black mature woman photos nude

GAD:
Please don't base your opinions only, or even mostly, on what I've said. I'm not at all a teacher of Buddhist logic. I'm still exploring and scrutinizing it myself.

M.M.:

Thanks for replying to my questions. I learned a lot and have refined my opinions about the beliefs of Buddhism. Sorry to say they are not positive. If your interested, I'll try and state them in a post, but that could get ugly.......

Chris Everett:

"in standard quantum mechanics the SYSTEM exists (e.g. we have an electron, a photon, a baseball, whatever), but its PROPERTIES (e.g. position, velocity, color) DON'T exist in a DETERMINATE manner until the system is observed. Instead, they exist as a set of possibilities."

I'm OK with the above and I read the link. What I don't see is a definition of "nothing" nor anything that precludes the universe that we live it from being causal and deterministic, at least at the level we operate at within it. Would you agree with that?

"I should have said space can't be empty. Everything I know about physics presumes the existence of a universe in which physics plays out."

If space-time (and our universe) started at the BB, there had to be "something" before space-time and the universe, physics or no physics, so it seems to me that "something" would have to be the natural state and that "nothing" probably isn't even a possibility.

So on the question of "why is there something instead of nothing" my answer is "no (or ever knowable) reason" because if "something" came from "nothing" then we can never know, and if "something" is the natural state then we can't go beyond it i.e. "no reason", that's the way it "is".

I'm looking to see if my beliefs hold up scientifically, so if anyone knows something that scientifically proves my beliefs wrong (and can explain it so I can understand it) I would very much like to hear it.

Sorry, I'm feeling verbose today. I'll stop after this.

GAD: I didn't answer part of your question, really. There is one Buddhist 'school' called the Mind Only school, and they do believe that the mind essentially creates the whole of existence. I study Tibetan Buddhism which is the Middle Way school (middle between nihilism and eternalism ... meaning, yes things exist, but nothing lasts forever in some fixed way, nothing has a permanent self).

So, no, the mind does not create the body and the world of form. The mind and the world of form have always existed, and exist in an interdependent way.

GAD said:

"So does the mind create the body and the world that the body operates in? If not how could bodies come into existence on their own, since they couldn't survive without a mind to drive them."

I think you're asking: how did a body first come to be so that an awareness could then attach to it? In the Buddhist view, there is no beginning. The way things are (awareness and form, and awareness attaching itself to form) is beginningless.

You might ask, how can you prove that it's beginningless? Buddhists look at how things exist right now, physical and mental, and they look very carefully and scrutinize how things exist and function. This is the purpose of meditation. They would argue that begninningless existence is far more consistent with how things can be observed to behave right now, right here, than an explanation that posits a beginning. When you have a beginning and no end, it doesn't make sense. How could that be? Clearly there can't be an infinite forwards in time without an infinite backwards in time. And then, logically, if something is here now, then something must have always been. Then some say there is a God or divine force that was always there determining how things are. But where is the proof of that?

To those who say Buddhism can't prove nirvana or future/past lives, just as other religions can't prove heaven/creation, I would say this: By logic, you can see that each moment of matter/form and each moment of awareness are effects of causes, namely the immediately preceding moment of form or awareness. Logically, we could say this is more likely to have gone back forever and will go forward forever, than we are able to logically say otherwise. This is how past/future lives are proven: the awareness, just because the body is no longer there, doesn't just stop. As for nirvana, given that we can see that "Me" or "cup of coffee" only exist as concepts, and that our clinging to a body and therefore suffering out of ignorance (thinking our body will last forever, thinking we can 'own' things, have things, accumulate things), and then seeing that it might be possible to get to a point where you are no longer seeing via this illusory, conceptual model, then you see it is possible to reach nirvana. Nirvana is not some state you get to by worshiping a divine being, or by a divine being's power. It is simply getting to a point where you see this very reality for what it really is (free of concepts).

GAD:

I don't think I can articulate the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics as well as otheres, so here's a link. The section of indeterminacy and incompleteness is probably the most on target. As I learned it, in standard quantum mechanics the SYSTEM exists (e.g. we have an electron, a photon, a baseball, whatever), but its PROPERTIES (e.g. position, velocity, color) DON'T exist in a DETERMINATE manner until the system is observed. Instead, they exist as a set of possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

I may have overspoken when I said the uncertainty principle says you can't have nothing. I should have said space can't be empty. Everything I know about physics presumes the existence of a universe in which physics plays out.

M.M.:

Thanks for the reply! I have one more question. So the mind is immaterial, but the body is material "Different flavor of existence", correct? So does the mind create the body and the world that the body operates in? If not how could bodies come into existence on their own, since they couldn't survive without a mind to drive them.

Chris Everett:

You are probably far more well versed in this then I, but bare with me here, doesn't want you stated support the idea that there isn't a "nothingness" state?

