> Marie Foster wrote:
>
> > Sodom wrote:
> > >
> > Science can explain everything about religion. Where it came from, why
> >
> > people are driven to it, why it effects people as it does. Religion on
> >
> > the hand requires ignoring science to exist.
> >
> > I am confused. I did not know that humans had proven the non
> > existence
> > of GOD.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Humans have shown when and where the concepts have arisin, and been
> torn down. "I have imagined a creatuire that is not-omnipotent, not-all
> powerful but takes up all the space, between space time, but we cant see
> it, and instrument can measure it." Now prove that it doesn't exist!!!
> You can't, you can look for where the concept came from. When you have
> found the cause, you can make a pretty good guess as to it's reality.
> The people who started us on theis path did not know why the sky was
> blue, the grass was gree, or why the wind blew. The created the concept
> of "gods" to explain these things. Simply because a few dozen "gods" are
> still popular makes them no more real.
>
> no matter how much I love Buddhism and it's teachings, it still is
> caught in the trap that there is something (the void) in this case. I
> have been there, I have seen the light, I have spoken to the Christian
> god, and the best part is, it was all in my mind.
>
> You mentioned the medical device MRI, have you heard of the FMRI or
> Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaiging? This device actually pinpoint
> brain function during cognitave actions. Since you brain is you, and is
> very powerful in what it can present you, it can create ANYTHING you
> want it to inside of your own frame of refrence. I have yet to see it
> act on objective reality, and as far as I am aware, there has only been
> one study that indicated that the brain could have any effect on things
> outside of it.
>
> The object is not to prove that something doesn't exist, it is to prove
> that it DOES exist.
>
> Sodom
I disagree concerning the concept of the buddhists void, the buddhists void
is not a place, but a non-place, it
is the suspension of the mind upon the world around it, granted it still
uses sensory systems, but the greater the relief
of these systems through discipline is the linear progression towards
enlightment. I dont feel Buddhism can be classified in that
sense as a classical religion. Although I feel the essence of religion is
the same for most religions. Some need a god to
attribute this condition, some call it enlightment. The self surrender or
ego detachment from the finite passion filled self, means different things
to different people. To deny the experience would be contradictory to my
personal experience. To define it as a greater reality would be a step of
faith, "believing in something without evidence or contradictory evidence."
So I would leave it at being an enjoyable psychological phenemenon that can
be healthy for the pysche, when viewed
as something created from oneself.
AGREED, TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING DOES'NT EXIST IS FOLLY!!!