Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
Printable View
Ah...there's the rub...everything that the theory 'predicts' hasn't been proven to be true. That is a bold faced lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
I'm so glad Wyatt joined this discussion.
Yes...Wyatt has offered up more unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's the same old song and dance. It has drawn us away from discussion of how religion gives meaning to life. Another way to be intolerant to some people's beliefs. Why should it matter if ONE person finds meaning due to religion, even though you may not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
This kind of thinking further demonstrates the fanaticism taking place in America, as I said. Christians will argue that extremism isn't happening, or that it's only in isolated cases, because they have no awareness of how openly hostile or obstinate they are when confronted with information that contradicts that the events in the bible are factual accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Until we can somehow transport fossils and mass volumes of texts through single message board posts, Bien, you'll have to get your extensive education from an accredited learning institution off site. You don't want one, though. You seem to be fighting for the sake of fighting. I can never explain to you how disturbing it is.
Are you actually arguing that the basic predictions of the heliocentric theory have not been proved? That is what this phrase related to in my message.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
As for actual evidence: Your request is silly. It is like asking someone to provide evidence that the earth revolves around the sun. Just go and get any one of many basic texts on evolutionary biology and read it. Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote a good one. The basic science has been firmly established for well over a century! A great read that is fascinating and for general audiences is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett. This is from a philosophy-of-science perspective in case you are interested in the state of current thinking on evolutionary theory from many perspectives.
Your unfamiliarity with the scientific definition of the term "theory" is not unsubstantiated rhetoric. This was the principal point of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
If you don't think evolutionary theory is relevant to the thread then don't bring it up. I was just responding to what you had written. It was a short correction of your terminology and could just have been graciously accepted so we could move on.
You never discussed how religion gives meaning to life. I believe that you want to believe it does. Your arguments seem to be more directed at convincing yourself than demonstrating how or why Christianity offers anything good or reasonable. What exactly is your intent? Do you feel repressed? Do you think your faith is threatened by science? Is your faith not adaptable to newer information than the stuff dreamt up by an ancient telephone game? Genuinely curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I am not sure why your finding the meaning of life in religion requires you to be hostile to scientific thinking. Many people find a comfortable accommodation between scientific and religious viewpoints. Does evolutionary theory contradict some fundamental tenet of your religious beliefs? Many have accepted evolutionary processes as the means by which God orchestrates his creation of life. For an omniscient and omnipotent God, willing the Big Bang to happen as it did would entail the intentional creation of mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I hate to interrupt your discussion about evolution, but could someone answer my question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I was wondering too. I'm starting to think waging war on reason is the Christian meaning of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Sleepywitch, while I recognize you're responding directly to Bien's comments, I would like to point out that not all religions are focused on the afterlife or think this life is bad. Judaism is a classic example of a religion that values this life more than it puts any emphasis on an afterlife.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I think we are in a very good position in many countries today. The development of pain relief, for example, has had a great effect upon the quality of many people's lives. In the UK, the NHS is free, so most maladies can be reasonably dealt with. People are living longer. I think the latest is that 1/4 of the people born today in the UK will live to 100 or more. Work in the home and in industry is not a crushing fatigue. We have free education, and oportunities that virtually none of our ancestors ever had. I'm from the working class/ underclass, but I have been to university and become a professional. The food is generally good, and hygiene standards mean it doesn't kill us as often as it probably did. We have holidays and leisure to pursue our interests and broaden our minds.
You're right, Sleepywitch. Life is not so bad for us - now.
Here's the Buddhist take on it though. Unfortunately, all the good things will come to pass. We will live longer, but instead of dying of the diseases our ancestors did, we will succumb to cancer, heart failure etc etc. Our longevity may merely mean that we prolong the unproductive and reliant period of our lives. Our wealth could change at any time. Who knows where the credit problems will leave us? With no jobs and mass demonstrations/ civil unrest etc etc. No-one knows if war will erupt again in Europe. will unemploymet and racial tensions from economic migration cause it? I hope not, but nothing is ultimately certain.Today's stability could turn into tomorrow's chaos.
