Children and Religion

[Augustus]

But how can an individual be deemed to be human if they don't share the qualities of collective humanity such as greed, violence, hubris etc.?

In an aggregate of individuals, some people will have these qualities and others may not. Often this depends on their environment and experiences.

In a complex system like human society, you can't understand the whole by focusing on any given individual. Scale matters.

But why are we so flawed and messed up? Shouldn't we be the least messed up species since, at least as far we are aware, the most sentient and intelligent?

Intelligence in species is not linked to peacefulness and kindness (chimps, dolphins, etc.)

The more intelligent, the more complex your social relationships and the more room for problems.

We can't just react to the world as it is, we rely on all kinds of stories to explain our motivations, beliefs, actions, etc. and use these as a framework for interpreting the actions of others.

 

[Samana Johann]

Is this the contrived, and unnecessary confusion, that you want to impart to your children? Try teaching them what I call, "the clarity of balance".

If knowing what is good and bad, it would be a matter of compassion to forward it. If for one self confused of what is to avoid, what to do, to gain independecy, there is really no need to transfere ones "balance", incapacity and guessing, householder. Great enough if having so much material things provided.

Nature tends to rid itself of unnecessary things that waste energy, or have no purpose. Humans will evolve naturally. Nature does not need any help from you.

If that wouldn't be the case householders topic would be total useless. As told: no need to provide with things one does not have. No need and duty to transfere confusion and lack. One can abstain from transferring ones "true enlightenment" out of compassion. Wise children will show much gratitude for such, householder. Sometimes children become the "parents" of their parents. Like Visaka, the Buddhas foremost female lay disciple. Died with 120 and had "eighty four thousand and twenty direct lineal descendants, all living", called also mother of her father.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If knowing what is good and bad, it would be a matter of compassion to forward it. If for one self confused of what is to avoid, what to do, to gain independecy, there is really no need to transfere ones "balance", incapacity and guessing, householder. Great enough if having so much material things provided.



If that wouldn't be the case householders topic would be total useless. As told: no need to provide with things one does not have. No need and duty to transfere confusion and lack. One can abstain from transferring ones "true enlightenment" out of compassion. Wise children will show much gratitude for such, householder. Sometimes children become the "parents" of their parents. Like Visaka, the Buddhas foremost female lay disciple. Died with 120 and had "eighty four thousand and twenty direct lineal descendants, all living", called also mother of her father.

I'm afraid that I don't understand any of this.

 

[Samana Johann]

I'm afraid that I don't understand any of thi

No problem on my person side. May householder go on untouched as feeling well and fit.

 

[r2d2009]

It doesn't matter what you believe in, or what you are convinced of. It only matters what evidence you can present, that can support whatever you are convinced of, or believe in. Oh, and this evidence must also convince me, in order to be objective. Otherwise, anyone can make up anything as being real, as long as they believe it, or are convinced of it. I think you can see what can happen, once we open this Pandora's Box?

Our emotions are genetically instilled through evolution. The origin(cause) of their expression is organic, and the expression(effect) is also organic. Anything that is mystical or spiritual, will have zero cause, and zero effect. You can stick a pin in a voodoo doll, but it will not cause pain to anyone. No matter how much you want to believe that it will. Unless of course, you can demonstrate just ONE example of anything that is metaphysical, supernatural, or spiritual. So whatever you choose to believe in, is subjective and irrelevant, unless there is objective evidence to support that belief.

There is no spiritual heart. There is only a physical heart, that function to maintain our physical homeostasis. It provides oxygen and nutrients to the cells. The heart is no more emotional, than the liver, the lungs, or the pancreas. In this reality, for every physical effect, there must be a physical cause. What is an emotional sphere? If a spiritual heart has a physical effect, then what is its physical cause? No cause, no effect. If a spiritual heart has no cause, then it can't have any effect. Therefore it cannot logically exist.

But faith does NOT require any logic at all. It only requires belief. So, if you think that belief and subjective experiences, represents a scientific fact, then you just don't understand what a scientific fact is.
​

You have no evidence of so many things.
For example, in order to have strong evidence that the Earth is round, you need to personally make a trip around the world.
Without this, everything can only be fairy tales.
In spiritual practices, all the evidence lies in the field of personal experience, and no one will provide it to you, only on your own.

