True atheists?

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You are Buddhist. You make that claim by claiming that religion.

False. Buddha merely offered a technique that he felt could help end suffering. Buddhism does not claim that the purpose of life is to end suffering.

 

[Tiberius]

Ah but thats the thing. Even though you attempt to replace the man with a unicorn, we reaffirm Romans 1:20, show you the man, and tell you that you have beliefs regarding the man.

Similarly, you cannot lack the belief in radio waves as you have a belief regarding the voice on the radio. Replacing the voice on the radio with a chupacabra is merely ignored.

As Jig said, both sides use the evidence presented and interpret. You cannot "lack beliefs".

What the...?

A passage in an old book does not mean that the claims it makes are true! You can quote Romans 1:20 until you are blue in the face. But unless you can provide actual testable evidence, your argument is no more effective than it is to quote harry Potter to show that wizards exist.

 

[Jig]

False. Buddha merely offered a technique that he felt could help end suffering. Buddhism does not claim that the purpose of life is to end suffering.

Isn't that the point of the 4 Noble Truths?

"Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment"

Is Enlightenment not the ultimate goal in life for a Buddhist?

What about the common Buddhist beliefs of karma and rebirth? Is there objective evidence to prove these concepts?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Isn't that the point of the 4 Noble Truths?

"Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment"

Is Enlightenment not the ultimate goal in life for a Buddhist?

What about the common Buddhist beliefs of karma and rebirth? Is there objective evidence to prove these concepts?

You're confusing a Buddhist's goal with the purpose of life. Not at all the same thing.

And karma and rebirth are of concern to certain sects of Buddhists. The Buddha himself spoke nothing of them.

 

[Jig]

You're confusing a Buddhist's goal with the purpose of life. Not at all the same thing.

And karma and rebirth are of concern to certain sects of Buddhists. The Buddha himself spoke nothing of them.

So basically you don't adhere to the most common Buddhist beliefs.

Do you believe in Nirvana?

Can all the beliefs of Buddha be objectively proven using methodological naturalism? If not, why bother? Right?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So basically you don't adhere to the most common Buddhist beliefs.

Do you believe in Nirvana?

Can all the beliefs of Buddha be objectively proven using methodological naturalism? If not, why bother? Right?

Do you believe in transubstantiation? Purgatory? The infallibility of the pope? If no, why don't you adhere to the most common Christian beliefs?

I'm a very austere Buddhist. Buddha spoke nothing of nirvana. He merely spoke of alleviating suffering. He offered a technique. For some people it works, for some it doesn't.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And karma and rebirth are of concern to certain sects of Buddhists. The Buddha himself spoke nothing of them.

Hold on... What?

I'm pretty sure that karma (and vipaka) and rebirth are essential to the Buddha's message. Are you certain of this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Hold on... What?

I'm pretty sure that karma (and vipaka) and rebirth are essential to the Buddha's message. Are you certain of this?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes. I'm the Buddhist, remember?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes. I'm the Buddhist, remember?

You aren't the Buddhist. You are a Buddhist.

From my conversations with another knowledgable Buddhist, I was getting a different picture of what the Buddha is recorded as saying.

What is your source of information for your claim? Can you substantiate it somehow?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You aren't the Buddhist. You are a Buddhist.

From my conversations with another knowledgable Buddhist, I was getting a different picture of what the Buddha is recorded as saying.

What is your source of information for your claim? Can you substantiate it somehow?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm the Buddhist in this particular conversation. And I certainly don't speak for all Buddhists. There is much debate over what he said. So I can't point you to any specific website that specifies the tenets that concern me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And I certainly don't speak for all Buddhists. There is much debate over what he said. So I can't point you to any specific website that specifies the tenets that concern me.

Fair enough.

The reason I ask is that I would like some sort of definitive position on this issue. If there isn't one, this reduces my clarity on what the Buddha had said himself.

One of the key differences between my worldview and Buddhism's is that he seemed to believe that the karma (intentional action) created by one individual could reside as "seeds" in the Alaya (sp?) layer of consciousness to create vipaka (fruit) in another individual, or such is my understanding based on my conversations with another Buddhist. Just how this can happen is mysterious and implausible to me. If he had never said this, this would suggest that Buddhism is closer to my worldview than I had thought.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

What the...?

A passage in an old book does not mean that the claims it makes are true! You can quote Romans 1:20 until you are blue in the face. But unless you can provide actual testable evidence, your argument is no more effective than it is to quote harry Potter to show that wizards exist.

It is another one of your beliefs, as an atheist, that the biblical authors were under the same conditions as the Harry Potter author, upon which you base comparisons and deem "effectiveness".

