Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 21, 2019, 11:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So I am Here with My first Question
#21
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
I make a distinction between 'faith' and 'belief'.

Having faith in something is unconditional; like unearned trust or believing something without evidence.

I think of belief the same as I think of the unknown, which I usually describe with the aphorism: Beyond the boundaries of knowledge, lies belief.

With that in mind, atheists are people just like you, just without any belief in the supernatural. Everything else is up for grabs, as is peace.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Reply
#22
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 16, 2019 at 7:39 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(June 16, 2019 at 7:18 pm)Aegon Wrote: I guess you could argue that you need faith in the Dharma as a means of solving the problem of suffering in order to practice it fully? But that's not "a faith."

I suppose a hard-nosed skeptic might demand evidence that Dharma leads to liberation. It seems that it could be demonstrated anyway.

In regards to "practicing Buddhism fully" I think most people employ faith when they do that.

So, at a practical level, Buddhism is a faith. But (theoretically) it doesn't require faith.

You could even go deeper with the analysis and say that the end goal of Buddhism (enlightenment) involves a person accepting reality with out any obscurities whatsoever including faith. An enlightened person is without such things as faith, hope, fear, longing etc.

(June 16, 2019 at 6:19 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote: Schopenhauer's views are similar and he's, obviously, a philosopher and not a faith leader.

Are you a fan of Shopie? I never read any of his books. I feel like Nietzsche (with whom I'm very familiar) might have "ruined" Schopenhauer for me, since one of Nietzsche's pet projects was refuting him.

I prefer Schopenhauer because I think his pessimism and will to life is a lot more realistic than Nietzche's will to power.

Nietzche was, of course, a student of Schopenhauer and used to agree with him greatly and admire him greatly. Then suddenly one day he had a revelation, did a 180 and totally disagreed with him. Maybe that was the day his syphilis kicked in?

Nietzche is very strong on metaphysics, though. He recognizes that objects aren't distinct from their properties and that causes, and other physical laws, aren't separate to objects, for example.

Nietzche is more poetic, though. Although Schopenhauer is more punchy. Compare both their responses to free will:

Schopenhauer Wrote:I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so.

Nietzche Wrote:The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with... daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness.

Nietzche's version is far more epic, poetic and memorable ... but Schopenhauer's version is more logical and to the point. Although he puts it more concisely here:

Schopenhauer Wrote:Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.

And it even got a mention from Einstein:

Einstein Wrote:I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me.

And Schopenhauer can say some pretty epic stuff:

Schopenhauer Wrote:Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Schopenhauer Wrote:The chief objection I have to Pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world "God" is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word "world".

And it's not as if Schopenhauer can't be poetic too:

Schopenhauer Wrote:"... pleasure in the beautiful consists, to a large extent, in the fact that, when we enter the state of pure contemplation, we are raised for the moment above all willing, above all desires and cares; we are, so to speak, rid of ourselves...And we know that these moments, when, delivered from the fierce pressure of the will, we emerge, as it were, from the heavy atmosphere of the earth, are the most blissful we can experience. From this we can infer how blessed must be the life of a man whose will is silenced not for a few moments, as in the enjoyment of the beautiful, but for ever, indeed completely extinguished."

This one is my personal favorite, though:

Schopenhauer Wrote:…the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. …the object of punishment…is deterrence from crime…. Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter….

And he can be pretty damn irreverent and witty:

Schopenhauer Wrote:The Greeks looked upon the world and the gods as the work of an inscrutable necessity. A passable explanation: we may be content with it until we can get a better one. Again, Ormuzd and Ahriman are rival powers, continually at war. That is not bad. But that a God like Jehovah should have created this world of misery and woe out of pure caprice, and because he enjoyed doing it, and should then have clapped his hands in praise of his own work, and declared everything to be very good — that will not do at all!
Reply
#23
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
I'm beginning to wonder if there's ever going to be a second question...

Boru
'A man is accepted into a church for what he believes.  He is turned out for what he knows.' - Mark Twain
Reply
#24
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 16, 2019 at 6:16 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I never saw Theravada Buddhism as a "faith." One could even say that the first three Noble Truths are a logical statement.

pemise 1: life is suffering

premise 2: suffering comes from attachment

conclusion: Therefore, to be free from suffering, one must be free from attachment.

Something like that, anyway...

