Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:27:07 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Energy is not created, nor can it be destroyed. That's a fact. We'll
never agree and it 's not my contention to fluster you, but you seem
rather uptight.

You are the one who has become upset.


You didn't respond to my main point which is that, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. The Dalai Lama, when asked what he thinks of
the Big Bang Theory, he replied, "Big Bang, no problem, just not the
first one."

What exactly does that have to do with reincarnation? I can't wait to
read your answer.

Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:32:21 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:
And I have not told you how to think. I have pointed out that your
beliefs have no objective support; they are, in effect, based on
nothing. As such there is no objective difference between them and any
other irrational belief. If you believe in them anyway, that is your
right. I respect your right; but you have no right to have your
beliefs free of criticism.


What do you know about Buddhism?

We are discussing reincarnation. I stated that it has no objective
support. Either you have evidence or you do not. If you do not, my
above statement stands; there is no objective difference between your
belief and any other irrational belief. I am not attacking Buddhism. I
am not attacking you. I am not telling you how to think.

On 28 Aug 2006 01:54:44 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:27:07 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Energy is not created, nor can it be destroyed. That's a fact. We'll
never agree and it 's not my contention to fluster you, but you seem
rather uptight.

You are the one who has become upset.


You didn't respond to my main point which is that, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. The Dalai Lama, when asked what he thinks of
the Big Bang Theory, he replied, "Big Bang, no problem, just not the
first one."

What exactly does that have to do with reincarnation? I can't wait to
read your answer.

Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed. It
has to go somewhere so it continues, in its pure state to take a
rebirth into what I'll categorize as a good rebirth. Taking a human
rebirth is always best.

Look, I don't care much if you believe in anything. I also don't
believe because I do believe in things I can't always explain doesn't
make me an idiot. Far from it. But, you have your agenda of smacking
people down and that's your baggage as a person, not mine.

On 28 Aug 2006 02:02:32 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:32:21 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:
And I have not told you how to think. I have pointed out that your
beliefs have no objective support; they are, in effect, based on
nothing. As such there is no objective difference between them and any
other irrational belief. If you believe in them anyway, that is your
right. I respect your right; but you have no right to have your
beliefs free of criticism.


What do you know about Buddhism?

We are discussing reincarnation. I stated that it has no objective
support. Either you have evidence or you do not. If you do not, my
above statement stands; there is no objective difference between your
belief and any other irrational belief. I am not attacking Buddhism. I
am not attacking you. I am not telling you how to think.

There is no way to disprove it either. It's rather important for you
to have some working knowledge about the whole picture than simply
making comments on pieces of a philosophy.

Buddhism is very closely related to science in that the historical
Buddha NEVER told anyone to believe him. He always said to go out and
check for yourself. There are many millions of Tibetan Buddhists who
have studied, debated, and defended their beliefs for many years.
Buddhism has been around for over 2500 years. To this day, the main
point is non-violence at any cost and simply to be a better person.

It doesn't much matter if rebirth can be proven or not. What is
tangible is that, I am a happy person and I know my mind through
meditation which IS proven to have amazing health benefits. So I draw
on a lot of different things.

At my core, I do not believe in god and am indeed atheist. Anyone
discussed as a Buddha was once a person who actually existed. Mind is
endless. Nothing I say will offer enough information to you and I am
not working all that hard on the challenge because you aren't really
interested anyway.

Jangchub wrote:

Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed. It
has to go somewhere so it continues, in its pure state to take a
rebirth into what I'll categorize as a good rebirth. Taking a human
rebirth is always best.

I think you are using the word "energy" somewhat metaphorically. In
physics, the word "energy" has a very precise meaning. In physics it
is true that there is a law of conservation of energy (or, to be more
precise, a mass-energy conservation law provided we equate mass and
energy via St. Albert's equation e=mc^2). But surely you are not
claiming that mind is energy in the exact physical meaning of the word.
If you claim that then I would remind you that energy, almost by
definition, is the capacity to do WORK (in the precise physical meaning
of the word "work"). If you claim that mind is physical energy, then I
challenge you to affect the physical behavior of even a single dust
mote using your mind alone.

