People who believe in god are broken

[immortal]

...

/ snipped

Ah come on! A quote regarding plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty and you don't even give the source you took it from!

 

It is available here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty and possibly in other places.

 

I didn't claimed others works as mine and I never have. If a work is in quotations then it is understood that its not my works.

[MonDie]

That's not a vision, a hallucination or an epiphany.

 

None of which he claimed it was. He said it was hearsay, as in:

"It's only hearsay. Mark said it to me after he heard it from Sarah, who heard it from Joline."

 

 

historical accounts like such of St. Teresa of Avila are compelling reasons to investigate them seriously and be open to alternative world-views. You don't have to lose your heads for that.

 

How would we go about investigating this supposed occurrence? As far as I know, we have no method for measuring supernatural activity, let alone supernatural activity that occurred in the past.

 

 

might show that humans are truly made in the image of god if they have such powers inherent in them to shatter the whole room.

 

Humans having super powers ≠ Humans were made in the image of God

 

I'm assuming "such powers" are abilities that aren't explained by modern science. However, it would be more reasonable to think physics will explain any such "powers." We have no reason to think a god exists, let alone a reason to think God gives us powers.

 

But that's assuming we even do have "such powers." I would bet MT couldn't pull off a miracle 2% of the time she was asked for one.

She kicked a hole in the door and peered through it. "They've barricaded us inside! MT, I need you to shatter the room like you've never shattered before!"

 

 

 

w00T! 200th post! What do I get?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

 

As I have said many times the wisdom inherent in religion are not so ordinary either so that it deserves intolerance and be dismissed as fictions of a feeble mind.

 

So far you have failed to show how religion is any different than any other belief, and so far you have shown no reason to assume religion is anything but ordinary. I understand that you personally take exception to this but you have shown no reason why you should be granted any special say on this issue...

 

 

 

 

That's not a vision, a hallucination or an epiphany. That's a serious empirical phenomena which deserves further investigation and might show that humans are truly made in the image of god if they have such powers inherent in them to shatter the whole room.

 

Quite the contrary it is nothing more than a story people tell, people tell many stories and the age of the story has no bearing on it's veracity...

 

 

 

I have watched the documentary of the Dover's controversy of evolution vs creationism and the main problem for creationists in accepting evolution by natural selection seems to be it says humans evolved from other primates and a creationist even went on to say that that it was a slap to his face because religion says humans are truly made in the image of god. Its wrong to not to understand evolution by natural selection and also it is wrong to not to understand what is our relationship with god via wisdom literatures and other ways of knowing and present and historical accounts like such of St. Teresa of Avila are compelling reasons to investigate them seriously and be open to alternative world-views. You don't have to lose your heads for that.

 

 

For a historical account to have any meaning at all it has to be confirmed by more than one source and those sources must not be people who have a stake in the account being true...

 

 

 

What you mean to say is we must assume that God does not exist in the absence of evidence. I understand your statement. But as you can see much of the debate is whether these indirect evidences actually do point towards the existence of god or not.

 

 

I agree, that is the cusp of the issue and so far you have failed to show any reason to accept these "indirect evidences" as anything but unconfirmed assertions...

 

 

Do not accept any of my words on faith,

Believing them just because I said them.

Be like an analyst buying gold, who cuts, burns,

And critically examines his product for authenticity.

Only accept what passes the test

By proving useful and beneficial in your life.

The Buddha (Jnanasara-samuccaya)

 

 

I rather like that, it's very much why i do not accept your assertions...

 

 

Do you know what's insulting? Its insulting to equate works of late antiquity which religious scholars dedicate their entire life trying to understand each syllable to works of Harry Potter. That's what insulting is not the truth claim which I made.

 

 

Why does the age of a text have any bearing on the truth of that text? Your religious scholars could be pouring over the ancient equivalent of Harry Potter for all you, they, or the evidence shows...

 

 

Investigate them or critically examine them. The main point which I am arguing here is I doesn't want opinions or statements which has a confirmation bias, I need explanations which can account for these phenomena and the reason why I hold on to this position is simply because I believe such a thorough investigation has not yet happened.

 

You ask for one but you reject any that doesn't confirm your own prejudices, your second demand negates the first... until an investigation agrees with what you want to believe you will always say that it has not been investigated thoroughly enough...

 

I know INow will disagree with me on this here, because he has already decided that we should no longer entertain such beliefs in our society and that religion has been given enough time to prove itself and has been given many such free passes in the past and that's where the main problem lies to me here. Perhaps we should discuss on this more rather than going off topic.

 

 

I agree, we should discuss this more, first you should give us some reason other than your own need to confirm what you want to be true and then we can discuss the empirical evidence, so far i see none...

 

 

You mean I cannot participate in this thread and question the conclusion as a member of sfn?

 

 

Questioning a conclusion is not the same as claiming the person to be a liar...

 

 

Isn't it more likely that they all were able to access a reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to?

 

 

In fact no, I see no reason what so ever for this to be true, it necessitates a completely unsupportable assertion that is complex and unlikely over a far more likely and simple explanation...

 

 

No, they are not. I didn't accused them of dishonesty just because I disagree with them because their frequent analogies and statements do fall in the category of false analogies and overgeneralization which are termed as common forms of intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

 

I'll let someone else judge that, but i suggest you stop to consider if it's a good idea to throw rocks when you live in a glass house...

 

The empirical evidence to support a god hypothesis is evidence like these throughout the history of mankind.