Emotions have both an innate nature and an individual nature - all people have a different character.

The existence of an emotional center is a scientific fact.
It simply does not have a material reason; the reasons are simply different.

A scientific fact is not a question of faith, but a question of knowledge as the result of practice.
For your information, in addition to the measurement method in science, there is a method of observation, it is applicable in sciences like psychology.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You have no evidence of so many things.
For example, in order to have strong evidence that the Earth is round, you need to personally make a trip around the world.
Without this, everything can only be fairy tales.
In spiritual practices, all the evidence lies in the field of personal experience, and no one will provide it to you, only on your own.

Emotions have both an innate nature and an individual nature - all people have a different character.

The existence of an emotional center is a scientific fact.
It simply does not have a material reason; the reasons are simply different.

A scientific fact is not a question of faith, but a question of knowledge as the result of practice.
For your information, in addition to the measurement method in science, there is a method of observation, it is applicable in sciences like psychology.

Our emotions ARE innate, and sculptured by evolution to help us all to survive. It is our genetic make-up that determines how these emotions will be expressed. As I have stated before, our emotions are organic in origin. We can actually elicit emotions mechanically, chemically, psychologically, directly and indirectly. We can also mechanically, or subjectively supress emotions. These are all scientific facts, and can easily be verified and tested directly.

If you need to walk around the world, in order to prove that the world is round, then you really need help. In fact this evidence would be subjective, and not hard evidence. To become a scientific fact, the evidence must be objective, not subjective. I can take two sticks, two people, and two shadows, and prove that the earth is round. This method was used back in 762 B. C. You can look up all of the obvious objective evidence for a round earth yourself, without the need to walk around it physically. There are NO fairy tales in science. Science does not rely only on observation. We cannot observe Gravity or Dark Matter, but is a fact that both exists.

I agree that there are many emotional centers in the brain and endocrine system(pituitary gland, limbic system, etc.). Sorry, was there a point you are trying to make?

 

[r2d2009]

Our emotions ARE innate, and sculptured by evolution to help us all to survive. It is our genetic make-up that determines how these emotions will be expressed. As I have stated before, our emotions are organic in origin. We can actually elicit emotions mechanically, chemically, psychologically, directly and indirectly. We can also mechanically, or subjectively supress emotions. These are all scientific facts, and can easily be verified and tested directly.

If you need to walk around the world, in order to prove that the world is round, then you really need help. In fact this evidence would be subjective, and not hard evidence. To become a scientific fact, the evidence must be objective, not subjective. I can take two sticks, two people, and two shadows, and prove that the earth is round. This method was used back in 762 B. C. You can look up all of the obvious objective evidence for a round earth yourself, without the need to walk around it physically. There are NO fairy tales in science. Science does not rely only on observation. We cannot observe Gravity or Dark Matter, but is a fact that both exists.

I agree that there are many emotional centers in the brain and endocrine system(pituitary gland, limbic system, etc.). Sorry, was there a point you are trying to make?

Consciousness is the ability to subjectively evaluate reality.
Science is not able to explain this through matter (a difficult problem of neurobiology).

Emotions can be considered as forms of consciousness.
They are partially associated with biology (the more complex the animal is, the less instincts in his life and more awareness).
Here we can say that biological life exists for the development of consciousness, gradually replacing instincts with conscious actions.

As for the evidence, for skeptics equally nothing means experiments with sticks to measure the roundness of the Earth, as well as statistics collected by psychologists, yogis and so on, which proves the existence of emotional centers.
This is despite the fact that from the point of view of logic, both of these are quite convincing.
It's just that people tend to believe more in those ideas that are accepted in society as well-known.

Of course, meditations have a feedback with the material body.
But consciousness, obviously, also has such a connection.
There is no rebuttal to the existence of emotional centers.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Consciousness is the ability to subjectively evaluate reality.
Science is not able to explain this through matter (a difficult problem of neurobiology).

Emotions can be considered as forms of consciousness.
They are partially associated with biology (the more complex the animal is, the less instincts in his life and more awareness).
Here we can say that biological life exists for the development of consciousness, gradually replacing instincts with conscious actions.

