The Problem with Buddhism

Topic: The Problem with Buddhism (Read 31121 times)

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #50 – 2014-07-17, 08:39:53

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 06:36:19

And also I mean the resurrection of the dead in the end days. What's the Catholic doctrine of that?

You mean at Judgment day? It depends where do you situate yourself. Catholic doctrine it's always made for different intellectual and cultural levels of people.

To some, such resurrection en masse it's an obvious allegory for a moral judgment we all must subject our lives and actions to. Such inevitability it's reinforced by the mental picture that people even would have to raise from tomb in order to "answer in front of God".
To others, it's the pure reality and Truth, fear it and obey to His commandments.
Simple.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #51 – 2014-07-17, 09:06:04

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 06:36:19

Then for some people it goes beyond theory. People have a sense of identification, a sense of "I", which is a bundle of character traits and, when embodied, also bodily traits. Noticing the same traits in another person of the same era is said to be "twin soul". But those who have a solid memory of having lived elsewhere at another time with the same sense of "I", they testify to their own reincarnation.

I think that's a lot of problems that blind faith at introspection can arise.
Reincarnations are obviously one of them.

Introspection is not possible at all, you can't live (experience) and analyze it at the same moment. Either you're doing one thing or the other.
Ah ah, but there's retrospection, first you live then you analyze. Doesn't work, you'll be analyzing your present memories of what you experienced not the experience itself. We are trapped always to our present.

So, how does the certainty of reincarnation fits in? Where does it comes from?

The sense of having already lived before is in my opinion related with mistaken the complexity of personality shaping process and the "I" identity with a pre established believe in some previous life.
Well... people must believe in something. Had been a Queen of Egypt seems to be as good as anything else.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #52 – 2014-07-17, 09:38:41

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-07-17, 01:59:36

And that period also seen the additional horrors of the inquisition. Enough to make one shudder.

Not so fast, rjhowie.
In theological terms your reformation was very much the extremist reinforcement for an endless demand for punishment.
Where Catholicism was selling indulgences you wanted more punishment, blood and fire. To "purify"...

You were basically the ayatollahs of the time and very proud of it.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #53 – 2014-07-17, 10:09:43

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-17, 09:06:04

I think that's a lot of problems that blind faith at introspection can arise.
Reincarnations are obviously one of them.

Every good handbook of mysticism warns about such problems. And better ones offer solutions how to deal with the problem. There is a theory for everything, so the aspirant knows what to watch out for.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-17, 09:06:04

Introspection is not possible at all, you can't live (experience) and analyze it at the same moment. Either you're doing one thing or the other.

This is the starting point, yes, but once you can mentally conceive of the possibility of multitasking, you can start practising it in a little way too. After enough practice it becomes a practical possibility. The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence. Takes a little bit of training to actually live in omnipresence. Theoretically there's no obstacle here.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-17, 09:06:04

The sense of having already lived before is in my opinion related with mistaken the complexity of personality shaping process and the "I" identity with a pre established believe in some previous life.

True, the sense of having lived at another era and being bound to be born again on some other occasion is pathological in a sense. But when this sense is sufficiently concrete and there's nothing else pathological about the person, then it can be handled. Problems like this are reality, not a matter of belief. It's like a man with a pig's tail or a lady with a beard. Not a matter of belief, you see, but a problem to live with and deal with. There's this theory that problems can be solved. It gives hope. And a few problems solved by means of the theory concretise the hope.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #54 – 2014-07-17, 11:06:37

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 10:09:43

The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence.

I know that you know that I know the "Brain in a jar" problem. One must always suspect about "organs" specially those that let us to put them into jars.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 10:09:43

Takes a little bit of training to actually live in omnipresence.
Theoretically there's no obstacle here.

Yes, I believe it takes...

I'm not so sure about being theoretically possible. Things may have been done purposely so it's not.

Have some caution relating mental "exercises", meditations and that kind of stuff, you may implode mentally and I'm not joking, I'm speaking seriously.
Madness it's the worst of sufferings.