 

"St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her."

 

 

I have to point out that you are assuming this to be true despite the actual assertions by "ancient" Christian scholars that lying to support god is the correct thing to do... did you know that?

 

 

 

If that doesn't sound like empirical then what is empirical evidence, so why don't we investigate such things and study them rather than showing confirmation bias.

 

 

Immortal, please google empirical evidence and get back to us on that...

[MonDie]

I rather like that, it's very much why i do not accept your assertions...

I don't know if it's something Siddhartha actually said, but the irony is that Siddhartha was an atheist.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

We have enough complicated stuff to argue about, that we don't need to argue over misinterpretations on your part, of my theories, based on bad sentence construction on my part. So let me clarify, so you can argue for or against what I meant, not what I said. (you might not have known that I have a joke rule that says you are suppose to listen to what I mean, not what I say.)

 

You said.

"You might notice that nowhere in Dawkins' scale is there any mention of reproductive biology. So this bit of your text "Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. " seems preposterous.

 

It doesn't matter that you think it's unlikely that God has a willy."

 

My statement had meant to say, that humans have a "reason" to have the anatomy that we have. The creator of the universe, would not have those reasons. Our anatomy exists, and has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. Assigning God with human characteristics, as is implied when the phrase "created in his image" is used in the Bible, is a thusly "incorrect" assignment. In the Garden of Eden story, Adam is created in God's image, and Eve is formed out of one of Adams ribs. This makes God a male, and females a subset thereof. Its rather sexist, and says much about the tie-in that Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions have with the Patriarcal societies that they have spawned. Or if you will, says much about how Patriarcal societies tend to put the father in the lead spot. Even the most leadiest spot imaginable.

 

So it would be inappropriate to give the God I imagine a willy, certainly, but likewise inappropriate to give it a human personage at all. After all, the "real" god, is also god of the earthworm, and the rock, the butterfly, rainbow and the quark. All these things were made in its image, or its not the God that created me.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

By the way, I don't think anybody on this thread is being dishonest.

 

 

Thread,

 

Thought of you all, and this thread while trying to grasp the horrific shootings in Newtown CT today. The community came together, as did our nation, as reflected in our father-in-chief's tears and remarks. We all had the same thoughts, the same disbelief, the same horror-anger-grief-dispair and loss. We all need answers for it. We all want to do what ever that might be, so it can not happen again.

 

For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee.

 

It is our commoness that is God. And I do not think anyone broken, to believe in that. In that is our hope, and our answers, and I do not fault the priest or the rabbi for believing in such love. Though I might frame it differently than they.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 15, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

I don't know if it's something Siddhartha actually said, but the irony is that Siddhartha was an atheist.

 

I have had the opportunity to study both these eastern religious traditions as well as science since I hail from the east. Don't make me to show my anger on sfn.

 

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

 

There is nothing wrong in being a secular humanist or claiming oneself to be an atheist but what's inexcusably wrong is to claim oneself to be a Secular Buddhist and distort the views of these traditions and projecting one's own views as views of Buddha.

 

 

Question: Who taught these teachings and where were they first revealed? Were they from the historical Buddha or from the Tibetan tradition?

 

Rinpoche: These are Tibetan teachings, but the source of these teachings is found in the tantras. In the tantras you can find the 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities. You can’t find this complete teaching in the tantra though, but you can recognize deities in specific tantras and know about what is held in the hands and all contents of this teaching. That was taught by the Buddha.

 

- The First Twelve Days of the Bardo by Thrangu Rinpoche Geshe Lharampa

 

When the reality in these religions shatters atheism openly then next try making an appeal to authority, but that doesn't work to hide the ignorance of secular Buddhists.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Explain to me a seeming contradiction in your position.

 

From Wallace's first paragraph.

 

 

"Reputable scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different from the previous takes on these ideas."

 

I take it, you are on Wallace's side, against the errors of Bachelor and Harris, and in support of the Buddah's teachings.

I also take it, that you maintain that the repeating truths, found by the mystics and teachers, reveal an underlying, unwaivering truth of an everlasting and unquestionable nature.

 

If both these takes of your position are correct, one might wonder, how the Buddah was able to find something out about karma and rebirth, that was quite different from previous takes on these ideas. His intellect, his disipline, his insights, his imagination, his esoteric knowledge, was superior to those that came before?

 

If you are to anger at someone who refutes the Buddah, you must be invested in the esoteric imaginary world that the Buddah has constructed, and you trust not the wisdom of those that came before, or after, as to their equal access to the truth.

 

Only the Buddah knows. Only Jesus holds the key. Only believers are on the proper path. Seems to be a repeating pattern.

Seems inconsistent with "ultimate" truth to me.

 

If we are all of the same stuff, if we are all of and in the same reality, which we appear to be, then, I would guess we each should have just about the same standing, in regards to it. No preferencial positions, no insiders and outsiders. We are all, fully vested, from the get go.

 

How can you maintain that you know differently, based on what Buddah said?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 15, 2012 by tar

[PeterJ]

It's quite possible to believe that god is in control of everything through naturalistic methods, it's not God or even religion that opposes science it's creationists who insist that what the bible says has to be true, in effect they claim that either god did things exactly the way that the bible says or there is no god, it's their main claim and it's false. They create the strawman that to believe what science has discovered makes you an atheist, it does not...

