There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[shunyadragon]

Who cares? It's still founded on made-up revelations and a theistic God?

The Rig Vedas describe a Theistic view of the involvement of Gods,

Saying that doesn't justify the wu.

You have perpetually and selectively justified the 'wu' of the Rig Vedas by being selective as to what you believe and do not believe to justify your agenda. I do not justify the mythology or ancient worldview of any religion including Hinduism. As described in the Baha'i view ancient religions reflect in part the limited cultural world view of the time the scriptures were written.

hypothesis, testing, prediction, analysis is the scientific method. Conclusions are reached by evidence, not states of mind. [/uote]

Both are relevant, the Baha'i writings support the priority over the scripture of the evolving knowledge of our physical existence through scientific methods as described in Methodological Naturalism

pointless? ]/quote]

One the point reflects your consistent failure to respond based on your agenda.

subjective and onjective? Ok, yeah? There is a left and right also, who cares?

I care, and you consistently fail to coherently respond on point,

They did not. Yes he predicted a war when a war was about to break out. Everything else is vague Biblical like prophecies. When someone claims revelations from 1850 and explains, relativity, quantum mechanics, internet, space travel to the moon, explains cosmology and unifies garvity with QM that would be a start.

Try again, you have failed to respond to the citation.








Everything he said about the world, psychology, social life, was knowledge around at the time. Did he exhibit knowledge and power not easily attributable to human sources? Bad science, knowledge of past religions, poetic writing, purity, yeah, all very much human. No revelations here.










What Bahai view? There is no view? Christianity accepts science? The church follows evolution, quantum physics, philosophy? There are plenty of high level Hindu scientists who find no problems with Vedic knowledge and science views?

But guess what, I don't believe in ANY RELIGION so I don't care what they say about science. I think they should all be replaced by secular humanism instead of teaching people non-scientific wu like souls that go to God after death. Bahai does not follow science in any way. That is all crank lip service. Telling people a man had revelations from a God and their souls will go to heaven is ridiculous. When Bahai admits those are fiction then they can claim they incorporate science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow that's something. You still won't admit that philosophy and science are often completely unrelated? As you ignore most Greek and Western philosophy.

Not true as previously referenced. I do acknowledge the contributions of all ancient philosophies including by the way Lucretius of ancient Rome, but do not selectively cling to an ancient philosophy as deep. As in a previous post, I endorse a more eclectic universal philosophical view that does not simply reject all other religions as 'wu' as you do.

[/quote] Swami is deep. His knowledge of Advita Vedanta is deep. Their idea about consciousness are pretty heavy. I don't really buy into it but I see what they are coming to with consciousness. [/quote]

As described previously deep knowledge of Hinduism is not anymore relevant than deep knowledge of any ancient scriptures.

The bold above is a selective consideration of the Hindu and Swami's view of consciousness with includes intimately Karma and Reincarnation. In Hindu philosophy, you cannot select one without an in the understanding of the Hindu view of consciousness.

Yeah I'm listening to his Hinduism, I don't care what some other Swami says. You are making something out of nothing in order to try to bully me. It's working in the sense you sound like you are bullying.

Name-calling above is bullying, which is your modus operandi, including failure to coherently respond.

Nothing that you say makes any sense. I find Rabbi Tovia Singer to be deep in his knowledge of Judaism. No sane person would ask I justify the flood and Jewish OT cosmology because of that. [/quot[s

This does not remotely address my posts. Again and again, deep knowledge is not relevant to deep philosophical understanding beyond the limited theological view of the knowledge of the scriptures,

Swami hasn't answered any science questions yet. If he doesn't believe in evolution than I won't agree with him.

Arguing from ignorance is not an adequate response by either you or the Swami.

[quote Does it seem the Advaita vedanta site doesn't agree with what you claim?

[Advaita-l] On Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Respond specifically.

"Unlike other religions, Vedantins have

no conflict with Darwin’s theory of evolution since its application is only

relevant to vyaavahaarika like all theories of objective sciences, and therefore

cannot account spiritual evolution.

Existence of Spirit or soul: What makes the biological matter

to become dynamic and follow evolution process is not addressed in the Darwin’s

theory of evolution."

You trip mined an important point. The view of our physical existence and evolution from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism, and the Baha'i belief is not in agreement with the ancient mythical view of all ancient religions including Hinduism. You cannot be selective here in justifying your agenda which includes the ancient mythical description of Creation in the Rig Vedas and Hindu traditions which does include a physical time frame for Creation and the existence of humanity.