Surely you don't claim that. You must be using "energy" merely as an
analogy or metaphor for your conception of mind. But if we have only a
mere analogy, you cannot blithly claim that mind cannot be created or
destroyed and invoke the physical principle of energy conservation to
do so. You are making mere word play here so as to give your concept
of mind a veneer of scientificity.

If you see my point here, then you must admit that you are making a
completely arbitrary assumption that mind cannot be destroyed --- an
assuption that relies only on faith and not on reason. Hence your
further inferences about reincarnation are null and void as far as
reason is concerned.




Look, I don't care much if you believe in anything. I also don't
believe because I do believe in things I can't always explain doesn't
make me an idiot. Far from it. But, you have your agenda of smacking
people down and that's your baggage as a person, not mine.

Jangchub wrote in message

Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed.

Energy can be dissipated and descend into an unorganized state though. In fact,
for any closed system, this is inevitable according to the second law of
thermodynamics.

--
***Free Your Mind***

Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.4.2748

[ Followup-To: alt.religion.christian ]

On 28 Aug 2006 06:20:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:


I think you are using the word "energy" somewhat metaphorically. In
physics, the word "energy" has a very precise meaning. In physics it
is true that there is a law of conservation of energy (or, to be more
precise, a mass-energy conservation law provided we equate mass and
energy via St. Albert's equation e=mc^2). But surely you are not
claiming that mind is energy in the exact physical meaning of the word.
If you claim that then I would remind you that energy, almost by
definition, is the capacity to do WORK (in the precise physical meaning
of the word "work"). If you claim that mind is physical energy, then I
challenge you to affect the physical behavior of even a single dust
mote using your mind alone.

St. Albert? Isn't that a Catholic thing?

Indeed I am claiming mind is energy, but it isn't physical. The mind
can thing and meditate, sleep and we only use a tenth of its capacity.
See how mind works by doing just one minute of single pointed
meditation and tell me you have the ability to be completely empty
with nothing leaking in and I will bow at your feet at once.

I am using the term energy because pure mind is energy. Everything is
connected to everything else. In string theory, the science community
is having a hard time distinguishing theory and philosophy when
addressing the subject of quantum mechanics.

I am by no means an expert on eitherthe science of nature, or Buddhism
as I'm a practitioner for just a bit over two years.

Mind has absolutely no matter as a component. Not one particle. The
mind is a complex thing to discuss. An analogy is tea in a cup.
Break the cup and it is no longer a cup. It's broken shards of
matter. The tea, is still tea. Mop it into a towel, still tea.
Contents and container. All sentient beings have mind. Humans can
develop. Animals cannot develop in a lifetime as a human can. I'm
swaying off topic, sorry. Maybe I'm not qualified to debate this, but
I like the challenge.

Surely you don't claim that. You must be using "energy" merely as an
analogy or metaphor for your conception of mind. But if we have only a
mere analogy, you cannot blithly claim that mind cannot be created or
destroyed and invoke the physical principle of energy conservation to
do so. You are making mere word play here so as to give your concept
of mind a veneer of scientificity.

No, the science community is drawing these conclusions through the
Mind Science Conference and other large bodies of professionals who
invite The Dalai Lama annually. They do this because the brain
function of an adept meditator is different than the average person.
Meditators use much more of their brain function. This is being
studied very closely with proper testing in blind studies in labs at
four major universities.

If you see my point here, then you must admit that you are making a
completely arbitrary assumption that mind cannot be destroyed --- an
assuption that relies only on faith and not on reason. Hence your
further inferences about reincarnation are null and void as far as
reason is concerned.

Do you love anyone in your life? If the answer is yes, prove it. You
can't. You just love. I don't know if we are on the same life track
so this may become an irritating discussion for most. All I'm asking
is for people to consider what I'm saying, not agree. I also don't
think being called an idiot, moron, jerk, whatever, is relevant. I am
none of the above, and to close I will say there is a relative amount
of faith involved in Buddhism, but not in the same way we rely on a
man in the sky. I respect those who believe in god, but I don't
agree.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:50:32 GMT, Jangchub wrote:
- Refer:
On 28 Aug 2006 01:54:44 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:27:07 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Energy is not created, nor can it be destroyed. That's a fact. We'll
never agree and it 's not my contention to fluster you, but you seem
rather uptight.