Well said. A study of Christianity reveals that this modern dogmatic attitude is quite a recent thing. For many Christians it would be unrigorous to say that God exists, and wildly misleading to say that He created the universe. This subtle view seems quite as far beyond the modern atheist to understand as the modern theist,

 

Tar - good question. "How can you maintain that you know differently, based on what Buddah said?"

 

The answer is that it would be impossible to know anything based on what anyone said. Just as the Buddha says.

Edited December 15, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Explain to me a seeming contradiction in your position.

 

From Wallace's first paragraph.

 

 

"Reputable scholars of Buddhism, both traditional and modern, all agree that the historical Buddha taught a view of karma and rebirth that was quite different from the previous takes on these ideas."

 

I take it, you are on Wallace's side, against the errors of Bachelor and Harris, and in support of the Buddah's teachings.

I also take it, that you maintain that the repeating truths, found by the mystics and teachers, reveal an underlying, unwaivering truth of an everlasting and unquestionable nature.

 

Yes, I am on Wallace's side and yes I maintain your second point as well.

 

If both these takes of your position are correct, one might wonder, how the Buddah was able to find something out about karma and rebirth, that was quite different from previous takes on these ideas. His intellect, his disipline, his insights, his imagination, his esoteric knowledge, was superior to those that came before?

 

 

Actually the core concept is similar and both his previous contemporaries and he accept about karma and rebirth but only there are minor philosophical differences in how they view it but the process and the beliefs are the same.

 

The most fully articulated doctrine of transmigration is found in Hinduism. It does not appear in the earliest Hindu scriptures (the Rig Veda) but was developed at a later period in the Upanishads (c.600 ©). Central to the conception of human destiny after death was the belief that human beings are born and die many times. Souls are regarded as emanations of the divine spirit. Each soul passes from one body to another in a continuous cycle of births and deaths, its condition in each existence being determined by its actions in previous births. Thus, transmigration is closely interwoven with the concept of karma (action), which involves the inevitable working out, for good or ill, of all action in a future existence. The whole experience of life, whether of happiness or sorrow, is a just reward for deeds (good or bad) done in earlier existences. The cycle of karma and transmigration may extend through innumerable lives; the ultimate goal is the reabsorption of the soul into the ocean of divinity whence it came. This union occurs when the individual realizes the truth about the soul and the Absolute (Brahman) and the soul becomes one with Brahman. The Buddhist concept of samsara (a cycle of rebirth) often appears similar. The classical Buddhist doctrine of anatta ( "no soul" ), however, specifically rejects the Hindu view. The Buddhist position on the workings of karma is exceedingly complex.

 

- Transmigration of Souls, Grolier Encyclopedia

Charles W. Ranson,Former Professor of Theology and Ecumenics, Hartford Seminary Foundation, Hartford, Conn.

 

You took me back to my past readings.

 

 

[Karma is a fundamendal metaphysical concept of Buddhism, one The world's great religions. following excerpt from nineteenth-century translation.]

 

KARMA

 

The kinds of karma are those already briefly mentioned, as consisting of the triplet beginning with meritorious karma and the triplet beginning with bodily karma, making six in all.

 

To give them here in full, however, meritorious karma consists of the eight meritorious thoughts which belong to the realm of sensual pleasure and show themselves in alms-giving, keeping the precepts, etc., and of the five meritorious thoughts which belong to the realm of form and show themselves in ecstatic meditation, making thirteen thoughts; demeritorious karma consists of the twelve demeritorious thoughts which show themselves in the taking of life, etc.; and karma leading to immovability consists of the four meritorious thoughts which belong to the realm of formlessness and show themselves in ecstatic meditation. Accordingly these three karmas consist of twenty-nine thoughts.

 

As regards the other three, bodily karma consists of the thoughts of the body, vocal karma of the thoughts of the voice, mental karma of the thoughts of the mind. The object of this triplet is to show the avenues by which meritorious karma, etc., show themselves at the moment of the initiation of karma.

 

For bodily karma consists of an even score of thoughts, namely, of the eight meritorious thoughts which belong to the realm of sensual pleasure and of the twelve demeritorious ones. These by exciting gestures show themselves through the avenue of the body.

 

Vocal karma is when these same thoughts by exciting speech show themselves through the avenue of the voice. The thoughts, however, which belong to the realm of form, are not included, as they do not form a dependence for subsequent consciousness. And the case is the same with the thoughts which belong to the realm of formlessness. Therefore they also are to be excluded from the dependence of consciousness. However, all depend on ignorance.

 

Mental karma, however, consists of all the twenty-nine thoughts, when they spring up in the mind without exciting either gesture or speech.

 

Thus, when it is said that ignorance is the dependence of the karma-triplet consisting of meritorious karma, etc., it is to be understood that the other triplet is also included.

 

But it may be asked, "How can we tell that these karmas are dependent on ignorance?" Because they exist when ignorance exists.

 

For, when a person has not abandoned the want of knowledge concerning misery, etc., which is called ignorance, then by that want of knowledge concerning misery and concerning anteriority, etc., he seizes on the misery of the round of rebirth with the idea that it is happiness and hence begins to perform the threefold karma which is its cause; by that want of knowledge concerning the origin of misery and by being under the impression that thus happiness is secured, he begins to perform karma that ministers to desire, though such karma is really the cause of misery; and by that want of knowledge concerning cessation and the path and under the impression that some particular form of existence will prove to be the cessation of misery, although it really is not so, or that sacrifices, alarming the gods by the greatness of his austerities, and other like procedures are the way to cessation, although they are not such a way,he begins to perform the threefold karma.

