Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited December 2011
In the video I liked when he made the distinction between the negative of Adam and Eve tasting of the fruit from the tree of knowledge and the positive of Buddha sitting under the bodhi tree (bodhi means enlightened).
If stuff does not fit into logic and reason and can not be measured in tested through science is just myth and superstition.
to write off everything outside of your capacity to measure as myth & superstition is arrogance at its worst. this is completely non-scientific. there is a big difference between saying something is possible but unknown and writing it off as superstition because its not measurable. the champions of germ theory were laughing stocks originally because we lacked the capacity to verify the theory empirically at the time... and look how that turned out.
the idea is that the direct realization and perception of these concepts in meditation is possible through commitment to the practice. but that level of commitment to practice requires a basic faith that what the Buddha was saying was true. It is not superstition because it is not left to faith alone... a basic faith is what waters the seeds of those realizations. Again using germ theory as an example the scientists who sought out to prove it had to have a basic faith that those germs existed in order to go looking for them.
I would say people like you are Stephen Bachelor may have Buddhist inclination or enjoy and benefit from certain ideas... but again... You can not remove the core teachings of the Buddha and call it Buddhism. I mean i guess you CAN, but directly opposed to the teachings of the Buddha. How can you be directly opposed to the teachings of the Buddha and call yourself a Buddhist?
I personally have never run into anything that the Buddha taught that I would consider supernatural. That is what drew me into Buddhism in the first place.
Tim Mitchen's points out denial of observation. There is no observation contradicting rebirth. Thus it isn't a matter of faith. There is no evidence either way.
Jeff, you can't observe rebirth. Rebirth is untestable. You must require faith to believe in rebirth. Faith is believing in something without proof. There has no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for rebirth.
Personal experience IS not evidence. Why? Personal experience is always different. This is why you don't see everyone believing in rebirth or heaven or hell.
You don't observe the abscence of rebirth.. I am just going by Tim Mitchen's arbitrary definition.
Show me how you can prove existence of anything without axioms and we can have this little 'atheism is right' discussion. That is a problem which has never been settled in philosophy. Bjerkely had some interesting discussion along that line.
You don't observe the abscence of rebirth.. I am just going by Tim Mitchen's arbitrary definition.
Show me how you can prove existence of anything without axioms and we can have this little 'atheism is right' discussion. That is a problem which has never been settled in philosophy. Bjerkely had some interesting discussion along that line.
I can't disprove rebirth just like I can't disprove the Christian god, but like rebirth and the Christian god. The evidence supporting them is very lacking.
You can't disprove anything. I could say my head is an omelette and since you can't prove the existence of anything you really couldn't dispute my statement.
You would need several axioms to disprove my head is an omelette.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Faith is believing in something without proof.
There is no proof that all phenomena in the universe is material either. All of the phenomena we have observed so far has been but that isn't the same as proof that everything is. To some extent to deny the possibility of other phenomena is also a matter of faith. I think a lot of the argument you're getting is not that you don't believe these things but that you take the active position that it isn't possible for them to exist.
Personal experience IS not evidence. Why? Personal experience is always different. This is why you don't see everyone believing in rebirth or heaven or hell.
In meditation one repeatedly makes observations of the mind. Masters of the past have put forward a hypothesis as to the true nature of this phenomena. They don't say believe it because I say so. What they do say is that each of us needs to do our own observation and test this hypothesis for ourselves. The methodology is very similar to the scientific process. The difference is that the data is subjective as opposed to the objective data collected by scientists. At some point these things stop being a matter of 'belief' and become a matter of direct experience. I think up until that point an attitude of 'don't know' makes perfect sense. What I hear you saying though is that you do know, and you know it not to be true.
Of course we can lie to ourselves and say that we discovered something that we didn't. There are those who have claimed realizations that they didn't have in order to control others but that doesn't mean everyone who makes such claims are lying or delusional.
B5C, the reason buddhism works on the subjective is that the objective is not under our control. If enlightenment is dependent on a gene or a drug then what if we do not have that gene or the company that manufactures the drug go out of business.
Anything like gene and drug (conditional) is not a reliable refuge and just hooks you into samsara.
All conditional phenomena are impermanent, compound, and merely labeled. The last part hooks in with the head and omelette problem. 'head' and 'omelette' are merely labled. On the subjective side there is something about awareness that is unconditioned. Clarity, openness, and sensitivity are there in experience before the labeling begins.
