Dualism

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree that the uses are as different as you suggest. In addition, I did not say anything about belief in policies.

But while were are there, what do you think is different between a religious belief and a belief that a given party policy is the best one?

Even when it is obvious that two religions are totally incompatible with each other, you sit back and say 'well they could both be right'. I say that is not a valid position to hold.

You raised the issue of politics in this thread, not me. And we were clearly talking about Spiritual beliefs.

Yes, I do believe that there are differences, and significant ones, between religious beliefs and all other "preferences", e.g. political choices. For one, the former is almost inevitably more personal and emotional, and closer held. I cannot quote statistics, but I would hazard a guess that people are more likely to change political viewpoints than their religion.

Having said that, in retrospect your introduction of the subject of politics into this discussion of (my version of) dualism merely underlines my point. EVEN IF AND WHEN our politics differ, we would do well to try to understand the other person's pov, and where they are coming from.

Lastly, in your final statement we come to the end of this argument. I say that the other person could conceivably be right because he is saying exactly the same thing about his religion whilst looking over the fence at me as I am. But you say that that is not a valid position to take. Well, that really closes this discussion because I think that it is the only possible and valid position to take, in view if the plethora of religions, and all of them firmly held.

And I would suspect that neither of us would convince the other, so let's amicably call it quits right here.

Originally posted by CalJust
You raised the issue of politics in this thread, not me.

Yes I did, and haven't claimed otherwise. What is your point in saying I raised it?

Yes, I do believe that there are differences, and significant ones, between religious beliefs and all other "preferences", e.g. political choices. For one, the former is almost inevitably more personal and emotional, and closer held. I cannot quote statistics, but I would hazard a guess that people are more likely to change political viewpoints than their religion.
It depends on the political beliefs. I know some people who treat their politics like a religion, and communists actually deliberately made it into a religion.

...we would do well to try to understand the other person's pov, and where they are coming from.
Which is something I do not disagree with.

Lastly, in your final statement we come to the end of this argument.
Why the sudden end? I get the feeling you want it over but want the last word.

I say that the other person could conceivably be right because he is saying exactly the same thing about his religion whilst looking over the fence at me as I am.
And I agree.

But you say that that is not a valid position to take.
No, I don't.

I think the problem is, you asked me to give my stand on my points 1. and 2. when we clearly still disagree about what points 1. and 2. actually say.

Well, that really closes this discussion because I think that it is the only possible and valid position to take, in view if the plethora of religions, and all of them firmly held.
That is terrible logic - and once again makes me think you just want out.
You seem to be going to great lengths to deliberately misunderstand me.

Originally posted by twhitehead

But you say that that is not a valid position to take.
No, I don't.


That is terrible logic - and once again makes me think you just want out[/b]

This is what you said:

I think they are both valid in certain circumstances. I think you go too far in applying them. Even when it is obvious that two religions are totally incompatible with each other, you sit back and say 'well they could both be right'. I say that is not a valid position to hold.

Now you say: "No, I don't."

No I don't WHAT?

No, you did not say it, or yes, that is the position I take? What is it?

Actually, I find it quite amusing to mull over our various discussions. Clearly, we do not have the same understanding of the English language, which makes conversation difficult and also frustrating.

When you do not agree, you simply say: I don't agree, as in the quote above. But you give no reasons why your pov should be any more valid than mine!

When you say that I merely want "out", it is also quite funny, as if you were holding me in some verbal intellectual death grip from which I am trying to escape!

If it makes you happy, feel free to think that.

Originally posted by CalJust
No I don't WHAT?

I don't think it is valid to hold the position that two clearly mutually incompatible religions could both be true.

Yet for some strange reason, you claimed I said I didn't think your position that someone with different beliefs than yours could conceivably be right. A very different position.

If you cannot tell the difference between what I actually said and what you claimed I said, then you must be trying very hard not to understand.

Actually, I find it quite amusing to mull over our various discussions. Clearly, we do not have the same understanding of the English language, which makes conversation difficult and also frustrating.
I think we do have the same understanding of the English language. But you clearly changed what I responded to and claimed I objected to a position that I quite clearly did not object to. That is not a language problem. That is you changing what was said.

When you do not agree, you simply say: I don't agree, as in the quote above. But you give no reasons why your pov should be any more valid than mine!
I can give reasons. The problem is you claimed I said I didn't agree with something quite different from what I said I didn't agree with. We haven't even narrowed down what your position actually is because it seems to keep changing.

When you say that I merely want "out", it is also quite funny, as if you were holding me in some verbal intellectual death grip from which I am trying to escape!
Well that is how you are acting.

Goodbye - again...

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “The universe observes the observers? Sounds dualistic.”