There is not the attempt to bypass this belief when you are given the quote. You are told that it stands. That your effort to replace what was given with what you give as an atheist is inconsequential. That the years you spend exalting yourself as a materialist while simultaneously debasing text so that your doctrine may be revered, has not bore fruit.

Romans 1:20 stands, and you are shown the man.

 

[Gracchus]

Fair enough.

The reason I ask is that I would like some sort of definitive position on this issue. If there isn't one, this reduces my clarity on what the Buddha had said himself.
One of the key differences between my worldview and Buddhism's is that he seemed to believe that the karma (intentional action) created by one individual could reside as "seeds" in the Alaya (sp?) layer of consciousness to create vipaka (fruit) in another individual, or such is my understanding based on my conversations with another Buddhist. Just how this can happen is mysterious and implausible to me. If he had never said this, this would suggest that Buddhism is closer to my worldview than I had thought.

Your confusion arises, at least in part, because you are using many words to denote the inseparable parts of one thing.
You are trying to see the elephant through the descriptions of blind men, you yourself being blind. Yet even if the blind men could see, you could not comprehend the elephant from their words.

The story is told that Boddhisatva visited a monk in the forest. The monk asked the enlightened one when he, the monk, would attain enlightenment.
"In three more lifetimes!", replied the enlightened one. The monk was very downcast at this news.
A second monk approached the enlightend one and asked when he should attain enlightenment.
"In three thousand lifetimes!", replied the enlightened one.
At this the second monk began to dance joyously, whereupon the first monk immediately became enlightened.

Or to call upon another tradition:

"The Tao (way, road, path) that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.
(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.
Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Under these two aspects, it is really it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful." --- "Tao Te Ching", Lao-tzu (J. Legge, Translator)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your confusion arises, at least in part, because you are using many words to denote the inseparable parts of one thing.
You are trying to see the elephant through the descriptions of blind men, you yourself being blind. Yet even if the blind men could see, you could not comprehend the elephant from their words.

I'm familiar with the story and the concept. I don't see how it applies to my concern of what the Buddha had said and thought. You could at least point out the "many words".

I'm not asking for the Truth(R). I'd be satisfied simply to understand what the Buddha (a blind man with long arms) had felt, or at least had thought (mistakenly or not), about the elephant. I do not care if I understand the subject as he did, with his personal experience. I'm asking for a philosophical understanding, which is attainable.

Incidentally, it is quite silly of you to suggest that I am not touching the elephant, myself, at least with my fingertip.

The story is told that Boddhisatva visited a monk in the forest. The monk asked the enlightened one when he, the monk, would attain enlightenment.
"In three more lifetimes!", replied the enlightened one. The monk was very downcast at this news.
A second monk approached the enlightend one and asked when he should attain enlightenment.
"In three thousand lifetimes!", replied the enlightened one.
At this the second monk began to dance joyously, whereupon the first monk immediately became enlightened.

Yes, and? What am I to gain from this? What do you think my concern is?

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful."

Chanting "it's a mystery" is as close to a non-answer as I can imagine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

I'm familiar with the story and the concept. I don't see how it applies to my concern of what the Buddha had said and thought. You could at least point out the "many words".

Well most words would be found in a good dictionary.

I'm not asking for the Truth(R). I'd be satisfied simply to understand what the Buddha (a blind man with long arms) had felt, or at least had thought (mistakenly or not), about the elephant.

Someone who has seen the elephant may tell you about it at great length, which would nevertheless fail to convey the experience of the elephant.

Yes, and? What am I to gain from this? What do you think my concern is?

Tell me: What do you think your concern is, and why does it concern you?

Chanting "it's a mystery" is as close to a non-answer as I can imagine.

You ask, "What is the moon?" I point at the moon and you stare at my finger.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Someone who has seen the elephant may tell you about it at great length, which would nevertheless fail to convey the experience of the elephant.

Whatever. I'm more epistemologically ambitious than you are.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gracchus]

Whatever. I'm more epistemologically ambitious than you are.

Well, ambition is a craving, and from craving arises suffering.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, ambition is a craving, and from craving arises suffering.

Go away.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BrianOnEarth]

For clarification (and please correct me) you think the atheist argument falls apart because of the utility of theism?

Which atheist argument?
If you mean the claim that there are no gods? Not an argument, a belief.
The judgement that there are almost certainly no gods is not affected by the utility of this judgement. The point I am making is that truth does not matter except in so far as what humans believe to be true has consequences for their utility.
I suppose what I am getting at is that single-minded pursuit of "the truth" without considering the utility of it is asinine.
This is not a simple concept to grasp. Especially if one has been brought up and educated to believe that empirically verifiable truth is all that matters. It isn't. And it isn't even for those who claim it is. We are all emotionally motivated animals and what matters is that which matters emotionally, whether it is empirically supported or not.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Go away.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Hey. You don't talk like that to master Yoda.