 

Moreover, through this non-abandonment of ignorance in respect of the Four Truths, he does not know the fruition of meritorious karma to be the misery it really is, seeing that it is completely overwhelmed with the calamities, birth, old age, disease, death, etc.; and so to obtain it he begins to perform meritorious karma in its three divisions of bodily, vocal, and mental karma, just as a man in love with a heavenly nymph will throw himself down a precipice. When he does not perceive that at the end of that meritorious fruition considered to be such happiness comes the agonizing misery of change and disappointment, he begins to perform the meritorious karma above described, just as a locust will fly into the flame of a lamp, or a man that is greedy after honey will lick the honey-smeared edge of a knife. When he fails to perceive the calamities due sensual gratification and its fruition, and, being under the impression that sensuality is happiness, lives enthralled by his passions, he then begins to perform demeritorious karma through the three avenues, just as a child will play with filth, or one who wishes to die will eat poison. When he does not perceive the misery of the change that takes place in the constituents of being, even in the realm of formlessness, but has a perverse belief in persistence, etc., he begins to perform mental karma that leads to immovability, just as a man who has lost his way will go after a mirage.

 

As, therefore, karma exists when ignorance exists but not when it does not exist, it is to be understood that this karma depends on ignorance. And it has been said as follows:

 

"O priests, the ignorant, uninstructed man performs meritorious karma, demeritorious karma, and karma leading to immovability. But whenever, O priests, he abandons his ignorance and acquires wisdom, he through the fading out of ignorance and the coming into being of wisdom does not even perform meritorious karma."

 

FRUITFUL AND BARREN KARMA

 

I. Fruitful Karma

 

There are three conditions, O priests, under which deeds are produced. And what are the three? Covetousness is a condition under which deeds are produced; hatred is a condition under which deeds are produced; infatuation is a condition under which deeds are produced.

 

When a man's deeds, O priests, are performed through covetousness, arise from covetousness, are occasioned by covetousness, originate in covetousness, wherever his personality may be, there those deeds ripen, and wherever they ripen, there he experiences the fruition of those deeds, be it in the present life, or in some subsequent one.

 

When a man's deeds, O priests, are performed through hatred,... are performed through infatuation, arise from infatuation, are occasioned by infatuation, originate in infatuation, wherever his personality may be, there those deeds ripen, and wherever they ripen, there he experiences the fruition of those deeds, be it in the present life, or in some subsequent one.

 

It is like seed, O priests, that is uninjured, undecayed, unharmed by wind or heat, and is sound, and advantageously sown in a fertile field on well-prepared soil; if then rain falls in due season, then, O priests, will that seed attain to growth, increase, and development. In exactly the same way, O priests, when a man's deeds are performed through covetousness, arise from covetousness, are occasioned by covetousness, originate in covetousness, wherever his personality may be, there those deeds ripen, and wherever they ripen, there he experiences the fruition of those deeds, be it in the present life, or in some subsequent one; when a man's deeds are performed through hatred,... are performed through infatuation, arise from infatuation, are occasioned by infatuation, originate in infatuation, wherever his personality may be, there those deeds ripen, and wherever they ripen, there he experiences the fruition of those deeds, be it in the present life, or in some subsequent one.

 

These, O priests, are the three conditions under which deeds are produced.

 

II. Barren Karma

 

There are three conditions, O priests, under which deeds are produced. And what are the three? Freedom from covetousness is a condition under which deeds are produced; freedom from hatred is a condition under which deeds are produced; freedom from infatuation is a condition under which deeds are produced.

 

When a man's deeds, O priests, are performed without covetousness, arise without covetousness, are occasioned without covetousness, originate without covetousness, then, inasmuch as covetousness is gone, those deeds are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future.

 

When a man's deeds, O priests, are performed without hatred,... are performed without infatuation, arise without infatuation, are occasioned without infatuation, originate without infatuation, then, inasmuch as infatuation is gone, those deeds are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future.

 

It is like seed, O priests, that is uninjured, undecayed, unharmed by wind or heat, and is sound, and advantageously sown; if some one then burn it with fire and reduce it to soot, and having reduced it to soot were then to scatter it to the winds, or throw it into a swift-flowing river, then, O priests, will that seed be abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future. In exactly the same way, O priests, when a man's deeds are performed without covetousness, arise without covetousness, are occasioned without covetousness, originate without covetousness, then, inasmuch as covetousness is gone, those deeds are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future; when a man's deeds are performed without hatred,... without infatuation, arise without infatuation, are occasioned without infatuation, originate without infatuation, then, inasmuch as infatuation is gone, those deeds are abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of the ground like a palmyra-tree, and become non-existent and not liable to spring up again in the future.

 

These, O priests, are the three conditions under which deeds are produced.

 

 

A wise priest knows he now must reap

The fruits of deeds of former births.

For be they many or but few,

Deeds done in cov'tousness or hate,

Or through infatuation's power,

Must bear their needful consequence.

Hence not to cov'tousness, nor hate,

Nor to infatuation's power

The wise priest yields, but knowledge seeks

And leaves the way to punishment.

 

"O priests, if any one says that a man must reap according to his deeds, in that case, O priests, there is no religious life, nor is any opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of misery. But if any one says, O priests, that the reward a man reaps accords with his deeds, in that case, O priests, there is a religious life, and opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of misery.