Yes, specifically there is a conflict between the science of evolution in terms of the time frame of the existence of humanity and Reincarnation and the intimate involvement of Karma.

BWHAH HA HA! That sounds familiar? Souls? Why that is the belief in your religion HA HA HA HA HA HA! They believe the same wu as you!

Insults and selective incoherent response is your modus operandi. Please try and do better than describing your flapping tongue,

 

[joelr]

Actually no, you said he has a deep philosophy. Having a deep knowledge of the scriptures of any religious scriptures does not translate to a deep philosophy beyond the knowledge of the scriptures.

I have a more eclectic approach to the philosophy of different religions and secular philosophies, which is not necessarily dependent on knowledge. I have acknowledged the value and contributions. of the Hindu as well as all the scriptures of the world, but appeal to the universal more of contemporary philosophers and theologians that also appeal to the universal. An example concerning the philosophy of science with a contemporary view is Karl Popper.

The Swami I listen to gets into some deep philosophy about the role of consciousness in reality. It's hard to digest and I don't always understand exactly what he means, but sometimes I get flashes of insight and it is well thought out. I don't know if it's true but some of the points are, all our experiences and labeling are framed through consciousness. Simple enough. But they take these ideas to extreme places. When I listened to the lecture that actually explains Advita Vedanta it was impressive but I think I caught the part where it relies on unevidenced wu.

 

[joelr]

The Rig Vedas describe a Theistic view of the involvement of Gods,

Uh huh. It's why I'm not a Hindu. Why would I believe in fairy tales?

You have perpetually and selectively justified the 'wu' of the Rig Vedas by being selective as to what you believe and do not believe to justify your agenda.

Nope. I've explained over and over why this isn't so. You haven't addressed any of those examples, you haven't made a case as to why, you just keep making the claim over and over.
So once you have degraded to trolling, it's time to ignore. No further answers will be given to these moronic claims.

I find Rabbi Tavia Singer to be deep with his knowledge of the Torah. But I'm not supporting all the other nonsense. Some parts of Hinduism are interesting. That doesn't mean I support all the theology.
I like Kierkegaard's existentialist work but that doesn't mean I have to justify his beliefs on God?
This is just pure bullying, and I enjoy being bullied, but not online.

I do not justify the mythology or ancient worldview of any religion including Hinduism. As described in the Baha'i view ancient religions reflect in part the limited cultural world view of the time the scriptures were written.

Yeah you do. You believe in a theistic God? You believe in revelations? Your religion supports other religions as actually true? So you believe in ALL the main mythology. That's much worse.

 

[joelr]

Not true as previously referenced. I do acknowledge the contributions of all ancient philosophies including by the way Lucretius of ancient Rome, but do not selectively cling to an ancient philosophy as deep. As in a previous post, I endorse a more eclectic universal philosophical view that does not simply reject all other religions as 'wu' as you do.

Well I do. If that troubles you then boo-hoo. Can you get over it? Seems you can't?

Meanwhile why don't you answer the question of why the Gita philosophy is outdated? The moral philosophy. As previously referenced.


Swami is deep. His knowledge of Advita Vedanta is deep. Their idea about consciousness are pretty heavy. I don't really buy into it but I see what they are coming to with consciousness. [/quote]

As described previously deep knowledge of Hinduism is not anymore relevant than deep knowledge of any ancient scriptures.

The bold above is a selective consideration of the Hindu and Swami's view of consciousness with includes intimately Karma and Reincarnation. In Hindu philosophy, you cannot select one without an in the understanding of the Hindu view of consciousness.[/QUOTE]

You can't. I'll do what I want. I don't believe they have Karma right. So their answer to the law of suffering doesn't work. Reincarnation also doesn't make sense. No evidence. That is far from the totality of the concepts. Clearly you don't understand Advita Vendanta at all.

so cool. Now you have 2 things to demonstrate. Why Gita moral philosophy is outdated. And what other scriptures goes as deep into consciousness?

And yeah, everything I said is true. Their concepts are heavy, his knowledge is deep, I don't buy into it. You just printed me saying I DON;T BUY IT? That's it ? The end? IF I'm saying I don't buy it then that makes me EVEN LESS supporting other concepts? I'm literally saying I don't believe it? HA!!!!! You are so wrong it's hilarious. Perfect post to end this ridiculousness on.
You go whine and cry all you want, do it to someone else please.