"The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is non-causal. Specifically, it posits that the unobserved world exists in a "superposition" of possible states."

By "superposition" you can not mean that it exists and does not exist at the same time, correct. Therefore for there to a "superposition" there has to be "something" that is in "superposition". As for non-causal I'm OK with that as the natural state of "something", causation starts at the point where some "natural state" quantum event hits a probability that results in, for example, the big bang, leading to the completely causal and therefore deterministic universe that we find ourself in.

"the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a consequence of Schrodinger's equation, says that there are pairs of observables (such as momentum and position)"

Again to observe something means there has to be "something" to observe.

A strange consequence of this is that you CAN'T HAVE NOTHING, since it would require simultaneously knowing something definite about BOTH quantities! Instead, we have "quantum foam" - particles coming into and out of existence for tiny amounts of time.

This I don't get, to know something about anything (simultaneously or otherwise) means there has to be "something" to know about. The only strange consequence I can see would be "simultaneously knowing something definite about two quantities" of "nothing", which you state you can't have, so what's the "strange consequence" here?

I don't know how I'm going to break it to Moms that the real reason she's voted with the Democrats for the past 60-some years is because she's probably some kind of bogus atheist.

Daniel:

Instead of your arrogant incoherence, why not at least define your terms and present your point of view in an understandable? What do you mean by "God"? Why do you relate God with determinism, especially when the god of the Bible is so arbitrary? By determinism, are you suggesting that everything that happens does so because it was intended to happen, thus requiring God as the source of the intention?

Daniel,

I've said many times I don't consider myself an atheist because I acknowledge the possibility of a god. I just see no reason to treat a god's existence as probable since there is no evidence for it.

I'm not schooled in different philosophies, so I can't say for certain what determinism is and how it's related to Hegel and Marx. (And if your reference to those men is intended to suggest that I'm a communist, them's fightin' words.) I'm not trying to argue for determinism or even against it. In fact, I'm not taking any philosophical stance other than for naturalism over supernaturalism, because there is no empirical evidence for the latter. The question of a god must be addressed empirically and not philosophically, unless one defines one's god as a concept or metaphor instead of as an actual being.

Your references to "chance" remind me of the creationist claim that natural selection results in life having no meaning. What is your stance on the concept of natural laws? The deist attributes these to a god, which is a position that I can appreciate. But for the scientist, it's enought that these laws exist and that they allow for the prediction of certain natural events.

I seem to remember a porno film called Living Large.
Then there was Living Large 2,and Living Large 3.
Then there was Living Larger,and Living Larger 2 and 3.
then there was Living Largest,and Living Even Larger.
Then there was Largest Living Largers Live in Las Vegas.
Then I checked in to rehab and found jEeZuzz..(*)!!
ECLATi=on..(**&^ BeAm mEuP^&(JOZevz)-=!@#oUcH!!

Henry James;

Of course Henry,of course I'm not including Big Ted.(PBUH) He really does exist.I'm sure he went out Haloweening dressed as himself last night,enough to scare the bejeesus out of anybody.
Keep up the good work Henry.

Daniel
You are persistent.

You keep making a fool of yourself here,
and then you keep coming back for more.

Keep up the entertaining work. Eventually, you will get at least one thing right.

Betty

No No Yo Yo

iadmit all those other gods are made up, but mine is real!!!

His name is Rev Ted Haggart. Ever see the body on that guy!

Adonis, move over in the bed.

Daniel;
You are tying yourself up in knots.Relax.Take a deep breath.I'm an atheist. Maybe I can help you.

If you want to know the atheist position,ask an atheist.Or read a book on the subject.You could get a bad case of cognitive dissonance trying to put your head in atheists shoes,so to speak.

Look,it's no big deal.You don't have to be a philosopher to doubt the existence of god.Anybody can do it.Atheists don't believe there's a god;that's all. Everything comes from that. There is no reason for an atheist,or anyone else,to believe in god.
Determinism shseterminism hocus pocus ballyhoo,it's irrelevant.

God is made up;just like Adonis was made up.Just like Isis was made up.
Just like Krishna was made up.Just like Neptune was made up.Just like Zeus was made up,and Thor and Woden,and Aphrodite,and Mithras,and Saturn,and Venus,and Mercury,and Jupiter,and Mars,and Amun,and Vishnu,and Shiva,and Shakti,and Hermes,and Artemis,and Dionysus,and...well you get the picture.Gods are made up.Unless you believe that all the above gods existed too.
What all these gods tell me,and should tell you,
is that cultures are driven to make up gods.They do it all the time;we don't need Voltaire to tell us that the people would invent a god if they didn't have one;history demonstrates it quite clearly.