 

"We may have the case, O priests, of an individual who does some slight deed of wickedness which brings him to hell, or, again, O priests, we may have the case of another individual who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous.

 

"What kind of individual, O priests, is he whose slight deed of wickedness brings him to hell? Whenever, O priests, an individual is not proficient in the management of his body, is not proficient in the precepts, is not proficient in concentration, is not proficient in wisdom, and is limited and bounded, and abides in what is finite and evil: such an individual, O priests, is he whose slight deed of wickedness brings him to hell.

 

"What kind of individual, O priests, is he who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous?--Whenever, O priests, an individual is proficient in the management of his body, is proficient in the precepts, is proficient in concentration, is proficient in wisdom, and is not limited, nor bounded, and abides in the universal: such an individual, O priests, is he who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous....

 

"It is as if, O priests, a man were to throw a lump of salt into the river Ganges. What think ye, O priests? Would now the river Ganges be made salt and undrinkable by the lump of salt?"

 

"Nay, verily, Reverend Sir."

 

"And why not?"

 

"Because, Reverend Sir, the mass of water in the river Ganges is great, and so is not made salt and undrinkable by the lump of salt."

 

"In exactly the same way, O priests, we may have the case of an individual who does some slight deed of wickedness which brings him to hell; or, again, O priests, we may have the case of another individual who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous.

 

"We may have, O priests, the case of one who is cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence; or, again, O priests, we may have the case of one who is not cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence.

 

"Who, O priests, is cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence?

 

"Whenever, O priests, any one is poor, needy, and indigent: he, O priests, is cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence.

 

"Who, O priests, is not cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence?

 

"Whenever, O priests, any one is rich, wealthy, and affluent: he, O priests, is not cast into prison for a half-penny, for a penny, or for a hundred pence.

 

"In exactly the same way, O priests, we may have the case of an individual who does some slight deed of wickedness which brings him to hell; or, again, O priests, we may have the case of another individual who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous.

 

"Just as, O priests, a butcher and killer of rams will smite one man if he steal a ram, and will bind him, and burn him, and wreak his pleasure on him; and another who steals a ram, he will not attack, nor bind him, nor burn him, nor wreak his pleasure on him.

 

"Who is he, O priests, whom a butcher and killer of rams will smite if he steal a ram, and will bind him, and burn him, and wreak his pleasure on him?

 

"Whenever, O priests, the robber is poor, needy, and indigent: him, O priests, a butcher and killer of rams will smite if he steal a ram, and will bind him, and burn him, and wreak his pleasure on him.

 

"Who is he, O priests, whom a butcher and killer of rams will not smite if he steal a ram, nor bind him, nor burn him, nor wreak his pleasure on him?

 

"Whenever, O priests, the robber is rich, wealthy, and affluent, a king, or a king's minister: him, O priests, a butcher and killer of rams will not smite if he steal a ram, nor bind him, nor burn him, nor wreak his pleasure on him. On the contrary, he will stretch out his joined palms, and make supplication, saying, 'Sir, give me the ram, or the price of the ram.'

 

"In exactly the same way, O priests, we may have the case of an individual who does some slight deed of wickedness which brings him to hell; or, again, O priests, we may have the case of another individual who does the same slight deed of wickedness, and expiates it in the present life, though it may be in a way which appears to him not slight but grievous.

 

"O priests, if any one were to say that a man must reap according to his deeds, in that case, O priests, there is no religious life, nor is any opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of misery. But if any one says, O priests, that the reward a man reaps accords with his deeds, in that case, O priests, there is a religious life, and opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of misery."

 

- Grolier Encyclopedia

 

Honestly speaking both his contemporaries of Hinduism and Buddha accept this but differ philosophically which we cannot decide who is right or wrong without we ourselves knowing the ultimate truth.

 

If you are to anger at someone who refutes the Buddah,

 

No, I welcome someone if he refutes Buddha, if he calls himself an atheist and says I disagree with Buddha for so and so reasons then I deeply respect his position because he has genuine reasons to discard the doctrine of Buddhism but what I don't like are near enemies who call themselves Buddhists and only accept those things in the religion which suits them and reject the other and even go on to put forward it as the orthodox traditional view and go by prejudices, that's double standards, its highly unacceptable.

 

“If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are unlikely to satisfy man’s quest for meaning. … It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions – Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber – who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man’s own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth.”

 

- Hugh Heclo, former professor of government at Harvard University.

 

I like to keep the debate between the traditional view which is supported by scholarly consensus vs atheists and I don't like someone undermining the traditional view by putting forward his own views as views of Shankara or Buddha which leads atheists to say "even theists don't agree to a common definition of god" and the entire discussion will be unworthy of debate. How much scientists will be angry if someone misrepresents evolution by natural selection?

 

you must be invested in the esoteric imaginary world that the Buddah has constructed, and you trust not the wisdom of those that came before, or after, as to their equal access to the truth.

 

Only the Buddah knows. Only Jesus holds the key. Only believers are on the proper path. Seems to be a repeating pattern.

Seems inconsistent with "ultimate" truth to me.

 

If we are all of the same stuff, if we are all of and in the same reality, which we appear to be, then, I would guess we each should have just about the same standing, in regards to it. No preferencial positions, no insiders and outsiders. We are all, fully vested, from the get go.