One must live in the "attraction for the abyss" thrill but never to fall in. Maybe that's where we can find the real meaning for original sin.

Anyway, There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #55 – 2014-07-17, 11:55:00

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-17, 11:06:37

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 10:09:43
The entirety of existence is omnipresent and the mind is the organ to conceive and handle omnipresence.

I know that you know that I know the "Brain in a jar" problem. One must always suspect about "organs" specially those that let us to put them into jars.

I know that you know about the problem, but I don't know why you think it's an unresolvable problem. The basic understanding that the mind is an organ is quite enough to know that it can be put into jar or vat - and to take appropriate precautions. It's common sense to be cautious and careful about one's organs.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-17, 11:06:37

Have some caution relating mental "exercises", meditations and that kind of stuff, you may implode mentally and I'm not joking, I'm speaking seriously.

Thanks for your concern, but to me it works the opposite way. It has saved me from several potential breakdowns, signalled in good time that they were approaching so that I could avert them. There's something I must be doing right. Not to be overconfident of course...

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #56 – 2014-07-17, 20:36:26

Quote from: ersi on 2014-01-25, 19:33:03

Is Buddhism a philosophy or religion? Is it scientific enough to be considered relevant or good for anything? Good in what way and for what specifically?

I do see the plus side of Buddhism or any religion for those who are so inclined to follow it. Religion soothes, comforts and consoles people both in times of need and in times when people wonder if this silly existence has some ultimate purposes beyond getting up and going to work, raising kids, facing new (or the same) idiots every day and then going to bed exasperated just to wake up and do it all over again. Millions of people around the world use religion just to be able to put one foot in front of the other and add some sort of meaning to their lives.

Some experts think that early humans who held a common belief in something greater than themselves became a selective trait in nature because those who united to such beliefs were more cooperative with each other in all things and therefore, survived. This is also why AA works so much better than expensive and elaborate rehabs. The alcoholics/addicts who attend AA are asked to believe in something greater than themselves--not necessarily God, in fact it could be anything from AA itself to a doorknob. Of course, most people aspire to believe in something more noble than a doorknob and do choose a god of their understanding. It seems these alcoholics and addicts recover because they are united to a belief in a higher power and they cooperate to help each other—it is their unity in belief that allows them to recover successfully.

Belief in a higher power is certainly not without its benefits, at least for those who need it, but does everybody need belief today? Moreover, do people need the enticement of an afterlife or reincarnation to believe? Would anyone follow a religion if the promise of afterlife was removed—I think not, but why not? If a god created sentient beings only so that they could enjoy his marvelous creation and be grateful for the opportunity to do so—why wouldn't you or anyone else worship him? Is it simply because there is no ultimate payoff? Sure it is.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #57 – 2014-07-18, 02:59:57

it seems , People need some irrational reasons for --> happiness .

happiness is not a rational reason , it's imagination .

generally speaking , be irrational bring the feel , happy.

Logic argument above with rationality , lemme know your feel ?

happy ? irritated ? exasperated ? stressed ? rage ?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #58 – 2014-07-18, 03:11:35

Nice musings there, James. Except that there's no God on Buddhism, only gods (basically ghostly devils). And reincarnation is a wheel of suffering, not an enticement or promise.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #59 – 2014-07-18, 03:25:43

God for People that hurted , can be a medicine .

God for People that Radical , insane , mentally unstable , etc can be dangerous

God for People that understand , be Nothing .

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #60 – 2014-07-19, 14:55:27

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-18, 03:11:35

Nice musings there, James. Except that there's no God on Buddhism, only gods (basically ghostly devils). And reincarnation is a wheel of suffering, not an enticement or promise.

I'm aware of that, although I don't know a lot about Buddhism. I assume that by "suffering" you mean not yet having achieved nirvana on earth or perhaps parinirvana. But, since parinirvana is possible for the followers of Buddhism, it most certainly is an eternal enticement equivalent to heaven.