Daniel said:
"No M.M. I am not avoiding how Eastern religions deal with determinism--for they deal with it in as logical a manner as Westerners: they recognize the world is indeterminate if they cannot reach the end state of Nirvana--that is the hope. And that hope is strictly analogous to a God belief."

According to Buddhism as I understand it, the world is determinate via karma whether or not someone has reached enlightenment, or hopes to reach it. The act of beings hoping for something doesn't change how existence operates.

I agree that there are some similarities between Buddhism and theistic religions; but most Buddhists consider themselves atheists, because a buddha is a regular being, just like you or me, who has merely removed the inability to experience reality directly. We all have this ability.

In short, Buddhism is atheism with determinism. That's what Buddhists think of their own religion, in any case. And they didn't do it as a "lowdown dirty trick," at least I don't think that was their motivation.

To Joet from Daniel. Thank you for making some sense. I am not defending a belief in God (it tells a lot about modern atheists that they would automatically think so). I agree with you there is order and it takes faith to trace such as determined back to God. But if it takes faith to trace such back to God then there is no certainty to determinism--that in fact the universe is "oh, so wonderfully and marvellously ordered".--Which is why the atheist view is one of fundamentally a world of chance, and therefore man in such a world...(Now please meditate moderns atheists on what it would be like for man to really meditate on such a problem--the problem with respect to politics, economics, etc.). Thank you.

GAD said: "Well that's terribly convenient isn't it, I could cure AIDS but I am far to happy to care about doing so."

In Buddhism, enlightened beings are thought to be omniscient but not omnipotent. They do care very much about the suffering of beings, and they do whatever they can. But they can't come down and cure everyone. If they were able to do that, they would have already. Disease and the like happen due to karma. There's lots written on the subject.

GAD said: "So the mind is real and the body is an illusion, correct? The mind sounds a lot like the soul."

The mind is real and form is real, the parts that make up the body. But the "I" the "you" and things (car, house) are not inherently real, meaning they are constantly in flux, can't be pinned down, we just see them as inherently real, mistakenly. The mind is not like the soul at all in the sense that it is also not inherently real, nothing you can pin down. Just a continuum of awarenesses strung together, each successive one giving rise to the next.

GAD: "Some questions 1) Is the mind material?"

No, it is said to be not physical. Different flavor of existence. I don't really understand this very well.

GAD: "2) What do you think causes so many minds to find/need/create/image the bodies that it sees itself as, or tied to? 3) Where did the first mind(s) come from?"

These are questions I struggle with. The answer I've been given is, basically, it's just always been this way, for infinite past lives. So there's no 'original cause' in a chronological sense, just a mind mistakenly grasping onto phenomena forever until now.

GAD: "4)When we have children, is a new mind created or does an existing mind (from somewhere) attach itself to the illusion of the baby body that the mommy and daddy minds imagined?"

A new mind from somewhere attaches itself to the sperm and egg once they've joined, but the mommy and daddy minds don't really play a role, except that to some degree the mind that is wandering is attracted to the mom and or dad--that's part of what that mind is attracted to.

To M.M. from Daniel. Thank you M.M. for demonstrating with sterling clarity modern atheist nonsense. I really must congratulate you.

One of the most confounded lowdown tricks of modern atheism is the claim the Buddhists are atheists and vice-versa. An atheist believe in buddhism--consider it atheistic--when there is as little evidence of reincarnation or the end state of nirvana as there is for God (according to atheists)? Atheists dismiss God at the origin but accept as perfectly acceptable the ultimate end state called Nirvana?

What a lowdown trick. What a perfect example of not really atheism but lowdown leftwing upraising of anything not associated with monotheism--especially anything associated with the republican party.

No M.M. I am not avoiding how Eastern religions deal with determinism--for they deal with it in as logical a manner as Westerners: they recognize the world is indeterminate if they cannot reach the end state of Nirvana--that is the hope. And that hope is strictly analogous to a God belief. Certainly it has more in common with monotheism than atheism--which is why buddhism is called a type of religion and not atheism.

The question for modern atheists is rather how they can dismiss God but then prattle on about Buddhism--that is the question. But once again, that would require the very honesty and morality that atheists are so damn sure exists without God.

But this is all political nonsense and not really about atheism.

Daniel: I could start by saying you don't understand Marx or Hegel, but why bother. I can't deduce any political position from my atheism. Nor do I need God for order, nor do I have to invent any substitute quasi god to get the order I need. I have no idea why the universe is as ordered as it is. it's marvelous. god seems to be the most ridiculous explanation for that. and your whole endeavor of logically supporting the existence of god from such arguments is necessarily bogus. god may exist, but if he does, it's a matter of faith. if his existence could be proven, it would not be faith. arguments from logic cannot, as a matter of metaphysics, ever be legitimate with respect to the presence or absence of god. get over it, and believe what you will. I am cool with that.

M.M. said:

"And, an enlightened being might be able to see tomorrow's lotto numbers, but if they could, I don't think they would care."