Name-calling above is bullying, which is your modus operandi, including failure to coherently respond.

If you act like a bully and get called out, then try to reverse it by saying now the recipient of the bullying is also a bully because they spoke up about the abuse, you have moved into Narcissistic territory.

One cannot " coherently respond." to a nonsense argument. Although I still did, and explained why it's nonsense, you failed to counter, instead going with brute repetition. Brilliant. Do you have an actual argument or are you going to continue to hide behind a made-up, nonsensical, illogical, diatribe?

Respond specifically.

[Advaita-l] On Darwin's Theory of Evolution

They believe in the science but have some obvious mistakes and added some wu. Wu as bad as a theistic God and revelations. So again, I'm not Hindu.

You trip mined an important point. The view of our physical existence and evolution from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism, and the Baha'i belief is not in agreement with the ancient mythical view of all ancient religions including Hinduism. You cannot be selective here in justifying your agenda which includes the ancient mythical description of Creation in the Rig Vedas and Hindu traditions which does include a physical time frame for Creation and the existence of humanity.

Yes, specifically there is a conflict between the science of evolution in terms of the time frame of the existence of humanity and Reincarnation and the intimate involvement of Karma.

Again, words in my mouth. Can you understand (think hard now....) I'm NOT A HINDU. I am not bound by any wu and do not support any wu. Hinduism has a lot of philosophy as well. Some of it is deep. Some ideas on consciousness are interesting. Yes I CAN find elements of Hinduism that I find interesting and maybe even agree with? Doesn't mean I buy their creation narrative?? Who would ever think that?
Now you think I buy an ancient creation narrative????? I said it was cool because it's the only one that has such a long tine span and cycles like an oscillating universe.
The only person that would say something so bizarre is someone mad at you for calling their religion wu.

And your views are ridiculously hypocritical. You believe in a religion that says there are souls, a theistic God who sends revelations to people every so often. Yet the recent version recieved no new or advanced science, math, nothing. But did get tips on CURRENT SCIENCE that was soon proved to be wrong???? Like Muhammad, Paul, Joe Smith, Cargo Cults, Abraham......someone exaggerated a bit with the "revelations".

Insults and selective incoherent response is your modus operandi. Please try and do better than describing your flapping tongue,

And what exactly do you expect with bullying and repeating nonsense arguments over and over, failing to address counter arguments and explain why they are wrong, still failing to explain why the moral philosopghy in the Gita is outdated.........
That wasn't even an insult. I didn't address you. I called wu, "wu". So please find an actual argument, I have no interest in saying the same thing over and over to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Meanwhile why don't you answer the question of why the Gita philosophy is outdated? The moral philosophy. As previously referenced.

Ancient mythological cosmology and Creation still believed by many Hindus.

Swami is deep. His knowledge of Advita Vedanta is deep. Their idea about consciousness are pretty heavy. I don't really buy into it but I see what they are coming to with consciousness.

No, I alreadt addressed this.

. . . still stands. Knowledge is not meaningful in this context.

"As described previously deep knowledge of Hinduism is not anymore relevant than deep knowledge of any ancient scriptures."

The bold above is a selective consideration of the Hindu and Swami's view of consciousness with includes intimately Karma and Reincarnation. In Hindu philosophy, you cannot select one without an in the understanding of the Hindu view of consciousness.

[=quote] I'll do what I want. I don't believe they have Karma right. So their answer to the law of suffering doesn't work. Reincarnation also doesn't make sense. No evidence. That is far from the totality of the concepts. Clearly you don't understand Advita Vendanta at all. [/quote]

I understand the Advita Vendanta very well. Ancient beliefs and philosophy are not relevant today. Yes, there is some good philosophy no problem.

It is obvious 'you will do what you want.' That's your problem.

so cool. Now you have 2 things to demonstrate. Why Gita moral philosophy is outdated. And what other scriptures goes as deep into consciousness?

No deep philosophy concerning consciousness, just a religious claim like most religions that consciousness is eternal with a 'Source' beyond our physical existence

You have not answered the question What is so deep concerning the Hindu and the Swami's belief in consciousness?

And yeah, everything I said is true.