You are the one who has become upset.


You didn't respond to my main point which is that, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. The Dalai Lama, when asked what he thinks of
the Big Bang Theory, he replied, "Big Bang, no problem, just not the
first one."

What exactly does that have to do with reincarnation? I can't wait to
read your answer.

Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed. It

Prove it.

has to go somewhere so it continues, in its pure state to take a
rebirth into what I'll categorize as a good rebirth. Taking a human
rebirth is always best.

Prove it.

Look, I don't care much if you believe in anything. I also don't
believe because I do believe in things I can't always explain doesn't
make me an idiot. Far from it. But, you have your agenda of smacking
people down and that's your baggage as a person, not mine.

Jangchub wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 06:20:27 -0700, "Mike" wrote:


I think you are using the word "energy" somewhat metaphorically. In
physics, the word "energy" has a very precise meaning. In physics it
is true that there is a law of conservation of energy (or, to be more
precise, a mass-energy conservation law provided we equate mass and
energy via St. Albert's equation e=mc^2). But surely you are not
claiming that mind is energy in the exact physical meaning of the word.
If you claim that then I would remind you that energy, almost by
definition, is the capacity to do WORK (in the precise physical meaning
of the word "work"). If you claim that mind is physical energy, then I
challenge you to affect the physical behavior of even a single dust
mote using your mind alone.

St. Albert? Isn't that a Catholic thing?

Actually a Jewish thing, though he was not a practicing Jew, nor did he
believe in a personal kind of God. But by my lights, he deserves
canonization more than anyone else who has ever been called a saint.

Indeed I am claiming mind is energy, but it isn't physical.

Translate: You agree that whatever kind of ``energy" you associate
with mind has absolutely NOTHING to do with physical energy. You
create a deliberate obfuscation by even using the word ``energy". It
is unnecessary to say that ``mind is energy" in some kind of vague
analogous way since you already have a perfectly good word for mind
(namely the word ``mind").


The mind
can thing and meditate, sleep and we only use a tenth of its capacity.

I am a bit skeptical about these opinions as to what exact percentage
of our mind's capacities we use. Mind is not sufficiently understood
to make these statements meaningful.

See how mind works by doing just one minute of single pointed
meditation and tell me you have the ability to be completely empty
with nothing leaking in and I will bow at your feet at once.

I am using the term energy because pure mind is energy.

And I am using the term mere analogy because your words are mere
analogy. If you must use the word `"energy" then perhaps we could
clarify discourse this way: Let us agree never to use the word
"energy" without a qualifying adjective. Thus we can say ``physical
energy" when we speak in the sense of physics and we can say ``mind
energy" when we speak of your mysterious kind of energy that you
associate to consiousness. That way you will not only communicate more
clearly with me and others, but you will think more clearly in you own
mind and you will never arrive at confused ideas like citing the
physical conservation of energy law as if it had the slightest
relevance (it has no relevance) to your hypothetical conservation of
mind energy.


Everything is
connected to everything else. In string theory, the science community
is having a hard time distinguishing theory and philosophy when
addressing the subject of quantum mechanics.

Slight overstatement. You don't need to go as far as string theory.
Ordinary old-fashioned classical quantum mechanics is philosophically
puzzling enough.

I am by no means an expert on eitherthe science of nature, or Buddhism
as I'm a practitioner for just a bit over two years.

Mind has absolutely no matter as a component. Not one particle. The
mind is a complex thing to discuss. An analogy is tea in a cup.
Break the cup and it is no longer a cup. It's broken shards of
matter. The tea, is still tea. Mop it into a towel, still tea.
Contents and container. All sentient beings have mind. Humans can
develop. Animals cannot develop in a lifetime as a human can. I'm
swaying off topic, sorry. Maybe I'm not qualified to debate this, but
I like the challenge.

``An analogy is tea in a cup" you said. And another mere analogy is
your confused usage of the word ``energy". I am by no means opposed to
making analogies, but only to drawing unwarranted inferences from mere
analogies.