Well that's terribly convenient isn't it, I could cure AIDS but I am far to happy to care about doing so. :)

So the mind is real and the body is an illusion, correct? The mind sounds a lot like the soul. Some questions, 1) Is the mind material? 2) What do you think causes so many minds to find/need/create/image the bodies that it sees itself as, or tied to? 3) Where did the first mind(s) come from? 4)When we have children, is a new mind created or does an existing mind (from somewhere) attach itself to the illusion of the baby body that the mommy and daddy minds imagined?

Good grief Tonio! The most preposterous thing about modern atheists is that you always end up defining God in some fashion which suits you--which means you end up dismissing God but then are left with much which people would call God and then turn around and say such is not God.

How complex is it to say, to acknowledge, to read, to understand, that for centuries now people have recognized that if God is dismissed this means there is no determinism--that all is chance, that for all order in the universe fundamentally this rests on a backdrop of chance because there is no God? How complex is that Tonio? Why is it modern atheists cannot recognize what has been a basic part of man's intellectual history?

You modern atheists seem to want to dismiss God but then preserve determinism which of course is of a piece with Hegel and Marx. But this is intellectual jibber jabber. Anyone with basic honesty can see that a dismissal of God leads to indeterminism--which is why we have the concept of indeterminism in the first place. Or are you now going to blame the concept of indeterminism, its origin, on believers in God?

Honestly, I feel like I am talking to children or something. Read Maimonides or Aron on the philosophy of history to gain some clarity. At the least ask yourself why it is every single day every post by modern atheists is the same set of reasonings...Try an experiment and criticize your own positions, modern atheists,--for that is true scientific reasoning. But no, this is not about science at all--mere political uproar in a different guise....

Daniel,

Buddhism has had a system that explains how there can be an "ordered, moral universe without God" for nearly 2,600 years. Hindu thinkers have done some work in this area as well, I believe. These systems are the product of some of the greatest minds from the oldest civilizations on Earth. They deal directly and quite thoroughly with the issue of determinism (we all know 'karma' ... though we usually misunderstand it in the West).

I'm not saying you have to learn about Eastern thought if you don't want to, just like an atheist doesn't have to learn about Christianity if they don't want to. But you seem to be accusing atheists of selectively focusing on what they want to, avoiding what they don't want, in order to maintain their view. But if you avoid how Eastern philosophy deals with determinism, are you not doing the same thing?

DANIEL:

I'd like to respond, but I have to go. However, I feel I can confidently agree in advance with the barrage of posts you are about to receive.

YOYO:

Thanks, for the kind words, I appreciate your posts too.

GAD:

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is non-causal. Specifically, it posits that the unobserved world exists in a "superposition" of possible states. Schrodinger's equation gives the ODDS on what state will be observed if an observation is made. When an observation IS made, the "state vector" collapses, totally at random, from its superposition of many possibilities to just one particular observed value. Under this interpretation, the collapse creates information that didn't exist before, namely the particular observed value. This is kind of getting something that wasn't there before, although you can't say it was nothing.

Additionally, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is a consequence of Schrodinger's equation, says that there are pairs of observables (such as momentum and position) that are mutually exclusive such that by observing one quantity (i.e. by collapsing the state vector to a definite value) you NECESSARILY UNCOLLAPSE the state vector from a definite value for the other quantity, if it happened to be in one (i.e. you put it back into a superposition of the other quantity's possible values). A strange consequence of this is that you CAN'T HAVE NOTHING, since it would require simultaneously knowing something definite about BOTH quantities! Instead, we have "quantum foam" - particles coming into and out of existence for tiny amounts of time. Their existence has been verified by the tiny pressure they exert during their breif stay (c.f. the Casmir effect).

I'm sure a cosmologist would have something more specific to say about the big bang. I know it's considered to be a quantum phenomenon.

Daniel,

Can you explain what you mean when you talk about determinism? I've been talking about the basic principle of cause and effect. In an indirect way, I've been arguing against the hateful belief that acts of nature are punishments or rewards from deities.

To all atheists that responded to me (Tonio, Joet, the rest). A very big misconception atheists seem to have revolves around the problem of determinism versus indeterminism, whether the world is fundamentally a world of chance or ordered to the point of God.

We will now examine the problem. A truly atheistic viewpoint would be one which is suspicious of all determinisms--would be a viewpoint that although recognizes order all around us still resists seeing such order traced back to a creator. In other words a true atheist will live in a world of partial determinisms and resist total determinisms precisely because total determinisms smack (in today's language) of intelligent design or God.

But of course atheists throughout history have not been capable of removing themselves from determinism as much as the position "atheist" demands. A sterling example--and I submit the example which is probably the reason for modern atheists constantly speaking of an ordered, moral universe without God--is the example descended from Hegel through Marx which is an atheism which however believes in the inevitability of a particular type of economic order, etc.