A subjective meaningless claim that is always false. In terms of religious beliefs and philosophy, nothing is ever always true

Their concepts are heavy, his knowledge is deep, I don't buy into it. You just printed me saying I DON;T BUY IT? That's it ? The end? IF I'm saying I don't buy it then that makes me EVEN LESS supporting other concepts? I'm literally saying I don't believe it? HA!!!!! You are so wrong it's hilarious. Perfect post to end this ridiculousness on.

You have never demonstrated how the concepts are 'heavy?' and as before the claim of deep knowledge is meaningless. It is how knowledge is applied that is meaningful, and you have failed to do this. From your part, nothing but 'air ball' claims about subjective claims about what is 'deep philosophy'

You go whine and cry all you want, do it to someone else please.

Your continuous whining is the problem and making repetitive subjective unsupported claims concerning ancient out-of-date philosophy and scriptures,

[quote[They believe in the science but have some obvious mistakes and added some wu. Wu as bad as a theistic God and revelations. So again, I'm not Hindu. [/quote]

Like all ancient religions, yes there are too many obvious mistakes and problems that make the claim of deep philosophy meaningless,

Now you think I buy an ancient creation narrative????? I said it was cool because it's the only one that has such a long time span and cycles like an oscillating universe.
The only person that would say something so bizarre is someone mad at you for calling their religion wu.

Selective citation does not justify a deep philosophy when much of the ancient scriptures contain ancient mythology which you are selectively editing out to justify a deep philosophy.

To qualify as a 'deep philosophy' you have to go to contemporary philosophers that have a more universal philosophical view that doe not need to be selectively edited to justify an agenda.

For example: Selectively citing the Bible can justify a Big Bang cosmology and an ancient existence,

 

[joelr]

Ancient mythological cosmology and Creation still believed by many Hindus.

No I said the MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE GITA??????????????

I keep asking this over and over. Talk about meaningless???? The Gita contains moral issues, many of them. Nothing to do with the crteation stories, which YOU yourself said was in the Rig Veda?



HA!? I ask about why moral realism is outdated and you say "Ancient mythological cosmology and Creation"............................??????????

No, I alreadt addressed this.

. . . still stands. Knowledge is not meaningful in this context.

So shallow. You have zero arguments. You just keep saying "Bahai interprets scripture in light of modern science"......

First, it doesn't.
The science is wrong.
It believes in wu all day.
not all philosophy is related to science.

"As described previously deep knowledge of Hinduism is not anymore relevant than deep knowledge of any ancient scriptures."

The bold above is a selective consideration of the Hindu and Swami's view of consciousness with includes intimately Karma and Reincarnation. In Hindu philosophy, you cannot select one without an in the understanding of the Hindu view of consciousness.

No the moral philosophy is not related to consciousness.

[=quote] I'll do what I want. I don't believe they have Karma right. So their answer to the law of suffering doesn't work. Reincarnation also doesn't make sense. No evidence. That is far from the totality of the concepts. Clearly you don't understand Advita Vendanta at all.

I understand the Advita Vendanta very well. Ancient beliefs and philosophy are not relevant today. Yes, there is some good philosophy no problem.

It is obvious 'you will do what you want.' That's your problem.[/QUOTE]

Explain why moral philosophy is outdated then.

Of course I do what I want? What you think I'm going to get bullied by some no-argument making.........

No deep philosophy concerning consciousness, just a religious claim like most religions that consciousness is eternal with a 'Source' beyond our physical existence

You have not answered the question What is so deep concerning the Hindu and the Swami's belief in consciousness?

Sorry, I said it was deep. You don't get to get answers about philosophical questions until you answer why the moral philosophy is outdated. I provided several citations.

A subjective meaningless claim that is always false. In terms of religious beliefs and philosophy, nothing is ever always true

Face Palm, this response is to - "And yeah, everything I said is true."
which was my opinion that Hindu philosophy is deep,, Swami knows his Hinduism and I don't buy any supernatural aspects of it.

It is true that is my opinion. Which you misrepresented because you now have to resort to that I guess? How else can you meet your quota of the catch phrase "subjective meaningless claim"?
which it almost never actually is.

