Jump to content

Prometheus

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Prometheus

  1. What is the 'Buddha's timeless Law Of Permanence'?
  2. While i agree with you, it's not hard to see why people invest in faith rather than reality. To an undisciplined mind reality can seem a bleak and depressing prospect - easier to use faith or alcohol to make it all fluffy and cuddly. Sure this denies people the majesty of reality, but what can you do about it?
  3. The strength of faith is not in changing the physical world but in changing the mental world. This seems lost on some people from both camps. The parents thought faith could actually change the physical world, and apparently continue to be believe so even after their first child died. This is a mistake of religious people, despite all the evidence you could ever want (studies have been done, i'll did them up if anyone wants). But it also a mistake to think that faith does absolutely nothing in such circumstances. Prayer may never have actually cured anyone, but it has helped bring people some comfort when they most need it. The fact that they had to invest in some elaborate theology in order to be able to do this is just the way it is for some people. For a secular context consider the story Of Mice and Men. Lenny dies with a picture of somewhere idyllic he wants to go before George puts a bullet through his head. That picture was never going to be real, we all knew that. But George was too simple to know, and so died happy. Would you deny him that happiness, even if it's a lie? Not sure how i'd answer that myself, but away from all the BS claims of faith interventions in the physical world, it seems clear that faith does affect the way people experience the world.
  4. I thought this thread was talking about atheists/secularists stopping other people worshipping god(s). How many militant atheists are there (i mean real ones that kill people, not just say some harsh, but often true, things)?
  5. Is anyone treating them bad? It's one thing to disagree with them, but that is not to treat them bad.
  6. Regrettably is this not the god that Spinoza describes, the one made famous (or not apparently) by Einstein? I say regrettably as saying this may be misconstrued to be lending credence to the rest of this babble in the OP.
  7. What 'field' do you mean? A battlefield? I have a different experience of being with people when they die - some people turn to faith, others turn from faith and others stick to what they thought before. Perhaps it is different for soldiers and the context they find themselves in.
  8. Eternal punishment is not my idea of learning from mistakes and growing as a person. Begging for forgiveness from a perceived higher power is quite the opposite of moral maturity. The only future I understand that Christians see is an eternal afterlife, and that is where their energies go. The rest of us would rather put our energies towards trying to be better people, for our own sake rather than carrot and stick morality, and build towards a better future, even if we won't see it. If you have half your mind on the kingdom of heaven you will not be able to contribute as much to humanity.
  9. By absolving us of our sins he is also taking from us our responsibility for our actions and ability to learn from our mistakes. Well intentioned, and maybe once useful, but we're simply moving on. The problem with Christianity, and all religions, is that they are static. What was once a boon to humanity has outlived its usefulness and now keeps us chained to the past. Jesus might have been a step up from his stone age war god of a father but now we can do better. Not to mention it's all obviously allegory, yet people take it as literal truth.
  10. Let's try a different approach, since you dodged most of those questions. Let;s just take one tiny element at a time. Please give me a direct quote from the Buddha where he states one must adhere to Buddhist cosmology to become a Buddhist. An indirect quote will do, so long as it's from the Pali Canon.
  11. It would be a false pretence if i were deliberately misrepresenting the Buddha. But this statement: suggests you think i am genuinely mistaken. You have demonstrated you do not understand what false pretence is, nor a hypocrite. I point this out only because you have been rude, and it doesn't bode well for your understanding of much else if two words confound you. So there is some teaching most of us do not know about, but you do, but you can't point them out at all. That is very fortunate for you. I too am privy to secret teachings of the Buddha which prove unequivocally i am right, but they are secret, and you wouldn't understand them anyway. Oh, wait i forgot. The Buddha actually said that he did not hide any teachings from anyone: From the Buddha's mouth in the Pali canon, see for yourself if you think i'm lying: Digha Nikaya I am vaguely aware that Tibetan Buddhists teach in such a manner, with a closed fist as the Buddha put it, but most Buddhists don't. It is clear you have only one source of knowing Buddhism, which i wouldn't criticise if you weren't so insistent that only your view of Buddhism is correct and everyone else is wrong (which most Tibetan Buddhists don't). It is fortunate that the 'right' form of Buddhism, consistent with your bizarre notions of 'evidence', just happens to be the one you like best. If they were taught by the Buddha then it should be easy to find a reference in the Pali Canon. Oh, i forgot. Secret teachings not written down, even though the Buddha said he had no secret teachings. The Buddha's disciples at the time of his death are known - who received these secret teachings? Funny. The things you say, and how you say them, do not reflect reality, do not benefit mankind and do not make anyone a better person. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To everyone else - sorry for the thread hijack, might be worth splitting off the topic.
  12. Even if i am misrepresenting Buddhism, deliberately or otherwise, i fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. Am i preaching one thing and practising another? Regardless, it is you who is mistaken. The Bhardo teaching only appear in Tibetan Buddhism, 1000 years after the Buddha's death, and are not contained in the Pali Canon. They are a later addition. Only Tibetan Buddhists follow these teachings. The majority of Buddhists in the world do not follow these teachings. The Buddha did not follow these teachings. The Buddha did not teach these teachings. If you have evidence otherwise from the Pali canon then please let me know. But we have had this discussion before, even on a Buddhist forum in which your thread was locked for being insensible, and I see no evidence you will ever change. I only wish to point out your misrepresentations of Buddhism. Perhaps, I do not understand it. But that is for Peter J to answer.