 

How can you maintain that you know differently, based on what Buddah said?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

Q: Is the process of bardo and rebirth the same for all human beings regardless of whether they have Vajrayana training or not?

 

A: Yes, everybody goes through this process, whether they are Buddhist or not. All sentient beings take birth. They all have five aggregates. They must have parents to contribute the two elements and these elements are going to dissolve at death. Whether Buddhist or non-buddhist, earth dissolves into water, water evaporates into fire, and all physical systems degenerate. The details of the visionary sequences may vary according to one's beliefs, but basically everybody will have similar experiences. According to the Vajrayana teachings, the bardo visions are reflections of your mental state, so the forms and images do not always

have to appear in the same way for everybody. There may be differences as to the color and the shape of the visions, but the main thing is to recognize them as projections of your own consciousness. Therefore in The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Guru Padmasambhava repeats, "Do not be afraid of your own visions. Don't be

afraid when the wrathful deities appear. Do not be distracted. Recognize them as your own mind forms." He repeats that again and again throughout these teachings. This is the basic message, the main point.

 

- A modern commentary on Karma Lingpa's Zhi-khro

teachings on the peaceful and wrathful deities

by Rinpoche

[John Cuthber]

John Cuthber,

 

We have enough complicated stuff to argue about, that we don't need to argue over misinterpretations on your part, of my theories, based on bad sentence construction on my part. So let me clarify, so you can argue for or against what I meant, not what I said. (you might not have known that I have a joke rule that says you are suppose to listen to what I mean, not what I say.)

 

You said.

"You might notice that nowhere in Dawkins' scale is there any mention of reproductive biology. So this bit of your text "Does not seem to me, that it is likely that there is a "being" with an anatomy such as ours, which has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. " seems preposterous.

 

 

It doesn't matter that you think it's unlikely that God has a willy."

 

My statement had meant to say, that humans have a "reason" to have the anatomy that we have. The creator of the universe, would not have those reasons. Our anatomy exists, and has evolved to exist and procreate on this Earth. Assigning God with human characteristics, as is implied when the phrase "created in his image" is used in the Bible, is a thusly "incorrect" assignment. In the Garden of Eden story, Adam is created in God's image, and Eve is formed out of one of Adams ribs. This makes God a male, and females a subset thereof. Its rather sexist, and says much about the tie-in that Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions have with the Patriarcal societies that they have spawned. Or if you will, says much about how Patriarcal societies tend to put the father in the lead spot. Even the most leadiest spot imaginable.

 

So it would be inappropriate to give the God I imagine a willy, certainly, but likewise inappropriate to give it a human personage at all. After all, the "real" god, is also god of the earthworm, and the rock, the butterfly, rainbow and the quark. All these things were made in its image, or its not the God that created me.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

So, why pick on Dawkins?

In referring to God as "He", all he did was follow a rather arbitrary (and sexist) convention that the God squad dreamed up.

 

The real problem isn't with Dawkins' scale is it?

The problem lies with the patriarchal monotheist churches.

You could simplify Dawkins' stance to say that he would be happy if religion went away, and that he is striving towards that.

If he were to succeed then the sexist and absurdly anthropomorphic descriptions of God would go away too.

[MonDie]

There is nothing wrong in being a secular humanist or claiming oneself to be an atheist but what's inexcusably wrong is to claim oneself to be a Secular Buddhist and distort the views of these traditions and projecting one's own views as views of Buddha.

 

I didn't read the entire article because it is long, but it doesn't seem to say Buddha wasn't an atheist. It says he wasn't a materialist, but I wasn't saying he was a materialist.

 

To ignore the most compelling evidence of what the Buddha taught and to replace that by assertions that run counter to such evidence is indefensible. And when those secular, atheistic assertions just happen to correspond to the materialistic assumptions of modernity, it is simply ridiculous to attribute them to the historical Buddha.

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

 

I tried to find the specific quote in which he says there are no gods, but I could not find it. However, after a little looking, it looks like Siddhartha said some seemingly contradictory things about this issue.

 

Anyway, I'm not a Buddhist. When I was a small child, I breifly learned about Buddhism and called myself a Buddhist. That's all. The books I read might have had a different leaning because they were on Zen Buddhism.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

Do you think the way immortal continues to misinterpret people and mischaracterize their position has anything to do with him believing in god(s), that perhaps the way he thinks has been impacted by that and is causing the confusion?

[John Cuthber]

I believe that his continued refusal to accept the truth as supported by evidence* is consistent with his religious belief and I also the either or both of these could be considered evidence that he is (in the sense intended in this thread) "broken".

 

* specifically his continued assertion that iNow, and possibly others, are dishonest when he can not possibly know if that is the case or not.

[MonDie]

Do you think the way immortal continues to misinterpret people and mischaracterize their position has anything to do with him believing in god(s), that perhaps the way he thinks has been impacted by that and is causing the confusion?

 

A person's belief formation process will influence what beliefs they hold. I'm not sure if it works the other way around.

 

In other words, people believe in gods because of certain irrational modes of thought, but believing in a god doesn't necessarily make someone think more irrationally than they otherwise would have.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[tar]

 

Yes, I am on Wallace's side and yes I maintain your second point as well.

 

 

Actually the core concept is similar and both his previous contemporaries and he accept about karma and rebirth but only there are minor philosophical differences in how they view it but the process and the beliefs are the same.

 

 

You took me back to my past readings.

 

 

 

Honestly speaking both his contemporaries of Hinduism and Buddha accept this but differ philosophically which we cannot decide who is right or wrong without we ourselves knowing the ultimate truth.