This in my opinion is a false atheism. It is a piece of bad reasoning in other words to dismiss God but then turn right around and insist on order, causation, determinism without God. That piece of tricky reasoning is of a piece with Christian fudgings as to whether Christ is all human or half human or fully God.

A true atheist position in dismissing God must--if to be philosophically honest--be suspicious of all determinism and the logical consequence of dismissing religion and arriving at atheism is not modern liberalism (Democratic party) as so many atheists seem to assume. Honestly modern atheists, do you really believe that dismissing God is a simple affair of arriving at your groupthink (you all certainly seem on the same page) and nothing more?

A true atheist politics would be something a bit different I can assure you--probably something of the federal reserve and monetary policy taken to new heights (capacity to inflate and deflate) in the sense that through genetics we will breed individuals that assure economic plenty (that all are equal monetarily as in communism--thus the triumph of the left) but the mistakes of communism will not be made because breeding quality individuals will take precedence over methods of redistribution (thus the triumph of a type of rightwing, libertarian, individualistic outlook).

But modern atheists evidently prefer their little philosophy tricks of being against religion, God, that atheism is not a world of chance, that we have a happy little group which is evidently liberal (democratic party). And this modern atheists call critical thinking, being moral, being more intelligent than the religious...

Much more can be said, but perhaps the best that can be said for now is how really does anyone expect me to take modern atheists for being moral when really there is no examination of their own position? Every day we get the same arguments, the same cocksure nonsense displayed by the modern atheists which leads me to believe that what we have here is really liberalism just modifying itself to take on a particular aspect of the Republican party--its dominance by religion.

Politics and nothing more. No real philosophy discussion. No real willingness to examine the problem of atheism.

To all atheists that responded to me (Tonio, Joet, the rest). A very big misconception atheists seem to have revolves around the problem of determinism versus indeterminism, whether the world is fundamentally a world of chance or ordered to the point of God.

We will now examine the problem. A truly atheistic viewpoint would be one which is suspicious of all determinisms--would be a viewpoint that although recognizes order all around us still resists seeing such order traced back to a creator. In other words a true atheist will live in a world of partial determinisms and resist total determinisms precisely because total determinism smacks (in today's language) of intelligent design or God.

But of course atheists throughout history have not been capable of removing themselves from determinism as much as the position "atheist" demands. A sterling example--and I submit the example which is probably the reason for modern atheists constantly speaking of an ordered, moral universe without God--is the example descended from Hegel through Marx which is an atheism which however believes in the inevitability of a particular type of economic order, etc.

This in my opinion is a false atheism. It is a piece of bad reasoning in other words to dismiss God but then turn right around and insist on order, causation, determinism without God. That piece of tricky reasoning is of a piece with Christian fudgings as to whether Christ is all human or half human or fully God.

A true atheist position in dismissing God must--if to be philosophically honest--be suspicious of all determinism and the logical consequence of dismissing religion and arriving at atheism is not modern liberalism (Democratic party) as so many atheists seem to assume. Honestly modern atheists, do you really believe that dismissing God is a simple affair of arriving at your groupthink (you all certainly seem on the same page) and nothing more?

A true atheist politics would be something a bit different I can assure you--probably something of the federal reserve and monetary policy taken to new heights (capacity to inflate and deflate) in the sense that through genetics we will breed individuals that assure economic plenty (that all are equal monetarily as in communism--thus the triumph of the left) but the mistakes of communism will not be made because breeding quality individuals will take precedence over methods of redistribution (thus the triumph of a type of rightwing, libertarian, individualistic outlook).

But modern atheists evidently prefer their little philosophy tricks of being against religion, God, that atheism is not a world of chance, that we have a happy little group which is evidently liberal (democratic party). And this modern atheists call critical thinking, being moral, being more intelligent than the religious...

Much more can be said, but perhaps the best that can be said for now is how really does anyone expect me to take modern atheists for being moral when really there is no examination of their own position? Every day we get the same arguments, the same cocksure nonsense displayed by the modern atheists which leads me to believe that what we have here is really liberalism just modifying itself to take on a particular aspect of the Republican party--its dominance by religion.

Politics and nothing more. No real philosophy discussion. No real willingness to examine the problem of atheism.

GAD said:

"So, once you are "just experiencing reality directly" what great insighst come from that? Can you see what tomorrows lotto numbers will be, does the cure for cancer lay there etc. etc. Or like Christianity, does it just provide a systematic method of self delusion that give ones life in this world meaning and purpose by way of preparation for the next world where all things will be reveled."

I hear you. I felt the same way that you do, and still do about most religions. So why do I have an interest in Buddhism? Because it is different, in my opinion.