Buddha only taught one thing and that is the removal of suffering. It is a pointing out instruction to learn how to tame the mind. It doesn't matter if it is not an airtight theory of reality. In fact according to buddhism it is impossible to have an airtight theory of reality.
Ever hear the story of the zen master pouring tea until it overflows in your cup? To show you that you have to empty your mind of assumptions and take a vaster view. Before that occurs the dharma cannot transform you.
I will not deny you to call yourself a buddhist but I think fanatic science fundamentalist is more your call.
Being so fanatic about a thing that you can not see reality is never good.
Some advice for you.
1. Read Bertrand Russel. 2. Read Georg Henrik von Wright. 3. Read about the theoretical basis of science.
4. Science is not the reality. Science is a good approximation of reality. Try to understand the differnce and the implications.
5. Science does not have all the right answers to everything. For an example: Buddhism is much better when it comes to a way of reaching Nibbana. Think about it.
I will tell you again. You should examine your Faith in science. You will find Science lacking in ways you never thought possible. I think I explained that to you pretty well in the other thread but it is really a sign of fanatisism when you ignore the explanations given to you for your benefit just because you cling to a position that has no real value in it self in this context.
I do not want an arch nemisis. Thanks all the same.
I will not deny you to call yourself a buddhist but I think fanatic science fundamentalist is more your call.
Being so fanatic about a thing that you can not see reality is never good.
Some advice for you.
1. Read Bertrand Russel. 2. Read Georg Henrik von Wright. 3. Read about the theoretical basis of science.
4. Science is not the reality. Science is a good approximation of reality. Try to understand the differnce and the implications.
5. Science does not have all the right answers to everything. For an example: Buddhism is much better when it comes to a way of reaching Nibbana. Think about it.
I will tell you again. You should examine your Faith in science. You will find Science lacking in ways you never thought possible. I think I explained that to you pretty well in the other thread but it is really a sign of fanatisism when you ignore the explanations given to you for your benefit just because you cling to a position that has no real value in it self in this context.
I do not want an arch nemisis. Thanks all the same.
Good luck to you.
With metta /Victor
I've read most of those books. You should see my library on my shelf and my Kindle.
I don't have faith in science. I support Science way of thinking.
You don't observe the abscence of rebirth.. I am just going by Tim Mitchen's arbitrary definition.
Show me how you can prove existence of anything without axioms and we can have this little 'atheism is right' discussion. That is a problem which has never been settled in philosophy. Bjerkely had some interesting discussion along that line.
I can't disprove rebirth just like I can't disprove the Christian god, but like rebirth and the Christian god. The evidence supporting them is very lacking.
But to definitively assert that it is simply false, because evidence is lacking, is illogical. You say you are "Agnostic/Buddhist" but an agnostic would not say that. Agnostic, by definition, withholds judgment on true or false. Carl Sagan was an actual agnostic. Someone once asked him if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said "Deny it, certainly not. But I would not spend a minute on it unless there was evidence for it." Agnostic neither affirms nor denies because that is the most logical position. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
But to definitively assert that it is simply false, because evidence is lacking, is illogical. You say you are "Agnostic/Buddhist" but an agnostic would not say that. Agnostic, by definition, withholds judgment on true or false. Carl Sagan was an actual agnostic. Someone once asked him if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said "Deny it, certainly not. But I would not spend a minute on it unless there was evidence for it." Agnostic neither affirms nor denies because that is the most logical position. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
@B5C and @Victorious, quit hogging the thread and bickering. Personal insults have no place in constructive debate, so name-calling is out, ok?
I apologized if you believed I was name calling. I was matching a perfect description of Victor. He is a apologist. A person who will quickly defend his or her faith with silly arguments to prove something that has the lacking the evidence to back up that him or her claims.
Then I am done with this thread. If you want to continue victor. PM me.
But to definitively assert that it is simply false, because evidence is lacking, is illogical. You say you are "Agnostic/Buddhist" but an agnostic would not say that. Agnostic, by definition, withholds judgment on true or false. Carl Sagan was an actual agnostic. Someone once asked him if he would deny that Jesus turned water into wine. He said "Deny it, certainly not. But I would not spend a minute on it unless there was evidence for it." Agnostic neither affirms nor denies because that is the most logical position. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Technically, agnostic atheist still does not deny. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, supranormal etc. and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity, supranormal, etc is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. When you say "I know that it is false" you remove the agnostic part and are left with just Atheist and that's it.