You have never demonstrated how the concepts are 'heavy?' and as before the claim of deep knowledge is meaningless. It is how knowledge is applied that is meaningful, and you have failed to do this. From your part, nothing but 'air ball' claims about subjective claims about what is 'deep philosophy'

You have never explained why the Git moral philosophy is outdated. You also never explained what other scripture dives into consciousness the way Hinduism does.
You have already stated you do not care for Hinduism and are not impressed. So an explanation of the ways they look at consciousness is not for you. I do not care about your thoughts on the "deepness" of Advaita Vendanta. If you don't like my use of the word I'll play some violin so you can cry.
I'm trying to understand it to see if anything is there of worth. Basic ideas about meditation and ego are already used in modern psychology.

Anyone interested can find this summary of consciousness in Advaita Vedanta Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta - Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

and a paper -

How Do Theories of Cognition and Consciousness in Ancient Indian Thought Systems Relate to Current Western Theorizing and Research?
How Do Theories of Cognition and Consciousness in Ancient Indian Thought Systems Relate to Current Western Theorizing and Research?

Your continuous whining is the problem and making repetitive subjective unsupported claims concerning ancient out-of-date philosophy and scriptures,

[quote[They believe in the science but have some obvious mistakes and added some wu. Wu as bad as a theistic God and revelations. So again, I'm not Hindu.

Like all ancient religions, yes there are too many obvious mistakes and problems that make the claim of deep philosophy meaningless,[/QUOTE]

Your response to me calling out your whiling is to say "No, you're whining".......? Followed by more nonsense catch phrases and ending with a giant amount of hypocriticalness for good measure. Outdated? Kind of like revelations, theism, God messengers, lame prophecies and apologetics that lies. Yes, that's archaic.

Selective citation does not justify a deep philosophy when much of the ancient scriptures contain ancient mythology which you are selectively editing out to justify a deep philosophy.

To qualify as a 'deep philosophy' you have to go to contemporary philosophers that have a more universal philosophical view that doe not need to be selectively edited to justify an agenda.

For example: Selectively citing the Bible can justify a Big Bang cosmology and an ancient existence,

Thanks, Mr revelations. Don't need your thoughts on this. I can ignore the wu if there is some good philosophy. If you don't like it them come at me. Make me stop. Go right ahead.

 

[joelr]

You have not answered the question What is so deep concerning the Hindu and the Swami's belief in consciousness?


,

Oh look, scientists do it also,, HA!

Unknown to most Western psychologists, ancient Indian scriptures contain very rich, empirically derived psychological theories that are, however, intertwined with religious and philosophical content. This article represents our attempt to extract the psychological theory of cognition and consciousness from a prominent ancient Indian thought system: Samkhya-Yoga.

How Do Theories of Cognition and Consciousness in Ancient Indian Thought Systems Relate to Current Western Theorizing and Research?

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh look, scientists do it also,, HA!

Concerning consciousness scientists do science not philosophy. Yes behavioral scientists are investigating meditative practices from all over the world.

Unknown to most Western psychologists, ancient Indian scriptures contain very rich, empirically derived psychological theories that are, however, intertwined with religious and philosophical content. This article represents our attempt to extract the psychological theory of cognition and consciousness from a prominent ancient Indian thought system: Samkhya-Yoga.

How Do Theories of Cognition and Consciousness in Ancient Indian Thought Systems Relate to Current Western Theorizing and Research?

I consider these claims subjective as far as the science of consciousness. Philosophical/Theological practice of meditations is common in many cultures throughout the world in history including the Christian monasteries, and more ancient Hebrew meditative practices using silent meditation, prayers, and scripture. In China Taoist meditation practices are ancient. Among the Native American natural drug-induced meditation practices are common. All of these meditation practices have been a part of ongoing investigations in relation to the nature of consciousness..

 

[shunyadragon]

Uh huh. It's why I'm not a Hindu. Why would I believe in fairy tales?

The ancient mythology of the Gita and Karma makes the philosophy of the Gita flawed in any contemporary context. Being selective about this and that in the Gita negates the view that it is deep philosophically. This is basically true of all ancient scriptures. They contain a mix of moral teachings, wisdom insight, mythology, and ancient theology believed by their followers today.

Nope. I've explained over and over why this isn't so. You haven't addressed any of those examples, you haven't made a case as to why, you just keep making the claim over and over.
So once you have degraded to trolling, it's time to ignore. No further answers will be given to these moronic claims.

I find Rabbi Tavia Singer to be deep with his knowledge of the Torah. But I'm not supporting all the other nonsense. Some parts of Hinduism are interesting. That doesn't mean I support all the theology.
I like Kierkegaard's existentialist work but that doesn't mean I have to justify his beliefs on God?
This is just pure bullying, and I enjoy being bullied, but not online.

