person has to internalize with their own observations, their own understandings, and commune with themselves, so to speak. Find what really rings true about life, people and how it all interacts. My conclusion has been to begin developing my own standards of living and interacting. I would like to think this has made me a more consistent person, but I know that I occasionally still fail. There are times when those I highly respect say something and I am simply in the wrong mood to hear it the way they intended it, and take offense. I control my own responses, but my reactions are another thing entirely, another thing to work on in life As I said in another topic, there are those I have no respect at all for on this forum, and those that I have a high level of respect for. I have been in the past the type of person who takes things to heart, and who is a little bit gullible. It's been hard for me to learn to think for myself, rather than borrowing the ideas of others for myself, if you can understand that or relate. I have been a person who takes things overboard in the extreme, too. When I have decided on something to support, I get behind it 110%, sometimes to the detriment of logic. Like I said, lately I have been working on that. For what it's worth, mererdog, you are one of the people on here that I highly respect. There have been misunderstandings in the past between us, things that I have definitely taken wrong at the wrong time, but that's my fault. Like I said, I have a hard time filtering things through the emotion at times, and react instead of responding. But I have always found your ability to question anything respectfully to be amazing. It is something I had to grow into seeing properly, I guess. This is getting long...sorry. Stoicism teaches to be yourself, and control yourself, and that's about all you can really do. Control of others, how they take you, is not possible. Oh, we can strive to be courteous, but I think there are always those who won't consider that for whatever reason. To paraphrase Amber, I agree that if you have good intentions, that's the best we can hope for.

All things have a basis to them...that does not mean all things retain that same basis in their evolution, nor that they have the entirety of that basis within them. Learning means changing.

I believe that says it better than I was attempting, thank you.

That's true. Maybe they think they are right to try to change my mind, and I can accept that. I can still find fault with it, however, since it is my determination that they should not forcefully try to convince me. I don't mind when someone tries to explain their understanding and even try to convince me...but when the point comes where they have clearly failed, and they continually do so...it strikes me as harassment rather than enlightenment. Maybe I shouldn't say I find fault with someone insisting I am wrong so much as finding fault with someone trying to coerce or force me to believe the way they do? But...if they truly believe man to be a flawed creature, they should be willing to accept that they are flawed and so could be wrong as well, meaning what they think of as right is suspect. And if they think they are right in trying to convince me I am wrong, that too is suspect. Or I could just play it by ear and circumstance, with some emotion added in

In the spirit of insistence, is it a virtue to insist on being correct, or that someone else is wrong? I believe it falls to the individual to decide for themselves. Consistency is nice, but to the point of blinding oneself to the possibility of being wrong? I understand myself well enough to know that I am a flawed creature. Most Christians will heartily agree with that simple sentiment, I believe. But will they look into the mirror while doing so? Will those of any religion acknowledge that they are flawed? It seems to me to be a tenet of Christianity, that humans are flawed creatures. With this understanding, why is it so hard for some to admit they may be wrong? If you know yourself to be flawed, then you should be able to see that the possibility exists, yes? And so, the insistence of correctness, or in another's wrongness, becomes a matter of pride, does it not? And is not pride one of the deadly sins? From this particular Atheists perspective, I fully acknowledge I may be wrong. I know I am not perfect, though I certainly try to live the virtuous life as i see it. This is a tenet of the ULC, "do that which is right". Recently there was a post about that in the pulpit...but it leaves off the other portion of that tenet, "only you can determine what is right." As such, I cannot find fault in someone else determining that they are absolutely right, since that is their determination. I can find fault with someone insisting I am wrong, since only I can determine what is right. I do not gain my virtues from the mouth of a preacher, I do not subscribe to the tenets of one particular philosophy or faith, or pick my morals and virtues from a book. I take them from multiple sources, and rarely(if ever), are they a novel idea that I myself devised. But, they are ideas that I have tested internally and found to be worthy within myself. Is the best way to for me lead others to the virtuous life, then, to berate their current virtues? Is it to play word games with debates and arguments, redefining words at a whim, insisting that they are wrong? Is it even necessary for me to lead others to what I consider a virtuous life? No...resoundingly no, for me. I see no need to berate anyone for their "wrong" answer. Each of us has the responsibility which cannot be abrogated to determine what is right and what is wrong. For some, this means reading from the bible, it means studying what the letters and commentators have to say about that book and the message contained within. For others it is the will of Allah, it may be the words of a preacher on a pulpit, or perhaps it's the philosophy of some sci fi account, maybe stranger in a strange land or star trek or star wars or thomas covenant the unbeliever...and that is their choice, not mine. If they feel a need to berate me for being "Wrong", then so be it. I am not harmed by mere words, arrogant though they may sound to my ears. There is no force within those words. There is no substance to a person insisting I am wrong(and conversely that they are right, whether they utter that or not). My emotions, they want there to be a heaven, a God, they want an afterlife. They also at times want me to be able to go back and do things differently, to be a better person in the past. I do not see any of these things happening. I have no mandate from heaven. I have a mandate of conscience. It is the voice within me, coupled with what I reason about the world I see around me. I like to learn all the time, but I have found that I learn virtually nothing from conversations with Christians. The same as Islamists, or other extremists. I learn nothing from pagans, at least about virtue. I learn what they believe to be virtue, all of them. But that is not my belief. Some things may line up, some may be identical, some are not there at all. All this leads me to state simply that my virtue is not insistent upon being right or that others are wrong. Or as pagans may phrase it, harm none and do what you will.

I can certainly appreciate the "very often" part of that myself. I would like to think I have grown beyond such reactions, but we both know that isn't the case. Still, I think the attempt counts for something.