Hijacked.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you mean, 'non-dual' means atheist?

EDIT: redundant post.

Originally posted by vistesd
Nondualism can be nontheistic, it need not be. The same for personal/impersonal (though I might prefer "conscious/unconscious--whether the all-in-all Real could in some sense be said to be conscious or not): Sufism is more "personalistic", as are Kabbalah and Hasidism in Judaism (as was the Christian theologian Meister Eckhart); Zen is not. That i ...[text shortened]... lar understanding of “material”. He also uses the distinction between energy and matter.

Ok, let me back up a bit. What is Non dual? And what does that have to do with atheism? Is non dual just the belief that there is only one god? Not sure.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, let me back up a bit. What is Non dual? And what does that have to do with atheism? Is non dual just the belief that there is only one god? Not sure.

Nondualism, in religious philosophy, is (very generally) the view that reality is one whole; theistic dualism is the view that God and the universe are separate entities. As I noted, there are different nondualistc views. For example, “God is everything” and “Everything is God” can be (and often are) taken to be saying two different things—the latter is more likely to be essentially nontheistic (in the sense of a personal God), e.g., Spinoza.

Theistic nondualism would view all the figures/forms/manifestations (trees, stars, us) as manifestations from, in, and of the implicate ground, which they take as in some meaningful sense, conscious, and which they call God (or the Godhead). Nontheistic nondualism would not hold the ground to be conscious, but might say that conscious arises as an epiphenomenon.

Following some of the literature that I have studied over the years, I sometimes use the word monism for the first, and pantheism for the second (although that usage is by no means universal, and the two terms are often used synonymously). I prefer to use the more neutral term “non-dualism”. The belief that there is one god is monotheism, and can still be dualist (god and the universe as separate entities).

I use the idea of a figure-ground gestalt, where the (explicate) figures and the (implicate) ground form a nonseparable whole. Outside of philsosphy (religious or otherwise), and in an area closer to your turf, a physicist on here some years back gave the example of energy-matter nondualism.

Hope that helps, but I don’t think that I am really expressing myself well today.

Originally posted by vistesd
Nondualism, in religious philosophy, is (very generally) the view that reality is one whole; theistic dualism is the view that God and the universe are separate entities. As I noted, there are different nondualistc views. For example, “God is everything” and “Everything is God” can be (and often are) taken to be saying two different things—the latt ...[text shortened]... nondualism.

Hope that helps, but I don’t think that I am really expressing myself well today.

I think I get it now, god and us IS the universe Vs there is a god and there is a universe, separate entities. Why does Dasa think non dualistic thinking is an atheist stand?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think I get it now, god and us IS the universe Vs there is a god and there is a universe, separate entities. Why does Dasa think non dualistic thinking is an atheist stand?

Don't know.

Originally posted by vistesd
Don't know.

He is a wee bit on the opinionated side, eh. I guess he figures if you were a veggie all your life and then dared to eat a hamburger you are utterly damned and fall from grace.

Originally posted by lemon lime
A somewhat valid observation, but he apparently missed the main point and purpose of Christianity. I've read enough of the New Testament to understand Christ didn't walk around searching for perfect people to be with. He searched out the sort of people some of us would call the scum of the earth.

I especially like something he said to the religi r and recognition (of self importance) can naturally lead anyone in that direction.

I think he meant that the typical Christian is either fanatic or hypocrite. That is what I see in culture, books and movies, and real life. Very few exceptions. Cherry-pickers do make good family, friends and neighbors, however.

Originally posted by apathist
I think he meant that the typical Christian is either fanatic or hypocrite. That is what I see in culture, books and movies, and real life. Very few exceptions. Cherry-pickers do make good family, friends and neighbors, however.

If Christianity or Islam were just a bunch of do-gooders with no other agenda I would have no gripe with them. I HATE the way religion is bent to deadly purposes by the leaders of the fundies. The killings of abortion clinic docs or the forced conversion to Islam now and the forced conversions to Christianity in the past.

When religions are based on fairy tales they lose me. Like the fairy tale of the world wide flood and then the fundies who take such fairy tales as unalterable fact.

Or the way christian fundies are trying to FORCE creationism to be taught in a science class along side evolution with the ultimate goal of forcing evolution out of the classroom entirely. This is dangerous on many levels.

There WAS no world wide flood, that has been proven time and time again. The world is 4+ billion years old and that has been proven time and time again yet fundies take the bible literally and think it is 6K years old. Total BS.

The bible wasn't even codified for 300 years after Christ so it is naturally full of outright lies.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If Christianity or Islam were just a bunch of do-gooders with no other agenda I would have no gripe with them. I HATE the way religion is bent to deadly purposes by the leaders of the fundies. The killings of abortion clinic docs or the forced conversion to Islam now and the forced conversions to Christianity in the past.

When religions are based on fai ...[text shortened]... bible wasn't even codified for 300 years after Christ so it is naturally full of outright lies.

There was a code of scripture before Jesus appeared as a man and which was argued over with the Pharisee. I think you are referring to the Biblical Canon arragement that we see today that includes Christian writings as part of those scriptures.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was a code of scripture before Jesus appeared as a man and which was argued over with the Pharisee. I think you are referring to the Biblical Canon arragement that we see today that includes Christian writings as part of those scriptures.

The Instructor

I am talking about the Nicaea Council of 325 AD where they condemned the Gnostic Gospels and fought over what books would be in the NT.

Originally posted by apathist
I think he meant that the typical Christian is either fanatic or hypocrite. That is what I see in culture, books and movies, and real life. Very few exceptions. Cherry-pickers do make good family, friends and neighbors, however.

Fanaticism and hypocrisy are unavoidable human traits. So are noses, almost everyone has one of those. I'm surprised any respected religious leader would stoop to attributing universal human attributes to one particuar religion...

pfffft, just kidding... I'm not a bit surprised.

Originally posted by sonhouseThe bible wasn't even codified for 300 years after Christ so it is naturally full of outright lies.

Hey sonhouse it trips me that our very system of tabulating years depends on dear Jesus. I do not not have answers. Pretty sure we are monkeys with tech.

Originally posted by apathist
Hey sonhouse it trips me that our very system of tabulating years depends on dear Jesus. I do not not have answers. Pretty sure we are monkeys with tech.

That is true. However, man was not even able to get that right. That date is believed to be 4 or 5 years off according to most scholars. So who knows how far those supposed billions of years could be off? I would guess they are off by billions of years. What is your guess?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is true. However, man was not even able to get that right. That date is believed to be 4 or 5 years off according to most scholars. So who knows how far those supposed billions of years could be off? I would guess they are off by billions of years. What is your guess?

The Instructor

Son of God was not born during winter. I am sure of that. Your bs stole regular nature worship. Do you feel no shame? Your God is so weak it cannot stand up. Notice the period.

Originally posted by apathist
Son of God was not born during winter. I am sure of that. Your bs stole regular nature worship. Do you feel no shame? Your God is so weak it cannot stand up. Notice the period.

Are you sure when the earth was created?

The Instructor