On a personal level, it can be easy to make assumptions about our stability. But are partners trustworthy? is our health stable. Are our family members ok? Lots of bad things can happen, and can affect our happiness, personal stability and mental health.
So what does Buddhism offer to us in a situation that could go either way?
It offers the opportunity to study the mind and gain a certain control over it. It has methods for reducing anger - which might erupt in the face of negative conditions - it puts problems into perspective by offering methods to calm the mind and reflect skillfully upon the things life throws at us.
Of course this is on a mundane and personal level. The Buddha's path also offers full Elightenment. This is because the world we live in is seen as being full of suffering. This is not to say that we can't enjoy the good conditions we have now, but the rather radical view is that any current happiness merely increases our attachment, our clinging to certain conditions which causes us great pain. For example our next door neighbour is becoming increasingly incapable of looking after himself after living in the same house for fifty years or so. ow will he feel about having to go and live in a nursing home? The greatest attachment is, of course life ended by our death. We don't think of it when we're young, but in fact the reality of it - the utter finality of it, it is said, doesn't really hit a person until close to the end. All the reflections such as - what did I do with my life, has it been well lived, why didn't I do this that etc etc will come back to haunt us if in fact we haven't lived well.
So the path offers a preparation for death too - death is a reality which may mean we miss our next meal if we are really unlucky.
But more than this, the path offers a way to live a good - even skillful life that will carry a being on into a positive future rebirth as a human rather than an animal or worse. This is the aspect of Buddhism that posits Karma and reincarnation at its core. It teaches that actually feathering your own nest at the expense of others - due to karma - leads to more suffering. it teaches that compassion and empathy actually pay, and that our more positive aspects are not only good for us as an individual, but for society.
I hope you don't think I'm preaching, but this is the rather inadequate explanation of the Buddhist view. A way of coping with inevitable suffering and ultimately escaping it.
The religious do not value life, the religious value eternity.
Are you referring to the Christian groups mentioned earlier? It really has no meaning in the context of eastern religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Very little of what G L Wilson says has meaning outside of the context of his own head, but anyway, like I already noted it doesn't really much make sense in relationship to Judaism either. It mostly speaks to Christianity and Islam, I would think. And even then, I don't think the statement is true. I know plenty of Christians and Muslims who have a zest for life and their families and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes - I do too.
I just don't want to be despised by a large group of people. In the churches I went to growing up (more than ten), the major mission was to convert non-believers, to save them from eternal damnation. When people learn that I don't want to be converted, the reaction is sadness or anger. I don't want to feel that directed at me. I don't want it directed at others. I hope there will be a shift in my country toward love and acceptance.
I can understand that. I have never pushed others to believe my views, but I would like people to respect my views. I do defend my own beliefs though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
It seems that we both want the same thing. I want to be liked and accepted, but when people imply that if I believe in God and creation then I must be unintelligent or crazy, it seems that they are doing to me exactly what you don't want to be done to you.
Does that make sense?
Generally speaking, all religions dismiss life as corrupt and without value but it is really religion that is corrupt and without value.
This statement is totally untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
That is your belief, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I would think that is what most people want, religious or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Don't bother. He is just repeating the same comments that were already challenged and discredited by subsequent comments and hoping if he repeats himself multiples time it will somehow become true. His comment is a textbook Strawman. He is making a claim about ALL religions (in general), despite three people from three different religions in this thread saying that they don't see the world like that. Like I said earlier, "Very little of what G L Wilson says has meaning outside of the context of his own head." This continues to prove the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I agree, but I can't say I'll ever support theism being taught to secular kids in public elementary schools, or religion in general becoming too much a part of government. That being said, it comes into question why I can't or won't just abandon my education and philosophies and embrace Christianity as the ONE true answer to life's problems. My answers are not well received.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I think at this point I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, so we can reach a peaceful accord. For that reason, I am glad we have had this discussion. Unfortunately, my family and friends will never feel the empathy that you and I have managed to feel. Baby steps to progress, as they say.