Buddhism says that if you are here in a body you are already deluded, by default. You are deluded because your mind (your awareness) mistakenly sees itself as the body, or tied to it, and it sees itself as real. Which is to say that it sees some "me-ness" there. Something existing from its own side. We all operate that way, right? If someone hits you, who gets upset and feels pain? Me, that's who. We all see things this way. And an enemy, they're very real, right? From their own side. They are inherently existent. So are things: my car, my mug, my girlfriend, etc. These things are real.

Buddhism says this entire view of existence is mistaken. And there's not really any magic involved, not much mysticism at all. It's just simple logic that you can do with your own mind--you don't even need a microscope. It goes like this: everything changes. We're made up of atoms/energy, and it's changing. Our current body will continue to change and then cease to function. Our awareness changes every millisecond. So where is the solid, real "me" that we cherish and protect? Look for it and you won't find it. It is merely a designation, a concept imputed on a collection of parts. You get more and more insight into this as you move along your way to enlightenment, and then enlightenment is said to be when you have totally removed all mistaken consciousnesses, and even the predispositions for them. So, it's removing the inability to see the world we are in now, not arriving at some new magical place.

And, an enlightened being might be able to see tomorrow's lotto numbers, but if they could, I don't think they would care.

The dichotomy, as you say, applies to religious and non-religious people alike.

It goes to a key question: "who is the beneficiary of moral behavior?"

Unless one's God is codependent, the beneficiary is not God. God is perfectly happy, if He/She/They exists and is perfect, so misbehaviour by humans cannot dimish Him/Her/Them.

This means that morality (like the Sabbath) is for man/woman to live happily in this life. Belief in the next life implies that this life simply continues. The standard for morality thus becomes workability, both for the individual and the species.

Henry and Drew: thanks!

Daniel: the proposition that God is required for the universe to be orderly is absurd. in fact, an activist god performing miracles brings disorder to what otherwise would always follow the laws as we discover them.

I was once not only Catholic, but in Opus Dei. I consider myself at least as, if not more, moral now that I have jettisoned my faith as illegitimate, as I now believe it is rooted in the truth, that the human species is quite capable of living right, and defining same, without religious notions.

as for agnosticism being superior, I don't quarrel with anyone who can't decide not to believe, but it is not logical to claim that not taking a position is in any way the superior path. Either god exists or he does not. Not deciding what you believe because you can't is just fine, but it poses a problem if you ever face an issue where you just have to decide. fortunately, there aren't many of those, if any (which is another point, but enough for now).

M.M.said:

"So, we're putting forth questions and arguments here about the ultimate, about how things ultimately exist, but we're using abstract concepts and language of our own creation. Buddhism aims to go beyond that with meditation where you eventually, after a lot of work, arrive at a point where you are no longer using a conceptual framework to interface with reality -- you are just experiencing it directly."

So, once you are "just experiencing reality directly" what great insighst come from that? Can you see what tomorrows lotto numbers will be, does the cure for cancer lay there etc. etc. Or like Christianity, does it just provide a systematic method of self delusion that give ones life in this world meaning and purpose by way of preparation for the next world where all things will be reveled. Just once I'd like see someone who has claimed to have found the meaning of life provide something of real value in this life and not just a promise of something better in the next.

Chris Everett;
I liked your last post,and toyed with the idea of posting a list of great but flawed figures myself.I didn't bother because the list might be too long,and prove nothing in the end,except that perhaps we are all flawed in one way or another, important people too;that's life.
We celebrate the famous for what they contribute to civilization,despite their flaws.

I've read and enjoyed all your comments,above,and hope you continue to post your outstanding observations on these threads,for our edification and enjoyment.
Thanks...

Norrie Hoyt said:

"'Unless you accept the Buddhist idea of an infinite number of universes existing eternally, or something similar, you'll probably try to conceive that there was a state where absolutely nothing existed [I'm not sure humans can conceive such a state.].

'Then the question is, "How could anything possibly have come into existence?" is in front of us.'"

Well I'm not Buddhist, nor do I find anything inspiring or compelling within Buddhism that would lead me to believe that it knows anything about anything. Even within science I don't see much that would compel one to entertain the idea of an infinite number of universes existing eternally, or something similar. I have tried to conceive that there was a state where absolutely nothing existed, but could not reconcile that with causation. A creator can not be the answer because it fails for the same reason. That leads me, through logical deduction, to believe that "something" is the natural state of things and that "nothing" is probably not even possible.

Is anyone aware of any scientific theory that starts from the state of "absolutely nothing" or even suggest that that is even possible?

So on the question of "How could anything possibly have come into existence? the only reasonable answer (to me) would seem to be that it didn't.

