I can not see it, so it does not exist

[Heyo]

Since I see faith healers as not trustworthy, I would go to the doctor to stop the bleading.
I know healing by energy is wrong to do, because most of those who has some form of healing ability, do not see that they getting karma from doing the healing. And I do not want their energy, that conflict with the Gong energy in Falun Gong.

I do not say it is wrong to go to a doctor, I have my self an appointment at the doctor office tomorrow.

So, you have at least one foot on the ground. Can you think of an example where we might disagree, not only in theory but in practice, about things to do or to refrain from based on our believes? (Where we would the other have to do or refrain from.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Since I see faith healers as not trustworthy, I would go to the doctor to stop the bleading.
I know healing by energy is wrong to do, because most of those who has some form of healing ability, do not see that they getting karma from doing the healing. And I do not want their energy, that conflict with the Gong energy in Falun Gong.

I do not say it is wrong to go to a doctor, I have my self an appointment at the doctor office tomorrow.

But you just got done saying that trusting in scientific methods for the assemblage of "facts" about the world around us is mere "belief: - and likened it to any belief that a religious adherent might have about literally ANYTHING at all. Like it or not, today's doctors' expertise is rooted in nothing but the scientific method. And when it wasn't, people were claiming (literally) that blowing smoke up your butt could cure ailments.

These things are not, at all, the same. One is reporting on findings that correlate with reality for ANYONE who performs the same experimentation/work (science, obviously)... and one is reporting on something someone else said with minimal to zero means of corroborating the story (religion - obviously).

 

[Spirit of Light]

So, you have at least one foot on the ground. Can you think of an example where we might disagree, not only in theory but in practice, about things to do or to refrain from based on our believes? (Where we would the other have to do or refrain from.)

I can not drink alcohol because of the cultivation, not that I would do it anyway.
I can not work as a butcher, killing is extremely immoral and would cause my a lot of karma. It also count for giving punches back in a fight, I would not fight back.

 

[ppp]

Why so extreme choices?

In this world, extreme choices exist.

It is not a problem for me that you disagree with mostly all I stand for.

That is not what I asked. I asked at what point do conflicts between our beliefs become a problem for you.

To kill, to harm or as you say eat babies is so I morally wrong that you would know my answer without I saying it.

I have no idea where you draw the line. That is why I am asking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you just got done saying that trusting in scientific methods for the assemblage of "facts" about the world around us is mere "belief: - and likened it to any belief that a religious adherent might have about literally ANYTHING at all.

It isn't, at all, the same. One is reporting on findings that correlate with reality for ANYONE who performs the same experimentation/work (science, obviously)... and one is reporting on something someone else said with minimal to zero means of corroborating the story (religion - obviously).

It is not that simple because then you can't explain how we can learn to do 2+2=4.
Science is not the only thing, humans can replicate. We can also replicate the beliefs in religion otherwise they couldn't spread it. Science is a human behavior and so it is religion and both can be taught to others.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But you just got done saying that trusting in scientific methods for the assemblage of "facts" about the world around us is mere "belief: - and likened it to any belief that a religious adherent might have about literally ANYTHING at all.

It isn't, at all, the same. One is reporting on findings that correlate with reality for ANYONE who performs the same experimentation/work (science, obviously)... and one is reporting on something someone else said with minimal to zero means of corroborating the story (religion - obviously).

I think you may misunderstanding me a bit. As a practitioner, I should follow the teaching. But nothing prohibits me from going to a doctor for advice of certain issues.
Of course I could leave it to faith, but in some aspect of life I must also apply to the law of the country, and faith healers is not allowed(in Norway) so doctors office it is

 

[ppp]

Well, a thought in my mind is an abstract if what the thought is about has no objective referent. Real is an abstract and has no concrete or objective referent. The same with God.

You are incorrect. The thought in your mind is an abstract whether there is an objective referent or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are incorrect. The thought in your mind is an abstract whether there is an objective referent or not.

Correct, you are right.
Now real and God are both abstracts as such. So are truth, morality and existence. There are a lot more.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In this world, extreme choices exist.

That is not what I asked. I asked at what point do conflicts between our beliefs become a problem for you.

I have no idea where you draw the line. That is why I am asking.

I draw a line when personal attack happens. And I will speak up if you or other spread false claim about religion or spiritual teachings.

 

[Heyo]

I can not drink alcohol because of the cultivation, not that I would do it anyway.
I can not work as a butcher, killing is extremely immoral and would cause my a lot of karma. It also count for giving punches back in a fight, I would not fight back.

Nothing I would ever require you to do. I wouldn't even object you advocating those things.
I do drink alcohol on occasion, I do eat meat (even though I agree it to be immoral) and I would fight back. Do you agree I have the right to do so?

 

[epronovost]

This is what I will take for granted about you as non-religious. You are a typical product of your sub-culture of non-religious Westerner.

I would say this is a fair assesment.

It mean in practice that you have a set of words, that you take for granted and don't doubt.

This is not how linguistic operates. This assumption of yours in false.

In an everyday sense you have faith in practice as for this version of faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

If you mean by that that I have complete trust and confidence in a specific methodology. I would say this is slightly exagerated.

I am the same so it is not that we are different, but in practice you act with a psychological confidence in your experience, which you don't doubt because it works for you. The same for me.

I'm not completely sure as to what you mean by "it works for me".

The difference is that I have learned to apply the doubt I use towards other humans' experience as in effect as the same doubt for myself.
Now I have repeatedly been told by your sub-culture, that I must doubt everything using scientific skepticism. That is the game of your sub-culture, but the joke is that I took that to seriously and began doubting that. I learned to doubt scientific skepticism and learned to be another kind of skeptic.

You can indeed do that.

So I can doubt evidence, existence and the test you use and I have figured out, I can do it differently. That is the game we are playing now.

You can indeed doubt everything. You could decide to attribute a different meaning to every single word I write and declare that the entirety of my reply is a detailed description of a sexual encounter between me and a species of giant sea turtles.

You doubt with scientific skepticism in effect and I doubt that it works for everything as in practice the only way with evidence, existence and testing that we as humans can do it all the way to what everything really is as it exists.

What do you mean by "all the way to what everything really is as it exists". Are you refering to some sort of ultimate truth?

We are playing a game of metaphysics, ontology, logic, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics and phenomenology rolled into one. And here it is for the end result. There is no single universal category for the likes of evidence, existence, test and so on. That includes religion, philosophy and science. We are in practice play a limited game of cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and that applies to us both. I just know it is so both for you and me. In practice you have faith just like all other humans.

It's strange you are holding a self-contradicting point of view. Everything is relative, is a universal statement of absolute truth about something, yet cognitive relativism holds that there is no such thing as absolute truth about something. How do you deal with that artefact?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It's strange you are holding a self-contradicting point of view. Everything is relative, is a universal statement of absolute truth about something, yet cognitive relativism holds that there is no such thing as absolute truth about something. How do you deal with that artefact?

No, it is a conditional absolute. Everything is relative to humans. In principle you can image someone for which there was not relative or conditional.
The correct phrasing is truth is relative to humans and the condition for that is that it is so for humans.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nothing I would ever require you to do. I wouldn't even object you advocating those things.
I do drink alcohol on occasion, I do eat meat (even though I agree it to be immoral) and I would fight back. Do you agree I have the right to do so?

It is your life, you are the one who decide what is right for you. I do not judge you for your actions

 

[ppp]

Correct, you are right.

I know. ;-)

Now real and God are both abstracts as such.

God, perhaps. There is an actual reality, even if we have limited experience of it.

So are truth, morality and existence.

Truth is what corresponds to reality. So, truth, like reality, is concrete. Morality - depends on your definition. Existence - depends on your definition.

There are a lot more.

Sure.

 

[ppp]

I draw a line when personal attack happens.

Me too.

And I will speak up if you or other spread false claim about religion or spiritual teachings.

Me too! I will definitely speak up if you or others spread false claims about religion or spiritual teachings.

 

[epronovost]

The correct phrasing is truth is relative to humans and the condition for that is that it is so for humans.

That's not cognitive relativism though. That sounds closer to a form of pragmatism based on naturalism (then again philosophical naturalism has no clear and concise definition and usage), but let's not delve into pedantry.


I'll raise you a step. Cognitive realivism is an interesting position on the nature of the philosophical concept of truth and reality, but in the end like all relativists you cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. Which standpoints, theory and methodology do you use to assess the existence of things and if it's not a consistent frame for all things, why did you made that choice?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Me too.

Me too! I will definitely speak up if you or others spread false claims about religion or spiritual teachings.

Can I ask.
Do you think you know more about correct words, action and thought in spiritual practice then those of us who do practice a spiritual teaching, ?

I ask because sometimes it seems like you do.
I can of course be wrong on that.

 

[Heyo]

It is your life, you are the one who decide what is right for you. I do not judge you for your actions

So, as I said, it doesn't matter as it has no consequences.
And, as I don't know enough about Falun Gong, I can't imagine anything we would have to disagree upon, let me fetch a case from a fundamentalist Christian. He believes Global Warming can't lead to rising sea levels since, in his book, his god promised to never flood earth again. And not only does he hold that belief, he also tries to convince others of that belief and uses false data and rhetoric to do so.
Am I justified in pointing out his falsehoods and in trying to force him to concede his point? Or is his belief on the same level as my belief in science?

 

[ppp]

Can I ask.
Do you think you know more about correct words, action and thought in spiritual practice then those of us who do practice a spiritual teaching, ?

I ask because sometimes it seems like you do.
I can of course be wrong on that.

I do not accept the claim that there are spiritual teaching or practices in anything but a metaphorical sense of the word 'spiritual'. I accept that there are words, action and thought that are considered to be correct according to your teaching or practices. But only in the same way that there are correct words, action and thought in any organization; be they businesses, clubs, religions or ways.

I do not accept the foundational claim that spiritual has correspondence to reality.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So, as I said, it doesn't matter as it has no consequences.
And, as I don't know enough about Falun Gong, I can't imagine anything we would have to disagree upon, let me fetch a case from a fundamentalist Christian. He believes Global Warming can't lead to rising sea levels since, in his book, his god promised to never flood earth again. And not only does he hold that belief, he also tries to convince others of that belief and uses false data and rhetoric to do so.
Am I justified in pointing out his falsehoods and in trying to force him to concede his point? Or is his belief on the same level as my belief in science?

In the teaching I cultivate it is also spoken about global warming, and unlike science we understand it differently.
Yes global warming is caused by human beings, but not in the way science tell it, ( science can not see this so I don't blame them)
In the teaching we understand that what we see as global warming comes from huge amount of karma, or black substance if you will. And the more we produce of toxic gases, the more karmic reaction occur( this we see as warming of earth, more storms, rain, hurricane, melting of ice on the poles. In our understanding it is all occurring due to humans enormous amount of karma.

I don't say you need to believe any of this, I know you see science answer as correct. But I only answered my understanding of the teaching of Falun Gong