All Buddhisms posit a unique metaphysics and a psychology, as well as a science consisting of rituals posited to help one bring one's self interests and actions in accord with the reality of those metaphysical postulates and psychological realities. They typically have origin stories as well, and myths. I'm thinking back to Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion and noting that most of the Buddhisms that I am familiar with, including Theravada Buddhism, check a lot of those boxes. I haven't made a full analysis or done a full count of how many, but at first blush, it seems that even Theravada Buddhism is likely to qualify as a religion on an assessment on those criteria. If you have another set of criteria, a problem with this criteria set, or a preference for some other metric, I'll need further information regarding that.

In response to your later post, regarding the possibility that Buddhism, even the minimalist subset you seem to be postulating, could be demonstrated to accord with reality, I have severe doubts. I say this because I have analysis of the questions which the four noble truths address which leads to a different conclusion, and basically says that not only are the four noble truths not necessarily true, but most likely wrong. I may post those thoughts at some later date, but it will suffice to note that your conclusion is not necessarily solid.

"Banish all dogmas! We will of course banish this last dogma after we banish all the others." Coffee
[Image: ak_botan_saionji_005.jpg]
Reply
#25
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 17, 2019 at 2:58 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm beginning to wonder if there's ever going to be a second question...

Boru

Possibly, what I see is lack of interaction towards the replies.
Reply
#26
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 12, 2019 at 2:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:


You do have faith in many things. This is different definition than what the OP is defining as having A faith, which should really be restated as having A religion.

I liked your comment on everyday faith. I find that my exact definition of my religious faith. My faith is exactly based on my repetitive experience. For example, when I walk in faith in my life, it can be said that I have 'faith' that God will guide my steps.  But this expectation is based on a reasonable statistical universe - I've walked in faith tens of thousands of steps, and God always shows His love, compassion and wisdom and uses those experiences to reflect Him whether I see them as good or bad.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#27
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
Moderator Notice
Thread has been moved to Atheism
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
#28
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 19, 2019 at 9:26 am)tackattack Wrote: I liked your comment on everyday faith. I find that my exact definition of my religious faith. My faith is exactly based on my repetitive experience. For example, when I walk in faith in my life, it can be said that I have 'faith' that God will guide my steps.  But this expectation is based on a reasonable statistical universe - I've walked in faith tens of thousands of steps, and God always shows His love, compassion and wisdom and uses those experiences to reflect Him whether I see them as good or bad.

I'd love to know how this works -- you walk around believing that God is guiding you, and so far, most things turn out good, and the bad stuff is some sort of lesson?

If I walk around believing that the FSM is guiding my life will I notice any difference?

I understand that belief, by itself, can change one's mindset.  Certainly believing that you are watched 24/7 by a judgmental deity might temper some bad behavior (or else just lead to tons of guilt). 

I don't see anything wrong with being thankful for the good things in life, or for resilience in the face of adversity.  I just don't see why gods have anything positive to contribute.  I think they just mess up a rational analysis of reality.
Reply
#29
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
Your religious faith is christianity, Tack.  I'll go out on a limb and posit that you have absolutely no kind of "everyday faith" or repetitive experience of the christian god.

You don't flip a light switch and god appears.  Gods don't ooze out of the light fixtures.  They aren't crashing into your house. Your faith is not at all based on anything that Boru described as everyday faith, Boru took the time to explain why it wasn't and explicitly state that it wasn't. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise without claiming that jesus is chatting you up regularly.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a battle to commence then KPLOW, I hit em with the illness of my quill, Im endowed..with certain unalienable skills....  

-ERB


Reply
#30
RE: So I am Here with My first Question
(June 19, 2019 at 7:28 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Your religious faith is christianity, Tack.  I'll go out on a limb and posit that you have absolutely no kind of "everyday faith" or repetitive experience of the christian god.

You don't flip a light switch and god appears.  Gods don't ooze out of the light fixtures.  They aren't crashing into your house. Your faith is not at all based on anything that Boru described as everyday faith, Boru took the time to explain why it wasn't and explicitly state that it wasn't.  I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise without claiming that jesus is chatting you up regularly.

I have a christian acquaintance that claims to find/see/experience a miracle every day. For him, the miracle bar is set very very low.
God(s) and religions are man made and the bane of humanity. 

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Ozzy or Twain/take your pick
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)