Surely you don't claim that. You must be using "energy" merely as an
analogy or metaphor for your conception of mind. But if we have only a
mere analogy, you cannot blithly claim that mind cannot be created or
destroyed and invoke the physical principle of energy conservation to
do so. You are making mere word play here so as to give your concept
of mind a veneer of scientificity.

No, the science community is drawing these conclusions through the
Mind Science Conference and other large bodies of professionals who
invite The Dalai Lama annually. T

The pseudo-scientific community draws all kinds of idiotic conclusions
of this type. If you are a big fan of this kind of New Age fluff you
should check out the crackbrain theory of the ``morphogenic field" and
other such absurdities. The world is full of idiots who dabble in
quantum mechanics and other au courant fields of physics and draw
preposterous philosophical and even spiritual conclusions from what
they think they understand about physics. BE WARNED: Charlatans
abound in these areas.

They do this because the brain
function of an adept meditator is different than the average person.
Meditators use much more of their brain function. This is being
studied very closely with proper testing in blind studies in labs at
four major universities.

I you have a reference to any of these studies and if you think that
any of them qualify as science, let me know.

If you see my point here, then you must admit that you are making a
completely arbitrary assumption that mind cannot be destroyed --- an
assuption that relies only on faith and not on reason. Hence your
further inferences about reincarnation are null and void as far as
reason is concerned.

Do you love anyone in your life? If the answer is yes, prove it.

I can give very strong evidence (short of proof) to those I love by
simply being good to them. I have a naive idea that if a person
practices good will and generous conduct to others than it is
reasonable to believe that this is a loving person. This is not the
kind of "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician but, to borrow a
lovely phrase from Anglo-Saxon law, it is "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt".

You
can't. You just love. I don't know if we are on the same life track
so this may become an irritating discussion for most. All I'm asking
is for people to consider what I'm saying, not agree. I also don't
think being called an idiot, moron, jerk, whatever, is relevant. I am
none of the above, and to close I will say there is a relative amount
of faith involved in Buddhism, but not in the same way we rely on a
man in the sky. I respect those who believe in god, but I don't
agree.

But friend, others on this thread have called you "idiot, moron, jerk".
Go back and read my post and you will see that I did not.

On 28 Aug 2006 20:56:07 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

The pseudo-scientific community draws all kinds of idiotic conclusions
of this type. If you are a big fan of this kind of New Age fluff you
should check out the crackbrain theory of the ``morphogenic field" and
other such absurdities. The world is full of idiots who dabble in
quantum mechanics and other au courant fields of physics and draw
preposterous philosophical and even spiritual conclusions from what
they think they understand about physics. BE WARNED: Charlatans
abound in these areas.

I understand what you think, but I am growing tired of terms like,
idiotic, and crackbrain. Here is the link for Mind Science
Conference. Hardly a group of new age idiots.

http://www.investigatingthemind.org/

I you have a reference to any of these studies and if you think that
any of them qualify as science, let me know.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...ndScience.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4770779
http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html
http://www.twis.org/science/science_...nd_science.htm

These sites may still not give you any evidence of how the mind is
pure energy, but I'm not trying to convince you. Nor do I get duped
by chalatans easily. Naive I am not. I think a person can believe in
Buddhist ideals, even be a practitioner complete with holy images of
Buddha's (which, by the way means fully awake).

If Einstein was alive, he'd have finished the Theory of Everything.
He was right on the cusp and possibly had the equation, but he died
before he wrote it down somewhere.

I think string theory is a parallel system to the beliefs in Buddhism.
Then again, I don't know your working knowledge of the philosophy of
Buddhism. That would help. It's odd to me when someone poopoos
something they may not have fully examined. Clearly, I have said I am
not qualified in either case, but I hope to be able to stand up to any
challenge the more I learn about my own mind. Maybe by then I won't
bother. It's an incredible waste of energy.

I can give very strong evidence (short of proof) to those I love by
simply being good to them. I have a naive idea that if a person
practices good will and generous conduct to others than it is
reasonable to believe that this is a loving person. This is not the
kind of "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician but, to borrow a
lovely phrase from Anglo-Saxon law, it is "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt".