What exactly are we moving towards, peace and understanding? Give me a break! There is no peace with them, they only understand war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
G L, at some point the argument becomes a waste of energy. If atheists ever start their own country, I'll be right there. America doesn't work for me. I need to surround myself with like-minded people. At this point, I have nothing more to contribute to the conversation here. I still appreciate the poetry and creative works of the opponents of my philosophies, so in the interest of continuing to enjoy these forums, I'm exiting on a happy nice note. Peace is not the same as complacency, do not imagine my principles have changed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I would actually agree with NOT teaching theism in the school. The problem would quickly become, Which form of theism to teach? I don't see a problem with a class that presents the world religions, and while Christianity should be a part of that, I would not want it to have any more weight. However, I don't think that we should be teaching that evolution is a fact either. Just because there are some who believe it is a fact, there are some of us that believe that creation is a fact. I also agree that we should not implement religion into the government, but to what degree would you take that? Should prayer be generally banned even though there is a local group where 98% of the individuals are Christian and want a prayer? There are Christians who wish to worship in a manner that is different than how I prefer to worship, but when it occurs in a public setting, I respectfully tolerate their ways. But it seems that by banning any aspect of religion, mention of God, or considerations as such, that the atheist individuals get their preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Concerning legislation however, one should consider that there can't be a complete absolution against religion. When does atheism become a religion of it's own? Most atheist strongly deny that it can be, but I disagree. There aren't any easy answers, but if we work together there can be workable compromises.
Peace be with you, Varenne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
Don't worry, you're not preaching. I think some aspects of Buddhism are compatible with Stoicism, which I have been following for a while. Stoics don't believe in reincarnation or life after death, but they basically say that good and evil only refer to your own moral character and not to things outside yourself. So things like poverty, ill health, enslavement etc, which are generally considered as bad by most people, are actually not evil, because they don't change who you are (unless you let them). Stoicism teaches us not to fret about things that are beyond our control anyway and only try to change things inside ourselves. Because they don't believe in life after death, you should live everyday in such a way that if you were to die suddenly, you're soul would be pure. As for misfortunes and death, they teach us to abstract from ourselves and not be unduly surprised or feel hard done by when things happen to us that can happen to anyone. E.g. everybody dies eventually, so why should you or I be an exception. Also, Marcus Aurelius says that human history is just a serious of repetitions and even if we were to live for thousands of years, we wouldn't miss anything new. Epictetus says that everyone has to die and it won't get any better by bawling about it. Basically, if you see death as an evil and you then wail about it you're adding another evil to it by making yourself miserable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
That's what I don't like about the Christian and similar religions: they tell us that certain things are evil just so that they can provide comfort for a problem that we wouldn't even have without them. If we stopped judging these things as evil, we wouldn't need comforting and might actually get down to more practical things and make a difference in this life rather than waiting for God to sort everything out for us.
Yes there are some similarities, though there are many differences reincarnation and its partner Karma being 2 very important ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
There is also an extensive system of training the mind in order to increase virtuous thoughts and train youself out of negative thoughts and therefore actions. the reason for this is due to Karma - creating positive rather than negative karma. It also demonstrates that Buddhisma is not deterministic - as stoicism is- people can change themelves for the better - there's no excuse in genetics or some solid state psychology or some pre-determined divine wish. It's all down to the individual. For me, that makes Buddhism a very social religion - it encourages community spirit, charity and taking responsibility.
Oh no - I'm on the soapbox again.
In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
you said bible etc. but if you read quran you will find a lot of arguments and promised not for after death but here in this world. bible is not like quran. Quran says like at many places there would be no fear and frustration who become the friend of Allah and not freind of devil. here in this world its the biggest present of Lord to give u a state of mind where there is no greif no fear and no frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
for me as i found Allah through religion islam gives meaning here and hereafter. but unfortunately, hardly i can see a true follower of islam, they have been divided in groups. and in quran allah dont accept them as muslims. i can say for sure i m not in any party or group within islam. if i followed my parents or my forefathers i couldnt get that sate of mind, i directly connected with allah and His prophet inside and get help from both from outside (qaran and sunnah). i m enjoying that state of mind ( well not fully as there are uncountable grades and i m beginner but i can compare my early life with this one which i adopt since hardly few years and there is an amazing difference).
this state of mind is not only for individuall if a society apply the true essence of islam then it can enjoy as a whole. as there was back to 14 centuries. i cant explain everything here due to shortage of time. but again this state of mind is the greatest gift of God in this world, in which there is no greif no frustration no fear.