As for the evidence, for skeptics equally nothing means experiments with sticks to measure the roundness of the Earth, as well as statistics collected by psychologists, yogis and so on, which proves the existence of emotional centers.
This is despite the fact that from the point of view of logic, both of these are quite convincing.
It's just that people tend to believe more in those ideas that are accepted in society as well-known.

Of course, meditations have a feedback with the material body.
But consciousness, obviously, also has such a connection.
There is no rebuttal to the existence of emotional centers.

That is really stretching the meaning of consciousness. I suppose since consciousness is a state of awareness, and one needs to be aware of something to be conscious of, therefore being aware of their emotion, could technically make emotions a form of consciousness. But this form of convoluted logic is really stretching both definitions, and is blatantly fallacious. But this is your belief, not mine.

I have no problems excepting that emotional centers exists throughout our brain. This can easily be tested. But what has consciousness and emotions, physically have to do with a spiritual heart. Lets keep this simple. You keep saying that you work with a spiritual heart, which is the spiritual center of emotions. I am asking again, what is the physical nature of a spiritual heart, an emotional heart, or anything that is spiritual about the human condition? What is the objective evidence that supports an "emotional centre? I'm not interested in the emergence of consciousness, what may or may not seem convincing to you, or any other's points of view. I am only interested in the objective evidence that you claim to have convinced you, about the spiritual nature of a physical human being.

So, instead of these mystical sound bites and talking points, are there any examples or demonstrations, that could even be remotely considered as objective evidence?

 

[r2d2009]

That is really stretching the meaning of consciousness. I suppose since consciousness is a state of awareness, and one needs to be aware of something to be conscious of, therefore being aware of their emotion, could technically make emotions a form of consciousness. But this form of convoluted logic is really stretching both definitions, and is blatantly fallacious. But this is your belief, not mine.

I have no problems excepting that emotional centers exists throughout our brain. This can easily be tested. But what has consciousness and emotions, physically have to do with a spiritual heart. Lets keep this simple. You keep saying that you work with a spiritual heart, which is the spiritual center of emotions. I am asking again, what is the physical nature of a spiritual heart, an emotional heart, or anything that is spiritual about the human condition? What is the objective evidence that supports an "emotional centre? I'm not interested in the emergence of consciousness, what may or may not seem convincing to you, or any other's points of view. I am only interested in the objective evidence that you claim to have convinced you, about the spiritual nature of a physical human being.

So, instead of these mystical sound bites and talking points, are there any examples or demonstrations, that could even be remotely considered as objective evidence?

Since we are dealing with subjective sensations, only statistics of subjective sensations can be objective evidence.
In this particular case - stories about the feelings of those people who practice a certain technique.

In addition, ancient practitioners have similar sensations when applying similar methods (Sufis, Hesychasts, yoga).
This is all recorded in their texts.

And no one bothers to verify this personally by practicing these methods.

The fact that the emotional centers are not localized in the brain, but in different parts of the body is easy to verify.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Since we are dealing with subjective sensations, only statistics of subjective sensations can be objective evidence.
In this particular case - stories about the feelings of those people who practice a certain technique.

In addition, ancient practitioners have similar sensations when applying similar methods (Sufis, Hesychasts, yoga).
This is all recorded in their texts.

And no one bothers to verify this personally by practicing these methods.

The fact that the emotional centers are not localized in the brain, but in different parts of the body is easy to verify.

So far, there is absolutely Zero evidence that these methods can verified anything spiritual or supernatural. Only objective evidence, not communal beliefs, can be used to demonstrate anything spiritual or supernatural. You have so far not provided any links between the physical, and the spiritual. Our conscious control of our body, represents only a tiny percentage of our state of being. Our body would still operate, whether we are conscious or not. It doesn't matter where you take your mind to, your body will still be where you left it.

I agree that there are emotional centers in our brain. All emotions are organic and genetic in origin. My problem is that there is no evidence to justify any belief in a spiritual heart, or a spiritual human. In fact, there is nothing literally spiritual about humans, or any of their organs. Addressing our emotions can be done by conventional methods. Even though you, or anyone else, can't provide this information, I'm not saying that a spiritual heart doesn't exist. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that it does.

Anyway we are going slightly off-topic.