Translation: You cannot prove you love anyone. We can assert you
love them because you want to be good to them, but that would imply
anyone you are good to is someone you love. Good will and generous
conduct is what Buddhists call Bodhisattva, right view, skillful
means, etc.

I offer the same evidence to you (short of proof) and when I tell you
about studies being conducted using the adept meditator as the subject
you say prove it. You can't prove you love someone.


But friend, others on this thread have called you "idiot, moron, jerk".
Go back and read my post and you will see that I did not.

Yes, I should have qualified that more clearly Our discussion has
been very decent. Maybe one day there will be a universal answer to
everything, as Einistein was working his entire career to prove. He
got close and I am very interested in string theory as it closely
looks like Buddhist conclusions regarding emptiness. There are many
scientists representing both sides of string theory and the debate is
ongoing. I find it all so interesting and wish I'd have paid more
attention to my physics professor instead of vodka.

By the way, in case you aren't sure, I am a woman. I've seen some
refer to me as him/her.

Jangchub wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 20:56:07 -0700, "Mike" wrote:

The pseudo-scientific community draws all kinds of idiotic conclusions
of this type. If you are a big fan of this kind of New Age fluff you
should check out the crackbrain theory of the ``morphogenic field" and
other such absurdities. The world is full of idiots who dabble in
quantum mechanics and other au courant fields of physics and draw
preposterous philosophical and even spiritual conclusions from what
they think they understand about physics. BE WARNED: Charlatans
abound in these areas.

I understand what you think, but I am growing tired of terms like,
idiotic, and crackbrain. Here is the link for Mind Science
Conference. Hardly a group of new age idiots.

http://www.investigatingthemind.org/

I you have a reference to any of these studies and if you think that
any of them qualify as science, let me know.

http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana...ndScience.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4770779
http://www.crystalinks.com/medbrain.html
http://www.twis.org/science/science_...nd_science.htm

OK. This is not what I had in mind when I cautioned you about "idiotic
crackbrain charlatans". These sites are arguing the case that
meditation techniques can have physical and psychological benefits of
various kinds and are attempting to study why. I am willing to believe
that. But if the people who are studying these phenomena use the word
"energy" I still insist that this is a very different usage of the word
energy than the physical sense of the word. There is only, at best, an
analogy between whatever mental phenomena they are studying and the
physical concept of energy. I still maintain that confusion would be
avoided by using a different word than energy. In your previous post
you seemed to be arguing a case for reincarnation by using a principle
of "conservation of energy" that I insisted and still insist it is an
invalid inference based on an analogy. If there is some kind of
conservation of "mind energy", that has to be independently
established.



These sites may still not give you any evidence of how the mind is
pure energy, but I'm not trying to convince you. Nor do I get duped
by chalatans easily. Naive I am not. I think a person can believe in
Buddhist ideals, even be a practitioner complete with holy images of
Buddha's (which, by the way means fully awake).

If Einstein was alive, he'd have finished the Theory of Everything.
He was right on the cusp and possibly had the equation, but he died
before he wrote it down somewhere.

Careful, careful. Einstein was not working on the Theory of Everything
when he died. He was working on cosmological ramifications of general
relativity. The Theory of Everything , if and when we find it, would
be a unification of quantum chromodynamics and the so called standard
model with general relativity. Einstein was not working on that,
though he obviously had thought about the question.

I think string theory is a parallel system to the beliefs in Buddhism.

You should understand that the physics community has gotten rather
sceptical about string theory. String theory seemed to have promise
for a while, but work in that field has gotten bogged down and
physicists are mostly trying other approaches these days. The basic
issue is this: We have two theories (1. QCD and the standard model 2.
general relativity) that have both been verified to extraordinary
degrees of precision, but yet they can't both be exactly right because
their fundamental ontologies are incompatible. General theory cannot
work unless spacetime is a smooth manifold. On the other hand, quantum
theory says that spacetime CAN'T be a smooth manifold due to quantum
fluctuations at the Planck scale. What is needed is a theory of
quantum gravity that will yield QCD and general relativity as limiting
cases, but that will subsume both theories and unify them somehow.
String theory is one of many attempted approaches that, as I said,
seemed to show great promise but has gotten rather bogged down. It may
yet be the case that the correct answer, if and when we find it, is
some kind of variant of string theory, but maybe not. Maybe an
entirely different approach is needed.