For your belief, you have borrowed the eternal life aspect of earthly religions and polished god up a bit to be more suitable to your logical ideations of what a god should be and made god more immune from science (you might even get a small cult following). But, don't you see that wanting to live forever (or at least, not to die), is instinctive in all animals? Could you ever take eternal life out of the equation and still be happy or is living forever non-negotiable for you? And is eternal life even a logical concept?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #61 – 2014-07-20, 05:07:18

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-19, 14:55:27

But, don't you see that wanting to live forever (or at least, not to die), is instinctive in all animals?

Is this supposed to be a logical counterpoint to anything? For me the fact that animals have the survival instinct only reinforces that humans should have it in a bigger sense. We are supposed to sort out our instincts and channel them rightly, right? This also applies to the religious instinct. You for example have a very strong religious instinct. Even though you pretend that you have convinced yourself that God is unnecessary and doesn't exist, you go on about it to no end in various ways, thus showing that the instinct is active and you have not found a way to quench it. Instincts are there for a reason.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-19, 14:55:27

Could you ever take eternal life out of the equation and still be happy or is living forever non-negotiable for you? And is eternal life even a logical concept?

The survival instinct implies that eternal life is an inescapable concept. The next question is what experience looks and feels like during it and if there's a way to make it tolerable and sensible. There is no logical way of taking eternal life out of the equation and still be happy. "Be happy" has no content when eternity is unconsidered.

Considerations about eternal life look like enticements and promises of heaven or threats and warnings of hell to those who receive them from revealed religion. The less painful way is to figure out these things on one's own by means of self-examination, arriving at an internal conviction, assimilating it intellectually and emotionally as a natural part of oneself, being at peace with it. An analogy to that effect:

When the parent warns the child that the furnace is burning hot, the words hardly ever sound sufficiently convincing to the child. The child may accrue defiance instead or simply not care at all. Getting burned by oneself provides a lesson of a whole different quality than having to listen to someone else. However, to make the lesson safe, one must be cautious when approaching the furnace. When the heat is too great, it's better to stop and take it easy.

It is the same with eternal life and its concomitant concepts of reincarnation, resurrection, heaven, hell, etc. You may be defiant of what anyone is saying about these things, but the catch is that your words on these topics have equally little effect on others. Most obviously, your opinions have no effect at all on those who have first-hand experience in this area. Your constant denial that there can be greater experts on some topics than you are is astonishingly naive, but it's amusing to everyone so keep it up

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #62 – 2014-07-20, 05:39:47

ersi , is there any chance you doin some "Rationalization " ?

aka , you want make people say what you want to hear ?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #63 – 2014-07-20, 06:05:10

Hmm, you are very perceptive, Sparta. Indeed, I like to hear people who know what they are talking about. As for the talk of other people, I should care less and find something better to do than to reply to them. Good advice for myself by me. I will follow it right now. We'll see if I last a week or longer.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #64 – 2014-07-20, 14:42:17

You are my mostest favorite person here...and now you're not going to talk to me?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 05:07:18

For me the fact that animals have the survival instinct only reinforces that humans should have it in a bigger sense.

And indeed they do. Humans have taken nature's survival instinct and turned it into a religion.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 05:07:18

You for example have a very strong religious instinct. Even though you pretend that you have convinced yourself that God is unnecessary and doesn't exist, you go on about it to no end in various ways, thus showing that the instinct is active and you have not found a way to quench it. Instincts are there for a reason.

A good observation that has not escaped my own attention. I don't know if I am talking to others or to myself about the nonexistence of god. I can honestly say that I don't know if any human can be any more convinced and absolutely sure about their beliefs than I am right now, so I'm not trying to talk myself into anything. It must be that I am getting deeper reinforcement for my beliefs from talking to people like you about god--the more I discuss it, the more positive I am about god's nonexistence. Et tu?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 05:07:18

The survival instinct implies that eternal life is an inescapable concept.