 

[r2d2009]

So far, there is absolutely Zero evidence that these methods can verified anything spiritual or supernatural. Only objective evidence, not communal beliefs, can be used to demonstrate anything spiritual or supernatural. You have so far not provided any links between the physical, and the spiritual. Our conscious control of our body, represents only a tiny percentage of our state of being. Our body would still operate, whether we are conscious or not. It doesn't matter where you take your mind to, your body will still be where you left it.

I agree that there are emotional centers in our brain. All emotions are organic and genetic in origin. My problem is that there is no evidence to justify any belief in a spiritual heart, or a spiritual human. In fact, there is nothing literally spiritual about humans, or any of their organs. Addressing our emotions can be done by conventional methods. Even though you, or anyone else, can't provide this information, I'm not saying that a spiritual heart doesn't exist. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to suggest that it does.

Anyway we are going slightly off-topic.

So there will be no evidence until you have practice.
Need personal experience.

Yes, we have offtopic and walk in circles in reasoning.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So there will be no evidence until you have practice.
Need personal experience.

Yes, we have offtopic and walk in circles in reasoning.

I don't need practice or experience, to know that jumping out of a two story window will cause me harm. And this is a realistic claim. You are making an extraordinary claim of the existence of a spiritual nature. You must provide extraordinary evidence that can support your claim. What is the physical nature of a spiritual heart? What is the nature of anything spiritual? What are the physical properties of emotions, or an emotional centre? If you can't answer any of these questions, then your spiritual claims are not objectively valid. Your claims are faith based, not evidence based. This is the same rationale used, that we should teach our children that "God did it", in our science classrooms, until we have objective evidence that He didn't. This is just flawed logic, to the max.

 

[r2d2009]

I don't need practice or experience, to know that jumping out of a two story window will cause me harm.

In this area you have the necessary experience.
For example, the experience of jumping from a lower height in childhood.
He tells you that the second floor is too high.
In addition, you have the instinct self preservation.

What is the physical nature of a spiritual heart?

The spiritual heart has no need for physical nature.

You are making an extraordinary claim of the existence of a spiritual nature.

All the evidence is in personal experience and comprehension of the sum of the experiences of other people.
It’s not your fault that you reject this possibility.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

In this area you have the necessary experience.
For example, the experience of jumping from a lower height in childhood.
He tells you that the second floor is too high.
In addition, you have the instinct self preservation.


The spiritual heart has no need for physical nature.



All the evidence is in personal experience and comprehension of the sum of the experiences of other people.
It’s not your fault that you reject this possibility.

Please understand, that I am open to all possibilities. I even question if an objective reality even exists. Our reality emerges only because of our interaction with it. If we don't interact with it, then it doesn't exist. Both arguments for and against objective reality are plausible. What I don't believe, without a plausible explanation, is the physical manifestation of spirituality. Specifically, a spiritual heart. I do not reject or affirm the existence, I simply have no evidence to have a rational opinion either way. Other than simply believing it so.

Again, we are drifting away from the topic of my thread. But tell me, why the heart? Why not the liver, the toenail, or any other parts of the body? Why only the heart or brain?

 

[r2d2009]

simply believing it so.

You can simply believing, simply not believing, simply say "I don't know" or take practice for experiment...
I do not know your choice, my choice is practice.

Again, we are drifting away from the topic of my thread. But tell me, why the heart? Why not the liver, the toenail, or any other parts of the body? Why only the heart or brain?

This is just an established term.
It is determined only by some correspondence of feelings and place.
Other terms are Anahata Chakra, Middle Dan-Tien.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You can simply believing, simply not believing, simply say "I don't know" or take practice for experiment...
I do not know your choice, my choice is practice.




This is just an established term.
It is determined only by some correspondence of feelings and place.
Other terms are Anahata Chakra, Middle Dan-Tien.

Again, I'm not that clear of what you are saying. But, I am sure that I will disagree with it. On a lighter note for all Bee Gees fans.

 

[r2d2009]

I'm not that clear of what you are saying.

Yes, you probably do not know the terminology of this topic.

 

[Phaedrus]

There is no excuse for deceiving our children into imagining that they'd be better off with religion, churches, priests, or the other trappings of religious faith.​

I agree.