Thoughts on Buddhism

[Abracadabra]

Buddhism and atheism do not "start off on the same launching pads." Jesus, do you love to paint with a broad brush.

Within the scope of the framework of the specific concept I was addressing they most certainly do.

Jesus, do you love to misrepresent other people's comment.

The framework that I was specifically addressing was the point that ReverendJeremiah pointed out concerning that we are this universe.

Atheism and Buddhism begin on that same launching pad. They both assume that we are indeed entirely a product of the constituent of this universe.

So my statement that in that context Buddhism and Secular Atheism start out on the very same launching pad is absolutely correct and true.

Neither Buddhism nor Secular Atheism appeal to anything beyond that.

The only difference between these two philosophies is that Buddhist suggest that there is a mysterious mind that lies beneath the substrate of our physical reality and it is this mind that is having this experience. And we are ultimately it. Whereas, the Secular Atheists are speculating that the universe is just some weird accident that has no explanation, and we are merely the result of an emergent property of a biological computer that is having an experience.

That's really the only difference between Secular Atheism and Buddhism.

One philosophy (Buddhism) looks to the foundation of everything and suggest that this is the source of reality and experience. Whilst the other philosophy (Secular Atheism) looks at the end result of evolution and points to that as the source of experience if not reality itself.

And neither of these philosophies have a leg up on the other.

Well, actually that's not exactly true. I personally suggest that from a purely scientific standpoint we have more reason to believe that there exists some form of intelligence (or at least organized information) beneath the substrate of what seems to be physical (i.e. in the ocean of the mystical quantum fields), than we have for speculating that we are some sort of abstract emergent property that is having an experience.

As far as I can see, Buddhism actually has a leg-up on Secular Atheism at the moment.

We have more scientific reasons to believe that quantum information exists and that it is highly "mystical" in the sense that it doesn't appear to even remotely obey any of the classical laws of physics that we so cherish. And we have absolutely no rational reason to believe that a hypothetical abstract notion of an emergent property of a biological computer could actually have an experience of any kind.

What sense does it even make to talk about an "emergent property" having an experience?

So as far as I can see the score right now is:

Buddhism = 1
Secular Atheism = 0

I mean, if anyone was interested in keeping score.

---

Abracadabra wrote

Yet they expect me to believe that my truest essence is that I'm an abstract emergent property of a biological computer?

Yes, my friend, you are a fleeting digit in the MATRIX. lol Choose either the red pill or the blue one.

Well, that may very well be the truth of reality. I don't deny that, nor do I claim to know otherwise.

In fact, in all fairness, some forms of Buddhism and some interpretations of the doctrine of emptiness, actually view this as being the case.

So in all fairness some forms of Buddhism actually do boil down to being the basically same thing as Secular Atheism.