I couldn't agree more and when humans were more ignorant of all things and very superstitious to boot, out popped the idea of a god who could give us what we wanted most. As humans today we can reason more clearly about our world and once we see what the root cause for wanting to live forever is, we should see that inventing a god to provide for eternal life is simply irrational antiquated thinking. Yes, it is an instinct to want to live on and on, but as with many other things we humans do, it has been blown wildly out of proportion.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 05:07:18

Most obviously, your opinions have no effect at all on those who have first-hand experience in this area. Your constant denial that there can be greater experts on some topics than you are is astonishingly naive, but it's amusing to everyone so keep it up

There are much greater experts than either of us Eric, so hold off on the idea of declaring yourself a god just yet. You claim to be an elite intellectual, so why don't you show it instead of stooping to my level?

I am indeed very opinionated and I realize that, at times, I speak as if I have insight beyond all others, but this is simply a reflection on how strong my convictions are about certain things. You have taken me to the woodshed before and it humbles me a bit to think that I could be so mistaken at times, but being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you. I have made valid points that disturb you at time, there's no denying it, but like a haughty little girl who gets caught doing wrong, you quickly change the subject to something completely unrelated (and no, I don't have examples right at hand).

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #65 – 2014-07-22, 16:38:40

*chirp chirp* Nothing but crickets in here. OMG...maybe Ersi wasn't kidding.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #66 – 2014-07-25, 14:09:05

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 14:42:17

It must be that I am getting deeper reinforcement for my beliefs from talking to people like you about god--the more I discuss it, the more positive I am about god's nonexistence. Et tu?

So you see debate like trench warfare. As bullets fly around you, you dig deeper into your own hole to be safer. You are more hopeless than I thought...

I see debate as a potentially destructive and potentially constructive exercise, like siege of city walls. The destructive aspect of it is the misfortune of being under attack and the possibility of being overrun, but the constructive aspect is the incoming data on the weaknesses of the city, the data which can be used to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 14:42:17

As humans today we can reason more clearly about our world and once we see what the root cause for wanting to live forever is, we should see that inventing a god to provide for eternal life is simply irrational antiquated thinking.

Hopefully you can answer these little questions:

- What is the root cause for wanting to live forever?
- What is the rational modern thinking that is to replace the invented god?
- How will the new thinking help to overcome the root cause?

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 14:42:17

There are much greater experts than either of us Eric, so hold off on the idea of declaring yourself a god just yet. You claim to be an elite intellectual, so why don't you show it instead of stooping to my level?

Obviously there are greater experts than me, but this has no effect on the fact that I am a greater expert on religions than you are. And the fact that I am a greater expert than you on religions doesn't imply in any way that I declare myself god. How? Because I admit that obviously there are greater experts than me, even though they are not participating in the discussion for the time being. As I am below those experts, I am nowhere near god(s).

By demonstrating right now how you tend to blow things out of proportion, did I stoop too low?

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 14:42:17

...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you.

So, being wrong doesn't disturb you. This explains a lot, thank you very much.

As for me, when I am wrong, it disturbs me. It upsets me and requires a correction. The same with doubt. I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack. Now I am old and these modest aims have been achieved. You don't believe me? Under my system, your beliefs don't matter. Proof and evidence matters. If I began to care about other people's mere beliefs and plain assertions, it would be really stooping low to the level of blind faith...

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #67 – 2014-07-26, 02:41:01

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 06:09:05

with doubt [:] I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack.

You want to be God, but know -reasonably- that you can't… I (sort-of) understand; but I wouldn't recommend drug therapies… You say you are old; but that's the middle-aged man bemoaning that he's no longer a teen-ager, I think. Give it (life) more time. You'll get used to it!