I have repeatedly acknowledged some parts of ancient scriptures in all religions are interesting and philosophically insightful, but you are overstating their philosophical and/or scientific(?) based on selective citation and subjective interpretations of ancient Hindu literature.

Yeah you do. You believe in a theistic God? You believe in revelations? Your religion supports other religions as actually true? So you believe in ALL the main mythology. That's much worse.

The Gita describes a Theistic relationship between Brahman consciousness, Gods and Creation and humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Note of interest: The Gita is not very old, and dates to ~300-200 BCE.

 

[yoglica]

When you close your eyes and try to see the sky you cant see. If you cant see the sky it doesnt mean there is no sky. We can experience god not see. Open your inner eyes and try to experience it. It wont happen in a day or 2. Need lot of things to do to experience god like meditation, Mantra japa, yoga to make body pure, Celibacy etc.

You can sit at one corner and say that god doesn't exist. Take your time and think deep.

You may like to check out some spiritual related stuff in the link below.
Yoglica - Spiritual Journey To Enlightenment

 

[joelr]

Concerning consciousness scientists do science not philosophy. Yes behavioral scientists are investigating meditative practices from all over the world.

Yes they are investigating the philosophy on consciousness in a scientific way. What I said they are also doing is ignoring the wu to study the philosophy on consciousness.

I consider these claims subjective as far as the science of consciousness. Philosophical/Theological practice of meditations is common in many cultures throughout the world in history including the Christian monasteries, and more ancient Hebrew meditative practices using silent meditation, prayers, and scripture. In China Taoist meditation practices are ancient. Among the Native American natural drug-induced meditation practices are common. All of these meditation practices have been a part of ongoing investigations in relation to the nature of consciousness..

Hinduism is older and attempts to explore consciousness far deeper. Taoism is an offshoot of Hinduism.
Hebrew meditation is more praying or repeating a line or contemplating God. I never said no other people do meditation.

 

[joelr]

The ancient mythology of the Gita and Karma makes the philosophy of the Gita flawed in any contemporary context. Being selective about this and that in the Gita negates the view that it is deep philosophically. This is basically true of all ancient scriptures. They contain a mix of moral teachings, wisdom insight, mythology, and ancient theology believed by their followers today.

You said that. Ok? It's still regarded as excellent philosophy. In other words, deep.

The Bhagavad Gita has been highly praised, not only by prominent Indians including Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,[334] but also by Aldous Huxley, Henry David Thoreau, J. Robert Oppenheimer,[335] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung, Herman Hesse,[336][337] and Bülent Ecevit.[338]

At a time when Indian nationalists were seeking an indigenous basis for social and political action against colonial rule, Bhagavad Gita provided them with a rationale for their activism and fight against injustice.[339] Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi used the text to help inspire the Indian independence movement.[note 35][note 36] Mahatma Gandhi expressed his love for the Gita in these words:

I find a solace in the Bhagavadgītā that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavadgītā. I find a verse here and a verse there and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies – and my life has been full of external tragedies – and if they have left no visible, no indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavadgītā.[340]


Unfortunately this also means any philosophy in the Bahai religion is flawed because of the ancient mythology of revelations, souls, afterlife and a theistic God. I am able to take what useful in something like Hinduism and ignore the rest. I guess you cannot. So I guess you have to quit Bahai?

I have repeatedly acknowledged some parts of ancient scriptures in all religions are interesting and philosophically insightful, but you are overstating their philosophical and/or scientific(?) based on selective citation and subjective interpretations of ancient Hindu literature.

Yeah, me, Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy -

The Gītā itself displays such explicatory talent as it constitutes an able exploration of moral theoretical disagreement. Students of the text benefit from adopting its receptivity to dissent, both in being able to understand its contribution to philosophy but also in terms of the inculcation of philosophical thinking.

it's a revered work of philosophy.

The Gita describes a Theistic relationship between Brahman consciousness, Gods and Creation and humanity.

Yeah but I'm not Hindu. You believe that wu.

But no, it isn't a theistic relationship. You don't pray to Brahman, or illicit an emotional response for graven images. They say consciousness is the fundamental thing of reality.

The Gita is mostly moral philosophy. Which you claimed was outdated. It's about a man faced with going to war with people he knows and likes and the emotional turmoil he faces.