Then again, I don't know your working knowledge of the philosophy of
Buddhism. That would help. It's odd to me when someone poopoos
something they may not have fully examined.

I did not exactly poopoo Buddhism. I have the highest respect for
Buddhism as an ethical system. As for reincarnation, well, like all
atheists I take the attitude "where's the evidence"? I have long ago
read Buddhist scriptures and books about Buddhist philosophy. I take
it that you follow the Tibetan variant of Mahayana Buddhism.


Clearly, I have said I am
not qualified in either case, but I hope to be able to stand up to any
challenge the more I learn about my own mind. Maybe by then I won't
bother. It's an incredible waste of energy.

I can give very strong evidence (short of proof) to those I love by
simply being good to them. I have a naive idea that if a person
practices good will and generous conduct to others than it is
reasonable to believe that this is a loving person. This is not the
kind of "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician but, to borrow a
lovely phrase from Anglo-Saxon law, it is "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt".

Translation: You cannot prove you love anyone.

And I specifically agreed that I cannot prove that in the sense that I
prove mathematical theorems. Who would ever maintain otherwise?

We can assert you
love them because you want to be good to them, but that would imply
anyone you are good to is someone you love.

Of course. How can anyone seperate love from the impulse to be good to
someone? Aren't they pretty much the same thing? That does not mean
that my love is restricted to family and a tiny circle of friends. I
am personally not a bodhisattva and I do not claim to feel enormous
amounts of love for a random stranger. But the small amount of love I
can spontaneously feel for a stranger is entirely adequate reason to
feel regard for his/her well-being and to have occasional generous
impulses.

Good will and generous
conduct is what Buddhists call Bodhisattva, right view, skillful
means, etc.

I offer the same evidence to you (short of proof) and when I tell you
about studies being conducted using the adept meditator as the subject
you say prove it. You can't prove you love someone.


But friend, others on this thread have called you "idiot, moron, jerk".
Go back and read my post and you will see that I did not.

Yes, I should have qualified that more clearly Our discussion has
been very decent. Maybe one day there will be a universal answer to
everything, as Einistein was working his entire career to prove. He
got close and I am very interested in string theory as it closely
looks like Buddhist conclusions regarding emptiness. There are many
scientists representing both sides of string theory and the debate is
ongoing. I find it all so interesting and wish I'd have paid more
attention to my physics professor instead of vodka.

Vodka has its merits.

By the way, in case you aren't sure, I am a woman. I've seen some
refer to me as him/her.

Regards

Jangchub wrote:
On 28 Aug 2006 20:56:07 -0700, "Mike" wrote:


If Einstein was alive, he'd have finished the Theory of Everything.
He was right on the cusp and possibly had the equation, but he died
before he wrote it down somewhere.

I just want to add a clarification about the physics here. Besides
working on the cosmological implications of general relativity Einstein
was, of course, working on the unified field theory and I should have
realized that that is what you meant by Theory of Everything. But
these are not the same. Einstein's attempts at unified field theory
had a very limited goal, namely to unify general relativity and
electromagnetism. He had a belief (which we now know to be mistaken)
that it would be possible to unify gravity and electromagnetism into a
single system and then make minor modifications so as to include the
weak force and strong force. Truth be told, Einstein was not keeping
up with the latest physics and he did not know much about the strong
and weak nuclear forces.
History turned out differently. The first unification combined
electromagnetism and the weak force. After that the strong force was
also incorporated. This gave rise to the so called "standard model"
with its current classification of quarks. The phrase "Theory of
Everything" (TOE for short) is always used to mean a unification of all
four fundamental forces. That is what we are seeking now.


I think string theory is a parallel system to the beliefs in Buddhism.
Then again, I don't know your working knowledge of the philosophy of
Buddhism. That would help. It's odd to me when someone poopoos
something they may not have fully examined. Clearly, I have said I am
not qualified in either case, but I hope to be able to stand up to any
challenge the more I learn about my own mind. Maybe by then I won't
bother. It's an incredible waste of energy.