 

 

No, I welcome someone if he refutes Buddha, if he calls himself an atheist and says I disagree with Buddha for so and so reasons then I deeply respect his position because he has genuine reasons to discard the doctrine of Buddhism but what I don't like are near enemies who call themselves Buddhists and only accept those things in the religion which suits them and reject the other and even go on to put forward it as the orthodox traditional view and go by prejudices, that's double standards, its highly unacceptable.

 

“If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are unlikely to satisfy man’s quest for meaning. … It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions – Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber – who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man’s own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth.”

 

- Hugh Heclo, former professor of government at Harvard University.

 

I like to keep the debate between the traditional view which is supported by scholarly consensus vs atheists and I don't like someone undermining the traditional view by putting forward his own views as views of Shankara or Buddha which leads atheists to say "even theists don't agree to a common definition of god" and the entire discussion will be unworthy of debate. How much scientists will be angry if someone misrepresents evolution by natural selection?

 

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

Immortal,

 

Well that is all rather complicated, and no one point can be taken from it. I am constantly aware of a major deficiency in the logic of charma. If a never ending cycle of rebirth and death is afoot, then THIS life will not possibly be the defining moment. A reabsorbtion into the divine, now, today or tomorrow, of TAR is not going to happen. My "separate" soul is paying for or being rewarded for previous deeds, and is sowing the seeds for future rewards and punishments. So I am precluded by the imagined process of such soul continuity from ever reaching the end, today, or tomorrow. As questioned by me, in my thread on "why must the end be near, for religious people" this NEED is obviously not going to be fulfilled, under the plan, so why trust the plan and consider it the truth.

 

My personal take is that we are already absorbed, already 100% united with God, and our separateness in THIS life is our actual reality, our actual job, our individual soul's only glimpse. In this take you can only be you, because you ARE you. When you die, you are no longer a separate entity, and for all intents and purposes can consider yourself reabsorbed into the divine, with no distinctions. But as of now, to be sentient, you must be separate. There is not a way to be a separate entity, except to be aware of being separate. Thus the goal is not to die, and to enjoy THIS life, and make it possible for others to do the same. And there is no truth, but figurative truth in believing in 42 gods. It is just as true that there are only 4. The father, the mother, the sibling and the me. Figuratively speaking you can frame it, all sorts of "true" ways. But what matters at all, to any of us, is THIS life, in which we are us. And regardless of the religious "reasons" for doing such, it seems to me most reasonable to do the best job I can, at being me. With the rewards and punishments being reaped as TAR, for TAR and by TAR. And for TAR's consciousness, things will be much the same, as they were for me, before I was born, after I die. What counts is how my deeds contribute to or depreciate from OUR existence. Because I am already fully vested in the thing.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, why pick on Dawkins?

In referring to God as "He", all he did was follow a rather arbitrary (and sexist) convention that the God squad dreamed up.

 

The real problem isn't with Dawkins' scale is it?

The problem lies with the patriarchal monotheist churches.

You could simplify Dawkins' stance to say that he would be happy if religion went away, and that he is striving towards that.

If he were to succeed then the sexist and absurdly anthropomorphic descriptions of God would go away too.

 

 

 

John Cuthber,

 

Ok, the descriptions are at fault. Which might suggest there is a proper description. That is all I am suggesting. I pick on everybody, theist and atheist alike if I think they think something that does not make sense to me. And hold in the background, the possibility that there is a referent to which a proper description is due. It would be the referent that people would believe in, anyway, not the description.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inow,

 

 

 

Why do you think people in Newtown flocked to the church for a candlelight vigil, and not a school, or town hall?

 

That is, would their faith in God, be considered ill-advised, in this instance, in your opinion?

 

Would it be a sign of brokeness?

 

Is the role the church plays in times like this, not evidence that our faith in each other, and our faith in God are somewhat intertwined? Intertwined enough, to not easily separate the two, and call one unbroken, and the other broken?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I say that, because I know I will be at a traditional Christmas gathering tonight, hosted by a believer, and we will all be holding hands in a giant circuit before the meal, and her son in law will offer a prayer, for our blessings and friendships and rememberance of the close that we lost this year...and no doubt some words about the events of a town, not far away. And God will be referenced and I will not be dishonest in my inclusion in the circuit.

Edited December 15, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

Why do you think people in Newtown flocked to the church for a candlelight vigil, and not a school, or town hall?

 

That is, would their faith in God, be considered ill-advised, in this instance, in your opinion?

 

I think their faith is mostly irrelevant to the situation, and that the power of the response is from being around fellow humans who care about one another.

 

Sure, some people probably find solace in the myth and fairy tale of it all, and most people will say they obtain strength from their belief, but IMO the true healing comes from the support given by the community, regardless of what the central organizing principle of that community is (in this case, the church... but it could equally well be a sports team or book club).

 

Being around people who care is what makes tragedy like this easier to handle. If it were the faith, then people wouldn't need to bother coming together at a church or candle light vigil since they could equally well pray at home by themselves.

 

I'd rather not use this thread to discuss the recent shootings, though. If this line of discussion is something people are interested in pursuing, perhaps it can be done in another thread.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Understoood. Just let me make a slight correction. Not only will God be referenced, "he" will be addressed in the prayer, and his blessings will be requested. And still, I will not be dishonest to be in the circuit.