 

[shunyadragon]

You said that. Ok? It's still regarded as excellent philosophy. In other words, deep.

Some philosophy of relevance today is not excellent and deep. This is a continuous overstatement by you of one religion and the philosophers and negating other religions.

The Bhagavad Gita has been highly praised, not only by prominent Indians including Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,[334] but also by Aldous Huxley, Henry David Thoreau, J. Robert Oppenheimer,[335] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Carl Jung, Herman Hesse,[336][337] and Bülent Ecevit.[338]

At a time when Indian nationalists were seeking an indigenous basis for social and political action against colonial rule, Bhagavad Gita provided them with a rationale for their activism and fight against injustice.[339] Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi used the text to help inspire the Indian independence movement.[note 35][note 36] Mahatma Gandhi expressed his love for the Gita in these words:

OK, the religious scriptures of ALL the ancient religions have been praised by many prominent people. So what?!?!!?!?

I find a solace in the Bhagavadgītā that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount. When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavadgītā. I find a verse here and a verse there and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies – and my life has been full of external tragedies – and if they have left no visible, no indelible scar on me, I owe it all to the teaching of Bhagavadgītā.[340]


Unfortunately this also means any philosophy in the Bahai religion is flawed because of the ancient mythology of revelations, souls, afterlife and a theistic God. I am able to take what useful in something like Hinduism and ignore the rest. I guess you cannot. So I guess you have to quit Bahai?

Again your over-the-top selective glorifying claims of Hinduism based on a biased agenda is glaringly apparent. Actually, the text of the Gita describes a Theistic existence with many Gods, an afterlife of Reincarnation, and consciousness beyond our physical world.

The above makes you obviously a devoted follower of the Gita.

Yeah, me, Ralph Waldo Emerson, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy -

Your extreme bias is based on a biased agenda. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Argument by popularity is generic fallacty.

The Gītā itself displays such explicatory talent as it constitutes an able exploration of moral theoretical disagreement. Students of the text benefit from adopting its receptivity to dissent, both in being able to understand its contribution to philosophy but also in terms of the inculcation of philosophical thinking.

it's a revered work of philosophy.

The scriptures of all the other religions are considered revered works of philosophy by many influential people and billions of believers. So what?!?!?!?!?!?!

Yeah but I'm not Hindu. You believe that wu.

As before several times, whether you are Hindu is not relevant. Many, many believers in the Gita claim they are not Hindu.

Never claimed that. My challenge is you should consider all religions equally and not selectively glorify the Gita and Swami.

But no, it isn't a theistic relationship. You don't pray to Brahman or elicit an emotional response for graven images. They say consciousness is the fundamental thing of reality.

The Gita specifically describes a Theistic personal relationship with many Gods, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

The Gita is mostly moral philosophy. Which you claimed was outdated. It's about a man faced with going to war with people he knows and likes and the emotional turmoil he faces.

Again you dishonestly misrepresent me. I never said the 'moral philosophy; is necessarily outdated. As above your continuous dishonest misrepresentation of my posts and beliefs, and selective glorification of the Gita is your modus operandi.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes they are investigating the philosophy on consciousness in a scientific way. What I said they are also doing is ignoring the wu to study philosophy on consciousness.

Scientists are justified NOT investigating the 'wu' in ALL religions. Hinduism is not remotely unique in these aspects and offers nothing new in terms of comparing the other religious traditions of the world.



Hinduism is older and attempts to explore consciousness far deeper. Taoism is an offshoot of Hinduism.
Hebrew meditation is more praying or repeating a line or contemplating God. I never said no other people do meditation.[/QUOTE]

The use of meditation is apparently a universal attribute of human belief and researched by science. The Gita and Hindu traditions is not unique in this attribute of consciousness.

The Gita scriptures are objectively dated to only about 300-200 BCE. IT is NOT older than the other ancient scriptures of the world. The ancient claim of the Gita is a mythical claim. I have a thread elsewhere that documents this.

 

[joelr]

Some philosophy of relevance today is not excellent and deep. This is a continuous overstatement by you of one religion and the philosophers and negating other religions.



OK, the religious scriptures of ALL the ancient religions have been praised by many prominent people. So what?!?!!?!?

No the philosophy in Hinduism is praised as deep philosophy.