Jangchub skrev:

On 28 Aug 2006 01:54:44 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:27:07 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Energy is not created, nor can it be destroyed. That's a fact. We'll
never agree and it 's not my contention to fluster you, but you seem
rather uptight.

You are the one who has become upset.


You didn't respond to my main point which is that, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. The Dalai Lama, when asked what he thinks of
the Big Bang Theory, he replied, "Big Bang, no problem, just not the
first one."

What exactly does that have to do with reincarnation? I can't wait to
read your answer.


Mind is pure energy. Therefor it cannot be created or destroyed. It
has to go somewhere so it continues, in its pure state to take a
rebirth into what I'll categorize as a good rebirth. Taking a human
rebirth is always best.

Mind is not a thing; it is not energy. It is a process in the brain.
When the brain ceases to exist, there is no mind.


Look, I don't care much if you believe in anything. I also don't
believe because I do believe in things I can't always explain doesn't
make me an idiot.

And I have never called you an idiot.

Far from it. But, you have your agenda of smacking
people down and that's your baggage as a person, not mine.

It is sad that you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, that you
have to respond with silly accusations. My original statement that
reincarnation has no objective support for it and that, therefore, it
is an irrational belief stands.

Jangchub skrev:

On 28 Aug 2006 02:02:32 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:


Jangchub skrev:

On 26 Aug 2006 01:32:21 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:
And I have not told you how to think. I have pointed out that your
beliefs have no objective support; they are, in effect, based on
nothing. As such there is no objective difference between them and any
other irrational belief. If you believe in them anyway, that is your
right. I respect your right; but you have no right to have your
beliefs free of criticism.


What do you know about Buddhism?


We are discussing reincarnation. I stated that it has no objective
support. Either you have evidence or you do not. If you do not, my
above statement stands; there is no objective difference between your
belief and any other irrational belief. I am not attacking Buddhism. I
am not attacking you. I am not telling you how to think.


There is no way to disprove it either.

Which does not contradict my point in the slightest.

It's rather important for you
to have some working knowledge about the whole picture than simply
making comments on pieces of a philosophy.





Buddhism is very closely related to science in that the historical
Buddha NEVER told anyone to believe him. He always said to go out and
check for yourself. There are many millions of Tibetan Buddhists who
have studied, debated, and defended their beliefs for many years.
Buddhism has been around for over 2500 years. To this day, the main
point is non-violence at any cost and simply to be a better person.



It doesn't much matter if rebirth can be proven or not.

I did not mention proof.

What is
tangible is that, I am a happy person and I know my mind through
meditation which IS proven to have amazing health benefits. So I draw
on a lot of different things.



At my core, I do not believe in god and am indeed atheist. Anyone
discussed as a Buddha was once a person who actually existed. Mind is
endless. Nothing I say will offer enough information to you and I am
not working all that hard on the challenge because you aren't really
interested anyway.

Once again (let's see if it sinks in this time), I have not criticized
Buddhism or your right to be a Buddhist. Why you insist that I am
making personal attacks on you or on your belief system is beyond me,
and why, if you think personal attacks are wrong, you feel so free to
insult me in every response is also a mystery. One could suspect that
they are meant as a smokescreen.

On 30 Aug 2006 03:48:22 -0700, "thomas p."
wrote:

Mind is not a thing; it is not energy. It is a process in the brain.
When the brain ceases to exist, there is no mind.

You have no evidence of this, so how can you be so certain?

It is sad that you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, that you
have to respond with silly accusations. My original statement that
reincarnation has no objective support for it and that, therefore, it
is an irrational belief stands.

That's the difference between you and me. I USED to criticize people
for their beliefs, and now I've learned everyone has their beliefs or
not and at the very least the phrase one of my teachers uses is:
"Hands off, mouth shut." It's even sadder you feel so compelled to
criticize.

I am not always good at this, but it is an aspiration.

What the scientific community is seeing now is the extent Tibetan
Buddhists know about the functions of the mind. It has nothing to do
with a brain. It's a consciousness which comes from a previous moment
of itself, back and back and back.

You don't have to believe it, nobody is pushing it down your throat,
but to criticize something you are not familiar with is like me trying
to make believe I am an expert on quantum physics and mechanics.