cuchulain

I am not certain of anything, lol. Fear those who are. So I ask another question along the same thread as this one. Does the differences between religion and philosophy and all that really amount to anything? Or...do the differences actually make any practical difference?

Buddhism teaches the middle way. I think that might apply here. Be nice to people, but not fawning and the sort. Be assertive of yourself, but not hateful or trampling of others in the process. At least, that's how I think I will attempt to do it

My wife and I were eating the other day at Jimmy John's. On our way out, she looks over and says, "ooo...a frozen yogurt shop. Frozen yogurt is the best." To which I immediately reply, "Frozen yogurt sucks." I think this distinguishes things in the communication line quite well. She believed what she was saying, and communicated it effectively. I believed what I said, and I believed it as well. Still, neither of us changed our minds. We understood each other quite well. Didn't matter how much she believed frozen yogurt was the best, I still don't like it. Doesn't matter how much I hate frozen yogurt, she still likes it a lot. And the best part? It doesn't really matter if I don't like it, or she does.

I can appreciate the Christian perspective, Dan. I simply need some observational evidence to go with it before I can consider the biblical verses to be accurate.

I don't think that the universe thinks or has emotions, so I agree. I may be wrong.

I think in order to scientifically define anything you start with observation, don't you? Observe the soul, then define it based on that observation, then test that definition to see if it works? So shouldn't the first step be observing the soul? I don't know how to observe the soul.

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...