The Evidence Required Is?

[Bgood]

Explain one single thing by "intuition from Buddha". I have no aptitude for ceasing suffering by meditation, nor does anyone I know, nor have I ever seen it done. Do you mean to say "if I try really hard I can ignore pain". Well, so can I, it's called "not being a pussy". Do you mean to say "if i try really hard, I can avoid thinking about things that cause me emotional pain". Well so can I, it's called "not being a crybaby". No Buddha required. But hey, I'm sure you'll be able to explain something, anything, right? You wouldn't be the kind of buddhist that wanders around trying to sell platitudes would you? Surely not.

Hey don't get all bent out of shape about it Rhythym! I am just relaying what the Buddha taught in the Four Noble truths. I actually am quite skeptical about the whole complete cessation of suffering thing too, but I think it holds some merit if practiced hardcore. I respect your commitment to science and rigorous analysis, but from my own experience that seems to become cold and mechanical when applied to my own personal physical and mental suffering.

Pain is inevitable, Suffering is optional. - Zen saying

What I mean about heightened intuition is like a sixth sense which may be more well developed in someone who meditates often, but I don't know or experience that myself. Just speculation. I know women's intuition is a bitch!

[The Grand Nudger]

"Heightened intuition" and "sixth senses" reliably and predictably fail every test administered (and we've wasted a shitload of our time on exactly these sorts of tests, so it isn't like we haven't given it the old college try, or the benefit of the doubt). If you feel skepticism regarding a claim, try exploring that sometime. I doubt you'd be here talking about intuition or any sixth sense if you had. Cold and mechanical is what is required when you are attempting to thoroughly investigate any claim (or thoroughly demolish it).

[Bgood]

"Heightened intuition" and "sixth senses" reliably and predictably fail every test administered (and we've wasted a shitload of our time on exactly these sorts of tests, so it isn't like we haven't given it the old college try, or the benefit of the doubt). If you feel skepticism regarding a claim, try exploring that sometime. I doubt you'd be here talking about intuition or any sixth sense if you had. Cold and mechanical is what is required when you are attempting to thoroughly investigate any claim (or thoroughly demolish it).

But my life doesn't revolve around supporting or demolishing claims.
I totally Agree that skepticism is very important, esp. in this day in age when there's so much bullshit and deception out there!

I think you equate Buddhism with other religions too much. The Dalai Lama himself said quite surprisingly that Buddhism is not a religion, but a science. I view it as an ancient psychology.

I have recently been studying some Astrology lately. I am finding alot of interesting details in it that gives it more credence than I ever imagined before. I was just wondering what you might think of it.

Contrary to what you might think, I am not a blind faith believer in things at all. Yet I might have a somewhat overactive imagination lol. peace.

[Whateverist]

That is why I consider it painfully obvious that physical reality occurs either within or adjacent to other transcendent parts. It is equally obvious to me that we can and do interact with those transcendent parts of reality everyday. No belief in deity is required to hold this position. Yet, too many of you appear to believe that being an atheist requires you to be a reductionist.

I find this not at all obvious. What do you mean by transcendent?

Do you doubt that a brain is necessary for consciousness? Are you aware of any reliable accounts of consciousness occuring apart from a living brain? I'm not, except in fiction.

Indeed no belief in deities is required to hold this position but I haven't heard any compelling reason why I should or even why I should want to.


We do talk of experiencing sensations, feelings, emotions, pain and any number of other subjective qualia. But I wouldn't assume they point to parallel yet separate realities. That seems an extravagant hypothesis.

A simpler one is to reason that our brains generate fields of consciousness and that the physical world registers on these fields by way of our senses. Since we are self-aware and possessed of language we can distinguish between the object and the sensation of it by which we become aware of it. We have language to refer to the subjective states which describe what we suppose are our experience of ourselves experiencing and responding to the world, as opposed to describing the world we think we experience.

You seem to think that the nature of our self awareness and the language we use to describe it point to another world something like yet different than the physical world. I can't think of any experience which you might have of subjective qualia which can't as easily be described by my construct as by yours. Plus my construct has the advantage (for me) of being the way that seems right to me.

Now I have no objective evidence that my account of subjective qualia is more correct than your construct, but neither could you. I can't begin to imagine what you would have to show to convince me that your construct is superior. Agree to disagree, or do you think you have something persuasive?

---

Joseph Campbell turned up quite a few gods in investigating the beliefs of people from all cultures all over the world. So many and so universally that it can be argued that unless you can account for why that is, you don't really understand human nature. Personally I think it is too easy to say they are just mistakes in attempting to give a natural explanation of the world which were made in our youth as a sapient species. That claim would require evidence.