The incredible contributions to humanity made by "great" people are not diminished by thier flaws. Some of my heros are:

Albert Einstein - womanizer

Martin Luther King - ditto

Benjamin Franklin - absentee husband

Thomas Jefferson - preening slaveowning spendthrift

Isaac Newton - neurotic, obsessive-compulsive, petty, paranoid bastard

Voltaire - enough said

"Quite evidently in a world without God--and with only determinisms which are temporary and do not trace back to a creator--man is fundamentally a creature in a world of chance. Regular patterns may crop up here and there in nature, but they are never to be relied upon."

Daniel, the universe is not a place of randomness. If that were true, we couldn't count on gravity or magnetism. Nothing happens by chance. That doesn't mean that each event is caused by a deity who makes a conscious choice to make that event happen. Instead, it means that each event is caused by a specific series of preceding events, and if one of those events did not happen then the outcome event would be different.

"One must alter thought AND behavior constantly--never take for granted one knows correct actions."

Your word "correct" suggests that you believe morality is about following rules. Is that the case? Humans have a moral sense, and while it is certainly not perfect, it does help shape our judgments. And socialization plays a role in morality as well, although this isn't perfect either. Your scenario sounds like an airliner disaster movie where the flight attendant is searching desperately among hundreds of buttons and switches and dials, trying to figure out which one will safely land the plane.

WALDO: Someone who thought the world was flat back in the day would have said "bullsh1t" to anyone who said it was round. That idea would have "totally collided with reality as [they] knew it."

Science is like someone showing you a photo of a house, so you know it exists. Most religions are like someone just saying, I don't have a photo, just take my word on it, it's a great house. And Buddhism is like someone saying, I don't have a photo, but here's a map, if you follow the path shown on the map, you'll find the house. (Please note that to a Buddhist, the Buddhist path is superior even to science in the long run, because you aren't just seeing a photo--a metaphor for understanding reality via a conceptual framework--you are arriving, eventually, at the actual house, and you can walk thru it and experience it.)

Jihadist;

Selamat Pagi.(it's 7;15am here on the west coast)

OK you win. Voltaire's racism is unforgivable.
In fact,if I had ever met the guy I don't believe I would like him,
or him me.He was a prancing aristocrat,
who had no time for the masses.
However,he did at least see religion for what it was in his time;
and helped to weaken it enough so that later generations were able to ignore it.

Goethe thought highly of him,
and here i quote from the introduction to the Portable Voltaire,get a load of this;

"Depth,genius,imagination,taste,reason,sensibility,philosophy,
elevation,originality,nature,intellect,fancy,rectitude,facility,
facility,flexibility,precision,art,abundance,variety,fertility,warmth,
magic,charm,grace,force,an angel's sweep of vision
vast understanding,rich instruction,excellent tone
urbanity,vivacity,delicacy,correctness,purity,clearness,
elegance,harmony,brilliancy,rapidity,gaiety,pathos,sublimity,
universality,perfection,indeed-behold Voltaire."

Like I said,he wasn't all bad.

Chris Everett,

"Nevertheless, I realize that these sorts of ruminations are just that - ruminations. I also consider it absurdly premature to staple the word "god" to the class of possibilities...I believe that the scientific method is the proper means of discovering what is true about the world, and that anything discovered via the scientific method is, by definition, natural."

I absolutely agree.

GAD,

"There are many people who believe that the only reasonable position is the agnostic one and that no belief is superior to belief on the question of 'why is there something instead of nothing'. I say why should I live and die...and consider never taking a position on such things (based on the best possible information available) as either reasonable or superior..."

Your position is not much different from mine. I don't count myself as among the agnostics you criticize in the beginning of the paragraph. My "best information available" position is somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't consider my position a "belief" since it's grounded in information instead of rumination. Like Chris Everett, I acknowledge the possibility of finding compelling evidence for the existence of deity. But like you and Chris, I see no reason to treat that possibility as a probability. Part of the issue is that our language doesn't seem to have a word for the "best information available" approach to answering such questions.

Hi, Jihadist and Henry J.,

Sorry I didn't see your latest posts when they appeared last evening. You cosmopolitans stay up too late for me (though heaven knows what time it is where Jihadist is posting from).

Up here where I live, "the folks" (as Bill O'Reilly would say) are in bed by 8:30 (including me).

It's nice to live in a place where "the folks" think it's a couple of centuries ago.

Billo pretends to love "the folks", but his actual, obvious, sneering contempt for them rolls off him like sweat.

All the best to you.

Hi, Waldo,

No, no Academy award for me - I don't deal in foolishness unless it's intentional.

However, among the two dozen awards that Jihadist bestowed recently on posters here, she did name me "Best Wit".

I'm very happy and proud of that. I'd much rather be known as funny than as learned, philosophical, or religious.

I am disappointed that you thought I was an atheist. I've posted ad nauseam that I'm an agnostic with Buddhist sympathies. Agnosticism is the most rational approach to these questions.

