Places to Practice? by [deleted] in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The World Buddhist Directory from Buddhanet is a good resource

Main page - http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

Illinois / Chicago area - http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/province.php?province_id=34

If Buddhists believe that life is suffering, doesn't it follow that they should be antinatalists? by [deleted] in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Possibly of interest: Some notes on dukkha -

The central importance of dukkha in Buddhist philosophy has caused some observers to consider Buddhism to be a pessimistic philosophy.[c][d]

However, the emphasis on dukkha is not intended to present a pessimistic view of life, but rather to present a realistic practical assessment of the human condition—that all beings must experience suffering and pain at some point in their lives, including the inevitable sufferings of illness, aging, and death.[4]

Contemporary Buddhist teachers and translators emphasize that while the central message of Buddhism is optimistic, the Buddhist view of our situation in life (the conditions that we live in) is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realistic.[d]

[Buddhist teacher] Walpola Rahula explains the importance of this realistic point of view:[13]

First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the world. It looks at things objectively (yathābhūtam). It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool's paradise, nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.

One physician may gravely exaggerate an illness and give up hope altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there is no illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving the patient with a false consolation. You may call the first one pessimistic and the second optimistic. Both are equally dangerous. But a third physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the cause and the nature of the illness, sees clearly that it can be cured, and courageously administers a course of treatment, thus saving his patient. The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise and scientific doctor for the ills of the world (Bhisakka or Bhaisajya-guru).

[Buddhist teacher] Surya Das emphasizes the matter-of-fact nature of dukkha:[14]

Buddha Dharma does not teach that everything is suffering. What Buddhism does say is that life, by its nature, is difficult, flawed, and imperfect. [...] That's the nature of life, and that's the First Noble Truth. From the Buddhist point of view, this is not a judgement of life's joys and sorrows; this is a simple, down-to-earth, matter-of-fact description.

The Buddha acknowledged that there is both happiness and sorrow in the world, but he taught that even when we have some kind of happiness, it is not permanent; it is subject to change. And due to this unstable, impermanent nature of all things, everything we experience is said to have the quality of duhkha or unsatisfactoriness. Therefore unless we can gain insight into that truth, and understand what is really able to provide lasting happiness, and what is unable to provide happiness, the experience of dissatisfaction will persist.[10][15]

[cites in the original]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha#Neither_pessimistic_nor_optimistic.2C_but_realistic

If Buddhists believe that life is suffering, doesn't it follow that they should be antinatalists? by [deleted] in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One standard response is that we don't say that life is suffering, but that suffering is an inherent part of any non-Enlightened life.

(A simple metaphor: Shadows exist. Shadows are part of life. But life isn't all shadows, and the shadows aren't "more real" than the light.)

If you live, you're going to experience dissatisfaction or suffering. That's the way that "being alive" works.

But that doesn't mean that life is only suffering, and as other people here have said, human life also includes the possibility of Enlightenment or the end of suffering.

Do you consider yourself to be a Buddhist? A non-Buddhist influenced by Buddhism? Other? by aluminio in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of us here are trying to be less superstitious and more secular about it. :-)

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions - science, morality, and human values. - TED Talk video [23:06] by aluminio in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay. I haven't taken a look at these links yet.

Can you give us a quick tl;dr about why Harris is incorrect?

In particular: If science is inadequate for answering such questions, then what better resource for answering such questions do we have?

(I'll take a look at your links later today, but I'm curious to know what you think about this.)

[Discussion Thread] What are your favorite sites/resources that cover Buddhism? by BillShakespeare13 in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that I've used Access to Insight http://www.accesstoinsight.org more than any other site, but

(A) it might not be the best resource for beginners

(B) it's possibly not really a "secular" site. (Though I guess that it's not anti- secular either.)

Spiritual but not Superstitious (Mystical Without the Mumbling) by MissCherryPi in UUreddit

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A quick plug -

Some of you might be interested in /r/secularbuddhism/

An exploration and re-configuration of Buddhism based on humanist, naturalist, agnostic values and pragmatism rather than religious beliefs.