He turned up quite a few stories, but I don't recall him leading a god back to civilization by the hand for peer review to the astonishment of his fellows. It's a claim with a vast amount of evidence attached. We have attempted to explain what was inexplicable to us by way of cosmic skyhooks that are very familiar to us. Just turns out that we've been consistently wrong.

This is precisely what I think needs explaining. Vast evidence there may be but you haven't provided any yet. It isn't enough to show that what all these early human cultures had in common was the discrepancy between what they thought true and what in fact is true. That explains nothing about how its near universality reflects on human nature. It really just begs the question. (I have a little badger blood in me from my mother's side.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Reply to Whateverist:

You raise valid and interesting points. Rather than reply each of your points individually, I will attempt to address them together as a whole. In the end we will probably agree to disagree, but at least we will properly understand each others’ position. That way we will not have to waste everyone’s time in other threads repeating ourselves.

When I say physical reality I mean the all interactions of matter and energy that can be described by laws of physics and which are empirically subject to falsification. When I say transcendent reality I mean what cannot be objectively observed but can be known by means of deduction, direct experience or must be real a priori when physics depends upon it.
So for example, mathematics starts with the a priori and proceeds by deduction. I consider “oneness” a transcendent form that we apply to things and sets, but which nevertheless exists apart from those things. Likewise triangles. You can demonstrate an example of ones and examples of triangles but not a one or a triangle themselves. This neo-Platonic position can and is debated, but I do not believe it an unreasonable one.

From a philosophical point of view, I also consider ultimate truth transcendent. Ultimate truth is something real that in-itself is unknowable, but allows us to compare proximate truths. Qualia and subjective inner life would fall under direct experience. I do not consider any of these sources of knowledge authoritative on its own. They all work together as a whole. For example, NDE’s are consistent with my thoughts on transcendent things but I do not consider the veracity of those claims necessary to support my overall understanding.

Brains are a significant part of the conscious experience as we know it. The mind is not sober when the body is drunk. I’m not convinced that mind=brain is the whole story given interesting problems like other minds and solipsism, the lack of purpose for consciousness, and the vastly different types of felt experience related to similar neural correlates. In my opinion the theory of mind/brain identity is an incomplete theory that does not adequately account for all the phenomena.

I feel the above are reasonable positions, not conclusive ones. I am not dogmatic and I do not require certainty. I have no interest in convincing or converting anybody. I consider atheism a reasonable position as well and contribute so I can explore these interesting questions.

[The Grand Nudger]

But my life doesn't revolve around supporting or demolishing claims.
I totally Agree that skepticism is very important, esp. in this day in age when there's so much bullshit and deception out there!

I think you equate Buddhism with other religions too much. The Dalai Lama himself said quite surprisingly that Buddhism is not a religion, but a science. I view it as an ancient psychology.

I have recently been studying some Astrology lately. I am finding alot of interesting details in it that gives it more credence than I ever imagined before. I was just wondering what you might think of it.

Contrary to what you might think, I am not a blind faith believer in things at all. Yet I might have a somewhat overactive imagination lol. peace.

There's always been this much. If the very first word spoken wasn't a lie, it was probably pretty damned close.

I equate buddhism with other religion insomuch as buddhists make claims that are similar to other religions, and act in a similar manner to adherents of other faiths. Again, the Dalai Lama gives you every reason to be skeptical with claims like that. Buddhism is not a science. You may view it as such, but such it is not. Fairy tales given an undeserved amount of respect is what it is.

I love astrology, complete bullshit, but hilariously fun to do natal charts. Parker's astrology is what you want, if you're interested.
http://www.amazon.com/Parkers-Astrology-...078948014X

Then use your imagination to create a scenario in which I am only attempting to help you be a better buddhist (you may not have to use too much imagine for that). If you really wish to go deep into the realm of introspection, then you should be devouring every bit of information we have regarding how unreliable (and downright malicious) our own introspective flights of fancy can become. If you want to develop a talent, you need to know the shortcomings of the toolkit.

[AthiestAtheist]

My question is what evidence is required to make you not believe in a God? I would have thought that the fact that every religious text in the world is full of holes would have been enough, but I guess not.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wasn't evidence that led them to belief, why would evidence lead them away?

[AthiestAtheist]

For people that become atheist, isn't evidence (or lack thereof) usually the reason?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not always. Some have simply never believed, their parents have never believed, etc etc etc.