Learn to laugh, even when you only want to cry… (Others will be confused about which you're doing, either way.) And, please, recognize: When others attack your philosophy, they only attack you insofar as you've attacked them… That is: Your own conscience is biting you, even as it kisses!
————————————————
No wonder, we've always been at cross purposes: I revel in the chaotic immanence… Only secondarily do I need or seek explanation, explication or exegesis… Usually, things -people, circumstances, texts- are pretty straightforward; too much analysis often leads to a disconnection between understanding and knowing (I'd call it "believing"…), a preference for formalisms that isn't justifiable except on psychological terms: "anal retentive" is the neo-Freudian term.
Which neatly explains your "personal" reaction to my characterization of Plotinus' philosophy. (I don't think Plotinus would mind…

) What I wonder is, why are you so determined to reject a world that doesn't make sense?
Isn't there still enough that's worthwhile?

(The above -of course- harkens back to James' last post in the "Problem with Atheism" thread…)

Even temporarily…?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #68 – 2014-07-26, 05:13:35

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-26, 02:41:01

What I wonder is, why are you so determined to reject a world that doesn't make sense?
Isn't there still enough that's worthwhile?

What else does "worthwhile" mean if not "make sense"? How do you measure or recognise the worth?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the answer. I evaluate things and you think it's overanalysis, whereas your own perspective is constantly lacking and missing the point so you pretend that this is not your purpose anyway. But it is the purpose for me. And I am not inventing or imagining this purpose. It's really how I am. And if neo-Freudians think "analysis" and "anal" have a tight subconscious connection because they sound the same, let them. They are grossly overlooking that English is only my fourth language or so, but this is understandable, as analysis is not their purpose, evidently...

You are right on one thing: We are here at cross-purposes. But I knew this too. Really, I have achieved my modest purpose in this life. Time to move on.

Hence afterlife. Please refute afterlife someone so I can stop believing in it. Except that I don't believe in it. There are ways to get to know about it, whoever wants to really find out beyond doubt.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #69 – 2014-07-26, 06:27:04

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 21:13:35

if neo-Freudians think "analysis" and "anal" have a tight subconscious connection because they sound the same

Come now, ersi, even you know that a happenstance like "similar sound" plays no part in the term's meaning…
Your English has greatly improved over the last few years. It is very good. Yet you imply an in-facility, to avoid an obvious criticism…?

But -perhaps- you speak much the same, in whatever language you use.

BTW: Melodrama doesn't suit you. Write some poetry, instead!

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #70 – 2014-07-26, 06:50:35

I refuse to believe you didn't recognise a glaringly obvious joke by a linguist. Plus it's a direct extension on your own words. Have I mentioned that reductio ad absurdum is my favourite technique of detecting fallacies, to moderate my own thought process and others' reasoning?

In our culture we don't say "just kidding" at every turn. Hardly ever, really. This probably complicates things for you, but makes it funnier for me. I will keep it this way

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #71 – 2014-07-26, 06:56:24

…everyone's a comedian!

Do you remember an origins of language thread back on MyOpera, started by jax? A few posts there mentioned Pirahã… What, as a linguist, is your opinion about the possibility of a language without recursion?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #72 – 2014-07-26, 13:38:25

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 14:09:05

Hopefully you can answer these little questions:

- What is the root cause for wanting to live forever?
- What is the rational modern thinking that is to replace the invented god?
- How will the new thinking help to overcome the root cause?

It certainly must be quite apparent to you as to how I will answer these questions, but....

- The survival instinct to want to live on and on, found in all animals and insects, but interpreted to the point of absurdity by conscience humans simply because they could.
- Rational and empirically based scientific discoveries contrary to the necessity of the invented god.
- It can't--science can only rationalize it in the minds of those who are open to understanding new things.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 14:09:05

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 15:42:17...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you.

So, being wrong doesn't disturb you. This explains a lot, thank you very much.

As for me, when I am wrong, it disturbs me. It upsets me and requires a correction. The same with doubt. I have always had an urgent need to eliminate my doubts, to clarify everything and to put everything into perspective, to build a philosophy that explains everything and is defensible against all attack. Now I am old and these modest aims have been achieved.