Comments
the idea is that the direct realization and perception of these concepts in meditation is possible through commitment to the practice. but that level of commitment to practice requires a basic faith that what the Buddha was saying was true. It is not superstition because it is not left to faith alone... a basic faith is what waters the seeds of those realizations. Again using germ theory as an example the scientists who sought out to prove it had to have a basic faith that those germs existed in order to go looking for them.
I would say people like you are Stephen Bachelor may have Buddhist inclination or enjoy and benefit from certain ideas... but again... You can not remove the core teachings of the Buddha and call it Buddhism. I mean i guess you CAN, but directly opposed to the teachings of the Buddha. How can you be directly opposed to the teachings of the Buddha and call yourself a Buddhist?
Personal experience IS not evidence. Why? Personal experience is always different. This is why you don't see everyone believing in rebirth or heaven or hell.
Show me how you can prove existence of anything without axioms and we can have this little 'atheism is right' discussion. That is a problem which has never been settled in philosophy. Bjerkely had some interesting discussion along that line.
A great documentary on rebirth or reincarnation:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/supernatural-science-previous-lives/
You would need several axioms to disprove my head is an omelette.
Of course we can lie to ourselves and say that we discovered something that we didn't. There are those who have claimed realizations that they didn't have in order to control others but that doesn't mean everyone who makes such claims are lying or delusional.
Anything like gene and drug (conditional) is not a reliable refuge and just hooks you into samsara.
All conditional phenomena are impermanent, compound, and merely labeled. The last part hooks in with the head and omelette problem. 'head' and 'omelette' are merely labled. On the subjective side there is something about awareness that is unconditioned. Clarity, openness, and sensitivity are there in experience before the labeling begins.
Ever hear the story of the zen master pouring tea until it overflows in your cup? To show you that you have to empty your mind of assumptions and take a vaster view. Before that occurs the dharma cannot transform you.
Impressive list.
I will not deny you to call yourself a buddhist but I think fanatic science fundamentalist is more your call.
Being so fanatic about a thing that you can not see reality is never good.
Some advice for you.
1. Read Bertrand Russel.
2. Read Georg Henrik von Wright.
3. Read about the theoretical basis of science.
4. Science is not the reality. Science is a good approximation of reality.
Try to understand the differnce and the implications.
5. Science does not have all the right answers to everything. For an example: Buddhism is much better when it comes to a way of reaching Nibbana. Think about it.
I will tell you again. You should examine your Faith in science. You will find Science lacking in ways you never thought possible. I think I explained that to you pretty well in the other thread but it is really a sign of fanatisism when you ignore the explanations given to you for your benefit just because you cling to a position that has no real value in it self in this context.
I do not want an arch nemisis.
Good luck to you.
With metta
/Victor
I don't have faith in science. I support Science way of thinking.
If science does not deal with these topics then it is not a part of buddhism. Thanks.
I'm on your side.
The buddha was an agnostic. He respected everyones opinion but at the end of the day he sat down alone and decided to figure it all out by himself.
No longer did he want to eat from anothers plate.
To hold no position but to be open and to explore. That is all buddhism is asking. Each teaching is a raft.
Whether or not a thing exists or not has nothing to do with you. These are just ways to avoid what is.
What is our immediate condition? What do we do about it? How can we help ourselves and others?
Buddhism is about seeing suffering and the cessation of suffering. Everything else is avoidance of this.
quit hogging the thread and bickering.
Personal insults have no place in constructive debate, so name-calling is out, ok?
:om:
/Victor
PS
...but he started it!
DS
http://freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/final6.jpg
I apologized if you believed I was name calling. I was matching a perfect description of Victor. He is a apologist. A person who will quickly defend his or her faith with silly arguments to prove something that has the lacking the evidence to back up that him or her claims.
Then I am done with this thread. If you want to continue victor. PM me.
Technically, agnostic atheist still does not deny. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, supranormal etc. and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity, supranormal, etc is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. When you say "I know that it is false" you remove the agnostic part and are left with just Atheist and that's it.
Additionally you dropped all of my argumentation showing that existence cannot be proved without axioms (of anything).