Again your over-the-top selective glorifying claims of Hinduism based on a biased agenda is glaringly apparent. Actually, the text of the Gita describes a Theistic existence with many Gods, an afterlife of Reincarnation, and consciousness beyond our physical world.

The above makes you obviously a devoted follower of the Gita.

The only thing apparent is you can only muster false arguments against me. The above makes you a devoted follower of nonsense. Devoted follower? Because I say the philosophy is deep? You have issues.

As before several times, whether you are Hindu is not relevant. Many, many believers in the Gita claim they are not Hindu.

Never claimed that. My challenge is you should consider all religions equally and not selectively glorify the Gita and Swami.

I'm learning Hinduism so I'm talking about that. Good philosophy. Deep. I do consider all religions equal. I consider Hinduism to have some good philosophy. What I don't believe, I don't believe. What you think that means, I do not care.

The Gita specifically describes a Theistic personal relationship with many Gods, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

I'm talking about the moral philosophy.

Again you dishonestly misrepresent me. I never said the 'moral philosophy; is necessarily outdated. As above your continuous dishonest misrepresentation of my posts and beliefs, and selective glorification of the Gita is your modus operandi.

So you retract it then? The moral philosophy isn't outdated? And I didn't misrepresent you, you said the philosophy was outdated. Ever since I focused on the morals you have backpeddled.

 

[joelr]

Scientists are justified NOT investigating the 'wu' in ALL religions. Hinduism is not remotely unique in these aspects and offers nothing new in terms of comparing the other religious traditions of the world.



Hinduism is older and attempts to explore consciousness far deeper. Taoism is an offshoot of Hinduism.
Hebrew meditation is more praying or repeating a line or contemplating God. I never said no other people do meditation.

The use of meditation is apparently a universal attribute of human belief and researched by science. The Gita and Hindu traditions is not unique in this attribute of consciousness.

The Gita scriptures are objectively dated to only about 300-200 BCE. IT is NOT older than the other ancient scriptures of the world. The ancient claim of the Gita is a mythical claim. I have a thread elsewhere that documents this.[/QUOTE]

Other Hindu text are far older. The Hindu theology is unique from Abrahamic and older Mesopotamian, Sumerian and such. It explores different areas of metaphysics.

 

[shunyadragon]

Other Hindu text are far older. The Hindu theology is unique from Abrahamic and older Mesopotamian, Sumerian and such. It explores different areas of metaphysics.

All scriptures offer some contributions, differences, and uniqueness from other scriptures, but no, I know of no Hindu texts that are significantly older.

The most ancient Sumerian texts of Gilgamesh offer insight into the relationship between the primal human and the civilized human.

 

[shunyadragon]

No the philosophy in Hinduism is praised as deep philosophy.

So what?!?!?! The philosophy of all religions has been described as 'deep philosophy.'

Meaningless selective praise claimed by all the different religions rejecting others,

In this thread: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/tao-te-ching-ch1-part-1-as-i-see-it.260494/page-6a a Christian praises the moral philosophy of Taoism and Christianity.

The only thing apparent is you can only muster false arguments against me. The above makes you a devoted follower of nonsense. Devoted follower? Because I say the philosophy is deep? You have issues.

Your continuous Air ball meaningless insults are not productive, in fact, it represent your immature manner of dialogue,

I'm learning Hinduism so I'm talking about that. Good philosophy. Deep. I do consider all religions equal. I consider Hinduism to have some good philosophy. What I don't believe, I don't believe. What you think that means, I do not care.

Whether you care or not is not the issue. In fact, it is a repetitive and silly response. Your selective personal preference for this belief ot that to justify your agenda is problematic.

It remains your use of 'Deep philosophy' is highly subjective and not meaningful in comparisons between religions and philosophy. The philosophy of Daoism and Confucianism are considered very;'Deep'; by some 'so what?!?!?

I'm talking about moral philosophy.

So what? All the ancient scriptures offer some insight and contributions concerning moral philosophy.


]quote] So you retract it then? The moral philosophy isn't outdated? And I didn't misrepresent you, you said the philosophy was outdated. Ever since I focused on the morals you have back peddled.[/QUOTE]

No back peddling, Focusing selectively on what you selectively believe or do not believe to justify your agenda is the issue. ALL ancient religions offer some contributions to moral philosophy, but yes, they take Hinduism they are all burdened by ancient mythological views and other issues that no longer are relevant to today.