Read the words slowly and one at a time, old man(?). It does disturb me, but only to the point of the sudden realization of it, from there I easily move on. I could devise a supernatural philosophy of everything, that is immune to attacks of any sort, in the next ten minutes--what took you so long?

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #73 – 2014-07-26, 16:57:08

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-26, 13:38:25

- The survival instinct to want to live on and on, found in all animals and insects, but interpreted to the point of absurdity by conscience humans simply because they could.

- What is the absurdity that humans have arrived at based on the fact of the survival instinct? (No doubt the answer is: gods. In which case I'm asking what is absurd about gods. Define "absurd".)

- How is your denial of the purpose and meaning to the survival instinct not absurd? (To me it's absurd to deny any purpose or meaning to facts, i.e. leave them without proper explanation. Survival instinct is inherent to nature and this fact has its meaning. Human inherent tendency to attribute meaning to facts is yet another fact with a further meaning of its own. It's absurd to leave these facts unexplained, to leave them hanging meaninglessly.)

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-26, 13:38:25

- Rational and empirically based scientific discoveries contrary to the necessity of the invented god.
- It can't--science can only rationalize it in the minds of those who are open to understanding new things.

If science can only rationalise the instinct, not overcome it, then why prefer the scientific rationalisation over any other rationalisation, such as invented gods? And it is highly arguable if gods really are invented. Sure, gods are invented from your scientistic point of view, but since scientism's best achievement is merely to rationalise about the core facts of life, not to do anything more effective about them, then scientism seems to have at best only 50:50 odds against any other kind of rationalisation.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-26, 13:38:25

Read the words slowly and one at a time, old man(?). It does disturb me, ...

You said "...being wrong doesn't disturb me as much as it terrifies you. " You are utterly wrong on the second part. I have no fear at all of being wrong. It disturbs me when I'm wrong, but it's a constructive force for me, so there's no fear. When this is properly understood, then it follows that your being wrong doesn't disturb you to any notable degree, when compared to me.

Having been through this line of thought, I answered the way I answered earlier.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-26, 13:38:25

I could devise a supernatural philosophy of everything, that is immune to attacks of any sort, in the next ten minutes--what took you so long?

I entertained various ideologies and mindsets for fun during my university years. I thought of what my professors would like to hear and I made presentations and wrote essays from that perspective. This was without any real commitment of course, just to collect brownie points in school. But in reality I want to be earnest and I kept my mind open to the possibility of finding real truth. Relative truth with the tendency towards no-truth was not really my thing. (Most my professors were postmodernists. Postmodernism has that ridiculous absolutisation of relative truth.)

So, yeah, I can also conjure up an ideology in ten minutes and in an hour or two write a defence of it against some conceivable attacks, but a sincere ideology reflects oneself, and a truly unshakable one stands the test of years of disputes and provides working solutions in real-life setbacks. The philosophy becomes really immune against attacks when it's successfully lived.

But go ahead. Give me a defence of some supernatural theory of everything, let's say Buddhism. Let's see what you've got. Be my guest.

Re: The Problem with Buddhism

Reply #74 – 2014-07-26, 20:09:11

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-26, 16:57:08

- What is the absurdity that humans have arrived at based on the fact of the survival instinct? (No doubt the answer is: gods. In which case I'm asking what is absurd about gods. Define "absurd".)

Eternal life, or god if you wish.

All living things have a natural mechanism embedded in their genes that makes them want to survive in order to perpetuate the species, even plants because they will grow toward the sunlight in an effort to survive if put in a dark place. Should we interpret that instinct as proof of eternal life for plants? No, that is absurd, i.e. nutsy coocoo. Then why is nature's survival instinct any different for humans? It's not--if you know evolution. But you put humans on much too high a pedestal because of your belief in god. It will only add fuel to your fire to point out that we are genetically 50% similar to plants and part of that similarity is the survival instinct--so forget I even said it. Nevertheless, it simply does not logically follow to say that the instinct to survive, found in all living things, is any kind of evidence or proof that eternal life awaits only the human species.

Poll

Buddhism is...