“Observer” in the context of my post is any physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, therefore an observer, in order to exist, must be made of elements of reality (exchangeable and finite packets of physical information). The “memory” of an observer is nothin ...[text shortened]... within the pool of probabilities, or within the singularity before Big-Bang, dualism exists?
😵

"In the hidden, non-manifested realm of reality, dualism is not existent; where exactly within the pool of probabilities, or within the singularity before Big-Bang, dualism exists?"

I wouldn't know not having ever been in the realm of the hidden, non-manifested reality.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"In the hidden, non-manifested realm of reality, dualism is not existent; where exactly within the pool of probabilities, or within the singularity before Big-Bang, dualism exists?"

I wouldn't know not having ever been in the realm of the hidden, non-manifested reality.[/b]

Then, think about a problem, any problem: imagine you are confronted with a problematic condition in our Physical World; your Inner World confirms that this stressful condition must be solved. The procedure of the stream of your thoughts and your feelings as regards this matter must firstly be balanced, so that you may then enter your World of Ideas in order to solve the problem.
When at last you come up with a bright new idea, in fact you have a product of yours that is still rooted in the realm of the non-manifested reality (although You are a part of the manifested reality as an observer of the Observer Universe).
Then you must place on your own this product of yours into the manifested realm of reality, by means of a specific strategy of yours, and then the sole step required is a vital tactical plan of yours that will enable you to start your motor.
Then your action –actually an event– triggers the process of a series of other events. This is how me make things happen.
Therefore methinks that you (an agent of the manifested reality, as is also the case with all the other observers of the Observer Universe), you ‘re also a dynamic agent of the non-manifested realm of existence.

If we agree over here, we may further agree that Dualism cannot be found, for in the deepest level of awareness the Physical World that surrounds you, your Inner World and your World of Ideas can neither be understood as being the same, nor different, nor both, nor neither –they are all just a single ever-changing Nexus of Manifestation HereNow (decoded by your awareness according to your nature, and also decoded by all the other observers of the Observer Universe according to their nature) rooted in the non-manifested realm of existence; mind you, how could the Nexus ever be manifested if it were not deeply rooted in the non-manifested realm of existence?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Then, think about a problem, any problem: imagine you are confronted with a problematic condition in our Physical World; your Inner World confirms that this stressful condition must be solved. The procedure of the stream of your thoughts and your feelings as regards this matter must firstly be balanced, so that you may then enter your World of Ideas in ...[text shortened]... us ever be manifested if it were not deeply rooted in the non-manifested realm of existence?
😵

Good post. Seems to explain well what you perceive a non-dualistic reality to be. I find it hard to argue against it because it's not that unreasonable, and a very practical way of interacting with the world.

We dream and act upon our dreams to bring into existence what we dream for. Anything seems possible.

But my one objection might be the 25 times you used the personal pronoun 'you'. Within me is living another who's thoughts and dreams constitute the reality I'm being conformed to. I am the recipient of His life, and my own life is inextricably linked to His will, so that the "problematic condition" of this world and all who dwell here is in His most capable hands.

I am set free.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think it is valid to hold the position that two clearly mutually incompatible religions could both be true.

.

Given that all evidence points to thee being no god(s) then I think the possibility of
incompatible religions is just as likely (or perhaps more likely) than there being ONE
RELIGION.

If god(s) plant evidence to support their non-existence then would they
not further confuse us by creating more than one religion?

Originally posted by josephw

I wouldn't know not having ever been in the realm of the hidden, non-manifested reality.[/b]

You only know what you experience then?

Originally posted by josephw
Good post. Seems to explain well what you perceive a non-dualistic reality to be. I find it hard to argue against it because it's not that unreasonable, and a very practical way of interacting with the world.

We dream and act upon our dreams to bring into existence what we dream for. Anything seems possible.

But my one objection might be the 25 times y ...[text shortened]... condition" of this world and all who dwell here is in His most capable hands.

I am set free.

Edit: "But.......I am set free."

The English cat goes “Meow”, the Italian “Miu” and the Chinese “Miang Miang”, so which one mews correctly? When we are talking and exchange posts and all, we just mew the human beings way.
When bb and that cat are One, bb knows the sound of mewing😵

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You only know what you experience then?

Do you know of any other way?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Given that all evidence points to thee being no god(s) then I think the possibility of
incompatible religions is just as likely (or perhaps more likely) than there being ONE
RELIGION.

If god(s) plant evidence to support their non-existence then would they
not further confuse us by creating more than one religion?

Please explain how the absence of evidence is evidence for something not to exist.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "But.......I am set free."

The English cat goes “Meow”, the Italian “Miu” and the Chinese “Miang Miang”, so which one mews correctly? When we are talking and exchange posts and all, we just mew the human beings way.
When bb and that cat are One, bb knows the sound of mewing😵

But does bb know the sound of God? Can you hear God?

Just sayin'! After all I was just influenced by wolfgang's post above. 😉