I hadn't noticed that I'd been drubbed on this thread. I thought we had an interesting discussion where some disagreed with my approach. Disagreement makes these discussions interesting. There's no fun if everyone's of one mind.

As I said in an earlier post, I thought that Pope Lucius III and his Inquisition had eliminated you Waldensians* in the 1200's and, as with the Cavemen in the Geico commercial, I had thought you guys were no longer around.

* Founded by your namesake, Peter Waldo.

Congratulations on escaping, and best wishes to you.

Tonio said:

"GAD,

"based on the best information we have today we say that there are no god or god(s) and have no reason to suppose that that will change in the future...we use the same criteria "best information available" to make a choice on everything else, so why not this..."
That's exactly what I've been saying"

I think I may take it one step further then you do, in an earlier post you said

"If we cannot answer a question about the universe, the only responsible course of action is to admit that we don't know the answer."

I chose an answer to "why is there something instead of nothing", "no (or ever knowable) reason" based on the reasons I gave in my past post. There are many people who believe that the only reasonable position is the agnostic one and that no belief is superior to belief on the question of "why is there something instead of nothing". I say why should I live and die (since an answer, if there is an answer, which I don't believe there is, will not likely come in my life time) and consider never taking a position on such things (based on the best possible information available) as either reasonable or superior......

Daniel, regarding your comment: "Quite evidently in a world without God--and with only determinisms which are temporary and do not trace back to a creator--man is fundamentally a creature in a world of chance. Regular patterns may crop up here and there in nature, but they are never to be relied upon. One must be as a navigator. And in such a world one must live large rather than well. One must alter thought AND behavior constantly--never take for granted one knows correct actions."

The same would seem to be true even for people who subscribe to a god-given code of morality. The Commandment, "Thou shall not kill" seems like a nice, sturdy, immutable proscription until it's amended, by nearly all Christian sects at least, to exclude cases of self-defense, defense of innocent others, "just wars", capital punishment, and other situations. Wearing cotton and wool together were, at one time, grounds for consequences of Biblical proportions. Where I'm from, wearing makeup, playing cards and dancing are still considered by some to be e-tickets straight to hell. And, if you want to see true navigation, ask a Catholic priest sometime why merely "assisting" in an abortion results in automatic excommunication while deliberately murdering a 2 year old doesn't. If you want your head to explode, have him frame his answer for both pre-Limbo and post-Limbo contingencies.

If a-theistic moral codes are so shakey how did we ever survive long enough, as a species, to see the day when we were forbidden to covet our neighbor's ox?

Norrie Hoyt

Hey didn`t you just win the academy award for best atheist on these threads,or something.
Maybe after the drubbing youve taken on this thread,
maybe you should give it back.
Agnosticism is a weak-knead stance giving to much credability to the fairy people.To even consider a Poppa Geppeto up above the clouds so high is caving in to the unnaturalists and blissful thinkers.
We gotta stick to reality as we know it.If something totally collides with reality as we know it,like a ghost,or a god,well forgedaboutit.
Its bullsh1t.

Henry James,

It is such a relief for me that you are not one of those posters who write posts as if they are making a presentation at a conference or seminar. If I want those, I will go to the conference/seminars or get the papers.

Very interesting indeed, your breakdown. It seem quite close to the percentage of people who don't belief in God/gods in the US actually. About 60% don't according to a survey. I don't know for sure actually how many "don't knows" were included in that percentage of that survey.

My friend, you do remember that Cambridge by the Cam River was where Bertrand Russell was, and was stripped of his post due to his then "controversial" views on this and that. And lots of irreverent atheists too in Cambridge, including the Monty Python gang quoted in name by Tonio in one of his posts here.

There's a cliche - an Oxford man walks as if he owns the world. A Cambridge man walks as if he didn't care who did.

So, now you know where the Monty Python gang are coming from. The Cambridge irreverence rubs on everyone there. After all, Cambridge was founded by "rebels" from Oxford.

I still think Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" is the best and a classic on why one is an atheist. Dawkins and Dennett are excellent for their scientific approach. But Harris, and, especially Hitchens, really do make my eyes roll up sometimes. Both are populists and polemicists. But we have to have them too.

Best regards as always and good night.

"J"

Joet;
Your posts are outstanding and crystal clear;your logic inarguable.
I`m still hoping Daniel will try a response to your last comment.It would be an interesting exchange that would interest us all.

Taken from the ON FAITH homepage upper righthand corner:

THE GOD VOTE
Jacques Berlinerblaur: Life, Death and Atheism

Please correct the spelling of this poor man's name. First the humiliation of posting his sourpuss picture and now you're not even sure of his name..

Hail Jihadist, my favorite believer
(and there are lots of candidates):

yes, my survey was very interesting. i interpret the "don't knows" as Agnostics on those particular questions, a thoroughly intellectually position, as I am sure you will agree.

a couple of other tidbi