  13. Karma, at least in Buddhism, is defined as the results of actions taken by volition - nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you were thinking of karma as a mystic force?
  14. Sure you weren't experiencing isolated sleep paralysis? It's a pretty terrifying though somewhat common experience.
  15. Looking in from the outside, i see faith as a defence mechanism against a perceived existential black hole in a person. With no inherent meaning to existence, life a scary. Faith that there is something more defends against this perceived bleakness. There may be a degree of fear-mongering by priests, but the fear that what is in our lives right now, is all that is in our lives right now, is fear enough apparently. I've been privileged enough in my work to be with many people as and when they die. Faith works for some, not for others. I think it takes more effort to believe in something in the face of evidence than we give credit. Whether it's worth it i guess is a choice each of us have to make for ourselves.
  16. He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
  17. Surely part the problem is the assumption that Christians and atheists are homogeneous groups. Christians range from the Westboro baptist church to the 'Church of England i suppose'. Atheists have a similar, perhaps slightly wider, spread. I don't have any demographics to back this up, but i think most people would find this uncontentious? The difference is though that while atheists acknowledge they may have differences in their morality, and so have to sit down together and talk about their differences to reach resolution, Christians believe they have access to an 'invariant' source of morality. The problem comes when Christians start have differences in morality between themselves. It means the bible is not so obvious in its description of morality and requires interpretation. If it requires interpretation, regardless of whether god really is the source of morality, Christians are in the same boat as atheists - trying to figure it for themselves. It's not such a bad boat to be in.
  18. Similar to Schrodinger's cat which can be both alive and dead, though by logic this should be impossible? Interesting. What use in logic then, if empiricism can be found to contradict it? Is it to be regarded only as a pragmatic tool? The opening of this entry would seem to suggest that the topic is still debated.
  19. Now this interesting. So if we were to say something like an object cannot be black all over and white all over at the same time, it would be something we invented rather than discovered? It is difficult though to imagine that without minds that this would not be the case. I assume i am missing something? Also i have heard mathematical objects have been said to have an existence independent of the mind (Platonic). I have also heard it said that mathematics is a form of logic. If these are true would it not suggest that logics are discovered rather than invented? Are they true?
  20. I'm sure there is more than one path to success - depending on exactly what qualifies as success.
  21. 'In humanity we trust'?
  22. 'Cows eat grass' therefore 'the sky is blue', is not quite the same as 'no pre-marital sex' therefore 'less risk of divorce'. You must admit there is a agree of plausibility in the latter not in the former. However, i agree that if this is what it takes for a non-sequitur then both are indeed such. Then it is also a non-sequitur that Plasmodium causes malaria - there is no purely logical reason for it to be so, we had to observe it. In fact most of science would a non-sequitur for if something does logically follow then there is no need of observation or experiment, other than confirming the premise. So then i don't understand why you levelled this as a critique of the OP. If it does not logically follow, then we have to do experiments to find whether it is true, no? There are other research methodologies. A very quick look revealed some research around this subject has been done. Haven't read much myself, but it looks like a retrospective review of some type. Epidemiology has quite a few methods for investigating claims like these. If a 20 second search revealed this, i'm sure the OP could find more with some effort. Can you point out to me where the OP states his belief one way or the other, i can't see it: I can see an assumption that there is some evidence either way, but i can't see where he states his personal beliefs, let alone where he implies this evidence is in line with his (unstated) beliefs.
  23. Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. You would have to obtain evidence to prove or disprove it. The hypothesis in the OP asks whether pre-marital sex reduces the risk of divorce. Is that the same thing as determining something? Could it not be used on the basis that if true then such and such is true. The premise need not have any basis in reality for an argument to follow logically, does it? Anyway, my only point on this thread is to ask whether the question is one of logic or one of empiricism. In my opinion it is one of empiricism.
  24. An honest enough question, no? The OP goes on to say where this hypothesis came from: hearsay. Well, we have to get our ideas from somewhere. Rather than simply accepting this the OP asks for evidence either way. Is there really no plausible mechanism for it? I don't know a lot about psychology or sociology, but I could speculate about evolutionary mechanisms which select in favour of abstinence as a way of ensuring men do not waste their time raising young that are not their own. A very quick google revealed there is some research on the topic, but the links were all to sites advocating abstinence so I didn't bother looking at them. I wouldn't be surprised with a little more digging that someone has done somewhat credible research into it. I don't care enough to look. Anyway, i agree with you there may well be a correlation, probably via religiosity, linking the two but not causation. I just don't think it logically follows that pre-marital abstinence doesn't result in lower divorce rates. Or do i simply not understand what a non-sequitur is? I thought it was purely a logical fallacy that the conclusion does not follow the premise. It's a value judgement, not a non-sequitur, isn't it? I think many people believe divorce is generally undesirable, though there a people who don't see it as a problem. Either one is simply a choice of ethics. If it's a non-sequiter are not all moral choices non-sequiturs? Either way it is irrelevant to the original question which asked whether there is a causal relationship between pre-marital sex and divorce. Either it effects divorce rates or not, regardless whether you think divorce is good, bad or indifferent. Again, it doesn't logically follow either way, one would need evidence. So no non-sequitur fallacy has been made.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.