Interesting. Who predetermines the things that happen to a person in Stoicism?Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Fate/ the cosmos/ some pantheistic deity. The Stoics did believe in some sort of god(s) but it's not really a person/ superhuman being like in the Bible but something that is part of all of us and we are all part of. I suppose one can still be a Stoic and atheist at the same time if one decides to attribute the bad things that happen to one to chance or Nature or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
That's very interesting. Thanks for the explanation, usman.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts containing such remarks will be removed without further notice.
Meaning is a reading, it registers or it does not.
God has spoken, and we must listen?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I see. The system in Budhism is that having had countless lives - as animals, humans, Gods etc, then a vast store of positive and negative karma has developed for each being. The thinking is that we suffer because we make the conditions for suffering for ourselves by commiting selfish acts in the ignorent view that it will bestow happiness, whereas it actually promises the results of negative actions - more suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Although we have this store, what actually arises depends upon what we nurture for ourselves in the long run - it's not an instant thing happening in this life, but over the next few lives. That's why death is seen as important - the nurturing of a positive mind at death in order to create the conditions for a positive future life. But to do that you must have trained yourself to be positive, to nurture compassion etc. It's not something that can be turned on and off. Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.
It makes sense that enlightened people not only benefit themselves but also those around them. I'd rather be around compassionate (enlightened) people than non-compassionate ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
You mentioned that "you must have trained yourself to be positive". What sort of training do you go through? What comes to mind as possible training is what Eknath Easwaran mentions in his books (http://www.easwaran.org/), but that is more Hinduism than Buddhism. Essentially it is mantra recitation, meditation on memorized passages, spiritual reading, moving slowly, being part of a community, etc.
It's meditation and practising the things learned in meditation. First it's getting to know how the mind works, and observing our motivations. You would focus on somthing that needs improving like anger, as an obvious one. It's not easy, but by meditating upon the harm anger causes and then the antidote - patience - you gradually become more aware of what happening to you when you become angry, and the idea is to snuff it out before it takes a hold. As we all know, anger is very difficult to control, but meditation gives you a little bit of reflective space to try to control it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
This is just the beginning though. Once you've improved your self control, then you begin to try to improve you kindness and compassion. It seems a little artificial at first, but with practice, it becomes a more genuine experience. It's based upon the idea that the mind is not a static, unmoving thing, otherwise there would be no possibility of improving one's mind, but is constantly changing. My friend has been a longstanding practitioner, and I have noticed the change in him.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg though. The way I've put it is very matter of fact, but there is a spiritual element to it as well - offerings, prayers and mantras as you said. I'm not very familiar with Hindu methods though. :D
“When*ever I talk about using the mantram to trans*form fear and anger, peo*ple nod approv*ingly as long as I am talk*ing about fear. After all, no one wants to be fear*ful; no one wants to worry. But the nods of approval often stop when I ask peo*ple to repeat the mantram in moments of anger. ‘You’re not ask*ing us to repress anger?’ they ask. ‘Isn’t it bet*ter to express anger than to repress it?’ This is a legit*i*mate ques*tion, but it is based on the assump*tion that we have only two choices where anger is con*cerned: expres*sion or repres*sion. Either way, anger even*tu*ally works against us, under*min*ing our rela*tion*ships, our secu*rity, and even our health. But there is a third alter*na*tive: we can trans*form anger, through the rep*e*ti*tion of the mantram. Anger is power, and the mantram can trans*form this neg*a*tive power into its pos*i*tive coun*ter*part, which is compassion.”
The site is interesting YesNo. I copied this paragraph. Our approach is initially different, as I put above, but eventually you get to Tantra - (absolutely nothing to do with the common conception of Tantric sex) - where a negative emotion like anger is transformed into positive enrgy. This is taught in Mahayana Buddhism, but is an advanced practice which needs the close guidance of a qualified teacher. Mantras are part of it, but also other advanced practices.
I don't know what the asterisks are, but it still seems readable.
Dull your brain if you wish, it's not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem