Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I agree. Ideas like "The Absolute" are meaningless abstractions. Worthless deepity word-salad, which entirely fails to make religious belief any more credible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science vs Faith
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
I agree. Ideas like "The Absolute" are meaningless abstractions. Worthless deepity word-salad, which entirely fails to make religious belief any more credible.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Ricky old buddy....where have you been...I've missed you?
So how do like the concept of 'absolute reality' to represent the sum total of all existence?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I don't like terms like "absolute reality" at all, they are meaningless abstractions and pretentious deepity.
"Sum total of all existence" is a bit better, the problem is that it remains a speculative abstraction. Due to the limitations of human senses and intellect we will never have more than a partial view of "all existence". Some people will always need to fill in the huge unknown areas with religious belief of course.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Most scientific and philosophical concepts are abstractions....but I doubt that many would call them meaningless.. and why do you think the reality represented by the concept of 'absolute reality' aka 'sum total of all existence' is speculative?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I just told you why. Human senses and intellect are limited so we will only ever have a partial view.
If you want to refer to the universe, just say "universe". There is no need at all for pretentious deepity terms like "absolute reality", which are meaningless abstractions.
If you want to talk about religious beliefs, then please clearly label them as such. Don't present them as facts or dress them up with jargony gibberish.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes of course everyone understands that human perceptions are limited...that is why 'absolute' is used as an adjective to convey that it is not merely human perceived reality is meant....but also it includes that which is transcendent. If you do not understand what I am saying, please explain precisely what it is and quote my words...
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It is much simpler to say that humans only perceive a small fraction of the universe.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
And the reciprocal is that they do not perceive the greater fraction of the universe....hence the concept of absolute reality which means all reality.....absolute reality....good grief!
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
No thanks, I will stick with what I said, we perceive a small fraction of the universe. It is simpler, and also means you cannot sneak in a load of religious mumbo-jumbo. Ha ha!
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Tell me something? I'll say lifestyle rather than religion. Why not find a lifestyle and way of living that incorporate these things (having the ability to pursue avocations that strike your fancy) and make them-and other things of your preference-a foundation of your life? What is or do you have a foundation for every action, moral, and value you have or is it haphazard?
Personally, I love spontaneity. I can't live a disciplined devotional lifestyle. It's not my character. I do whatever "strikes my fancy" and it is the foundation of my life. It's shapes my actions, morals, and values.
Aka: It's my religion.
You don't have to call it religion, though. However, if I did call it a foundation lifestyle a religion, how do you live without one? Wouldn't your life be somewhat of a mess?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Nothing more a matter of common sense and connecting the dots....thanks for the laugh Skwim.....the depth of your theological knowledge is quite extraordinary....
Although I know most Christians hate doing things like this and almost never do.Not understanding what you're saying here.
If you want to call that a religion fine, but it doesn't fit any definition of "religion" that I'm familiar with.
Calling something X, X being a long understood term, doesn't necessarily make it X. It's like saying "I am god because I've redefined the definition of "god" to included people exactly like myself." Such playing with words does nothing to help in discussion. Want to call dogs "humans" so you can bring them into a fine restaurant and seat them at your table go ahead, but I highly doubt any restaurant will go along with you.
.
Last edited:
Brahman is understood as pure consciousness in sat-cit-ananda (being awareness-bliss). All consciousness is actually Brahman. We are atma=Brahman.Consciousness is fundamental and is not to be understood in terms of anything else. The mysterious fundamental just IS. It is correct to call Brahman the 'only real'. The universe is a play/drama (maya=illusion) of the real.
That is how I understand it.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The fact that most of the universe is unknown to us is not a sufficient reason to fill that unknown with a load of supernatural woo and religious beliefs. It is like those old maps with "Here be dragons."
Perhaps you didn't understand my post. What does 'The fact that most of the universe is unknown' have to do with the understanding of Brahman?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Read the post of yours that I actually replied to. The point is that Brahman is a religious belief, an attempt to fill in part of the great unknown.
Brahman is held to be the direct observation/experience of many, many mystics, seers, Self-Realized saints, advanced soul incarnations, etc. etc. It is not something just thought up as a good explanation.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't know how you define religion but the structure-the practices etc that's in the dictionary are built to be a "foundation of a person's life." Spirituality or however named is where one basis his or her values, morals, and actions on. It's the context and foundation that is religion. Paganism is a religion some religions within Paganism doesn't have the type of devotion most people sneer at when they see gold and bowing to statues in a Catholic Church. Religion (like Spirituality, god, etc) are contextual and personal words rather than chair and table that are strictly defined by how it's shaped.
With the contextual definition in mind:
If your life isn't based on a foundation(s) of some sort, where do your morals, values, and purpose for actions come from? The answer is your foundation(s). Going by contextual definition of religion, that would be your religion. Why? Because if you indeed practice-key word-your morals and values that's the same reason behind a person bowing to Mary or Jesus. Atheists etc aren't aliens to Christians and Muslims and so forth. Language can be limiting sometimes but our human drives and instincts and what we define as our wants and needs are not.
I see someone without a foundation just going around doing anything he wants, jumping in front of cars, yelling, hurting himself, and so forth. I'm sure you don't do that? If not, whatever keeps your morals and ethics in check is what "spirituality" and "religion" is. The dictionary definition defines what some people practice but not all religious practice their religion the way the dictionary defines it. We are in a Christian country; so, our books etc will be influence by Christian and like ethics. My great aunt helped write the Webster's Dictionary, and she is so hard-stone Christian that she didn't want electricity in her house because she wanted to live like Christ.
That's fine. If you do have a foundation as mention above, I personal call that spirituality. Words are limiting and we can use whatever words we like. However, religious and irreligious people aren't aliens to each other. I don't see why both sides see it that way. It's like seeing to humans argue that the other person isn't human like them. Silly. In my opinion.
God is defined by a christian concept in the dictionary. Pagans define god differently. Buddhists believe in gods and they define it differently. That's an "if the definition of X is this, everyone should believe this one definition."
We have an "agreed" definition on many words, but words are not limiting. Like the F finger is not the F finger (nor called that phrase) in other countries. The OK finger (or phrase) is seen that way, I think in France, as the F finger in the U.S. -focusing on the phrases rather than the handshapes-
Queer means weird. It also means someone whose homosexual. Homosexual to some people means same-sex orientation others say same-sex action. Some say it's just attraction as in the dictionary. Many homosexuals define it beyond that.
The list can go on.
So we may not choose to call it religion but I feel it's universal that many of us have or would like to have a foundation for their morals, values, etc. It could be spontaneity (whatever strikes ones fancy) or it could be disciplined or devotion.
Language is not strict. People need to give way to the bias they have around certain words. Doesn't make the situation better. It just reinforces the other side's influence. We don't have to redefine the word and call god a chair. However, because spirituality is not strict, we refine the word because it is personal and as such, it will hold no power over us when we make it personal rather than
seeing religion as someone else's word rather than our own.
Take your time.
With the contextual definition in mind:
What is or do you have a foundation for every action, moral, and value you have or is it haphazard?
If your life isn't based on a foundation(s) of some sort, where do your morals, values, and purpose for actions come from? The answer is your foundation(s). Going by contextual definition of religion, that would be your religion. Why? Because if you indeed practice-key word-your morals and values that's the same reason behind a person bowing to Mary or Jesus. Atheists etc aren't aliens to Christians and Muslims and so forth. Language can be limiting sometimes but our human drives and instincts and what we define as our wants and needs are not.
I see someone without a foundation just going around doing anything he wants, jumping in front of cars, yelling, hurting himself, and so forth. I'm sure you don't do that? If not, whatever keeps your morals and ethics in check is what "spirituality" and "religion" is. The dictionary definition defines what some people practice but not all religious practice their religion the way the dictionary defines it. We are in a Christian country; so, our books etc will be influence by Christian and like ethics. My great aunt helped write the Webster's Dictionary, and she is so hard-stone Christian that she didn't want electricity in her house because she wanted to live like Christ.
That's fine. If you do have a foundation as mention above, I personal call that spirituality. Words are limiting and we can use whatever words we like. However, religious and irreligious people aren't aliens to each other. I don't see why both sides see it that way. It's like seeing to humans argue that the other person isn't human like them. Silly. In my opinion.
God is defined by a christian concept in the dictionary. Pagans define god differently. Buddhists believe in gods and they define it differently. That's an "if the definition of X is this, everyone should believe this one definition."
We have an "agreed" definition on many words, but words are not limiting. Like the F finger is not the F finger (nor called that phrase) in other countries. The OK finger (or phrase) is seen that way, I think in France, as the F finger in the U.S. -focusing on the phrases rather than the handshapes-
Queer means weird. It also means someone whose homosexual. Homosexual to some people means same-sex orientation others say same-sex action. Some say it's just attraction as in the dictionary. Many homosexuals define it beyond that.
The list can go on.
So we may not choose to call it religion but I feel it's universal that many of us have or would like to have a foundation for their morals, values, etc. It could be spontaneity (whatever strikes ones fancy) or it could be disciplined or devotion.
Language is not strict. People need to give way to the bias they have around certain words. Doesn't make the situation better. It just reinforces the other side's influence. We don't have to redefine the word and call god a chair. However, because spirituality is not strict, we refine the word because it is personal and as such, it will hold no power over us when we make it personal rather than
seeing religion as someone else's word rather than our own.
Take your time.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
That is just faith-based rhetoric, and it is based on interpreting certain experiences in a particular way. There is no objective evidence for your beliefs. None at all.
The fact remains that Brahman IS a religious belief, just one of many. The fact remains that these religious beliefs are attempts to fill in the great unknown, attempts to know the unknowable, attempts to find meaning and comfort in a transient and fragile existence.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
I'm easy. I'll go along with Merriam-Webster:
RELIGION
- : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
- : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
- : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
What dictionary? Please show your work.
Sorry but your grammar seems to be failing you. What you're saying makes no sense. What is the object of your "what" in "what is"? UNLESS, you're asking for my definition of "foundation," in which case I would direct you to Merriam-Webster for an answer.
Only if they're used with their commonly accepted meanings, otherwise they have to be very carefully redefined.
As long as the working definition of a word is recognized by all parties. Playing fast and loose with words because they suite one's objective requires their use be well understood by everyone. However, most often such redefinition is quite bothersome and suspect, and is actually unproductive.
I have no idea what you're trying to get across here.
.