 

I would not use the word irrelevant. We will have to talk about that.

 

Regards, TAR

[John Cuthber]

Some of the people of Newtown flocked together in the place where they worship the God who could have stopped the killings, but didn't.

 

Sounds pretty broken to me.

[immortal]

I believe that his continued refusal to accept the truth as supported by evidence* is consistent with his religious belief

 

Yeah, quite a reasonable belief based on facts established from experiments and not devoid of evidence.

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

 

- Bernard D'Espagnat

 

and I also the either or both of these could be considered evidence that he is (in the sense intended in this thread) "broken".

 

* specifically his continued assertion that iNow, and possibly others, are dishonest when he can not possibly know if that is the case or not.

 

Its obvious that they are since I have been saying from the beginning that things are not as simple as that especially when the philosophical doctrine of a hypercosmic God which resides at the kernel of all religions is what contemporary physics is also pointing to which is testimony to the fact that religious traditional people are neither worshipping a unicorn or puff the magic dragon. One doesn't need extra-ordinary evidence to show the dreams of fantasy of false analogies which you guys are living in.

 

[Moontanman]

 

Yeah, quite a reasonable belief based on facts established from experiments and not devoid of evidence.

 

Immortal, please show us these facts established from experiments, show us the experiments, show us the data! So far you have failed to do anything other than show your faith in what you assert.

 

 

 

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

 

- Bernard D'Espagnat

 

Yet another appeal to authority with a meaningless quote about emotions and feelings...

 

 

Its obvious that they are since I have been saying from the beginning that things are not as simple as that especially when the philosophical doctrine of a hypercosmic God which resides at the kernel of all religions is what contemporary physics is also pointing to which is testimony to the fact that religious traditional people are neither worshipping a unicorn or puff the magic dragon. One doesn't need extra-ordinary evidence to show the dreams of fantasy of false analogies which you guys are living in.

 

 

 

Your interpretation of contemporary physics is not evidence of god, you have shown no kernel of truth in religion, and your claim of false analogy is a fantasy...

[MonDie]

 

Yeah, quite a reasonable belief based on facts established from experiments and not devoid of evidence.

 

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

 

- Bernard D'Espagnat

 

 

I have problems with capitalism too. What's your point?

If believing in a god is associated with a desirable state, then it is the desirable state that is of primary importance, not the belief in a god.

[immortal]

Do you think the way immortal continues to misinterpret people and mischaracterize their position has anything to do with him believing in god(s), that perhaps the way he thinks has been impacted by that and is causing the confusion?

 

Its not my belief in gods which led me to this conclusion, its this conclusion which led me to believe in gods.

[Moontanman]

Has anyone else noticed the similarity of Immortals stance and that of conspiracy theorists? He accepts nothing that disagrees with him and continues to cite misrepresented scientific theories as support for his position no matter how many times he is told they do not support his own biases and his constant appeals to authority to make everyone else look as though they are ignorant of the "real" evidence...

[MonDie]

After reading a little more, I'm realizing how little is actually known about "Siddhartha."

There's a good chance that I was attributing atheism to him on the basis of a quote that was innaccurate. We basically can't be certain about any of the quotes attributed to him.

 

Its not my belief in gods which led me to this conclusion, its this conclusion which led me to believe in gods.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Your conclusions about people and their positions led you to beleive in God? No, that wouldn't make any sense. Hmm...

Edited December 16, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

 

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Your conclusions about people and their positions led you to beleive in God? No, that wouldn't make any sense. Hmm...

 

When I was 16 I was told that the biggest mystery facing biology today is this: What is consciousness?

 

Questions which atheistic scientists sidelined and ignored.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUXhKmiJQ10

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7G6DgP9Zfg

 

Rather than putting forward such crazy ideas if scientists study religion then they will find the answer.

 

 

“The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West.”

(Source: WHAT IS LIFE? By Erwin Schrödinger Pg. Cambridge University Press)

 

“There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction… The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad.”

(Source: Mein Leben, Meine Weltansicht [My Life, World View] (1961) Chapter 4)

 

What did the people of Upanishads believed in?

 

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

 

III-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. ‘How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), ‘As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – three hundred and three, and three thousand and three’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Thirty-three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘six’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Two’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One and a half’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three ?’

 

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, ‘these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.’ ‘Which are those thirty-three ?’ ‘The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas – these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three’.

 

III-ix-3: ‘Which are the Vasus /’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars – these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.’

 

III-ix-4: ‘Which are the Rudras ?’ ‘The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one’s relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.’

 

III-ix-5: ‘Which are the Adityas ?’ ‘The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.’

 

III-ix-6: ‘Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati ?’ ‘The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati’. ‘Which is the cloud ?’ ‘Thunder (strength).’ ‘Which is the sacrifice ?’ ‘Animals’.

 

III-ix-7: ‘Which are the six (gods) ?’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven – these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.’

 

III-ix-8: ‘Which are the three gods ?’ ‘These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.’ ‘Which are the two gods ?’ ‘Matter and the vital force.’ ‘Which are the one and a half ?’ ‘This (air) that blows.’

 

III-ix-9: ‘Regarding this some say, ‘Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half ?’ ‘ It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory’. ‘Which is the one god ?’ ‘The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).’

 

 

So the questions which atheistic scientists sidelined and the double standards that people who think that Schroedinger is there hero showed led me to conclude if Schroedinger needs to be right then it is inevitable that these gods need to exist.