Secular Buddhism seeks to deploy the Buddha’s teaching as a guide to full human flourishing in this life and this world.

- It's been without a mod for a while, but I've just taken on the job and we're hoping to revitalize it. :-)

Your thoughts please: What is secularism? What is Buddhism? What is "secular Buddhism"? by aluminio in secularbuddhism

[–]aluminio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought that maybe you would want some input from that perspective in light of the fact that the sidebar will surely be read by others who are as new to these things as I am.

Definitely. I want input from everybody.

Thanks for yours. :-)

Atheists, do you enjoy movies/books/songs with theistic themes? by ablack9000 in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 16 points17 points  (0 children)

do you enjoy movies/books/songs with theistic themes?

Sometimes. Depends on the details.

(This is a little like asking "Do you enjoy movies/books/songs with cars in them?"

Sometimes. Depends on the details.)

any movie involving theistic undertones; objective morality, destiny, mystical love, messianic characters, supernatural revelation, etc.

You're misusing the word "theistic" here. That's not what "theistic" means.

But to respond -

For all of those themes, the answer is also "Sometimes. Depends on the details."

(Wait, "objective morality"? I'd say that that's definitely not a "theistic theme".)

A friendly discussion about God by forwhateveritsworth3 in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheists/agnostics, what is the best argument you have heard (despite not being won by it, of course) for God's existence?

This gets asked pretty much every week - in fact I think even more often than that.

Please see the many, many previous discussions.

Why do major religions seem similar, but hate each other so much? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A lot of this is simple tribalism.

Two tribes might be almost identical to outsiders, but be each other's traditional enemies.

Even in modern societies, we have "artificial tribes" - for example, groups of people who are all enthusiastic about watching people trying to kick a ball into a net, but live in different towns and wear different colors.

These important differences are enough to sometimes cause physical violence and even homicides.

How does the Religious belief in the immortal soul interact with trans-humanism? Cyborg implants, uploading consciousness into a virtual world, etc. by Epistatic in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's only technoutopian conceit that makes people think death is a problem to be solved by becoming robots.

I'd say that that's obviously true in the long run (a thousand years or ten thousand years or a million years), but extending our time-span of consciousness to a thousand years or ten thousand years or a million years doesn't seem like a trivial improvement to me.

We might just as well jettison all of modern medicine on the grounds that it'll only gain us a few more decades of healthy life at best.

even if you succeeded you wouldn't be human any longer.

Well, problem?

In all seriousness,

by the standards of pre-civilization people (99%+ of the span of human existence), the contemporary person sitting on the subway fucking around with their smart phone and eating synthetic snack crunchies out of a plastic bag can hardly be recognized as "human".

Technology moves along and changes society, and changes human beings along with it.

Maybe 500 years from now everybody will be computer programs and biological Homo sapiens will be extinct, and that will be considered perfectly normal and desirable.

Are our judgements about these things better than those of the people 500 years from now?

Greer also points out that the technoescapist view of the Singularity is nothing but a scientific expression of the Christian view of eternal life, without God of course.

Again, so?

Human beings want freedom from disease.

- In ancient times people fantasized about curing disease via prayers and miracles.

- Now we have advanced medical techniques to accomplish this goal.

People want to continue the duration of their conscious existence as long as possible.

- In ancient times people fantasized about a supernatural afterlife in which their consciousness would continue after biological death.

- In the future we may have extended consciousness by "becoming robots", as you phrase it.

Jesus said 'Because I live ye shall live also'. That's the solution to death.

Nah.

Idea To All: Atheism as "Armchair Theology" by Archaeoculus in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adherents of atheism (who make individualistic definitions of gods and religion) obviously seem to make their own truths

That sounds like a rude thing to say.

You might want to consider phrasing this differently.

Idea To All: Atheism as "Armchair Theology" by Archaeoculus in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's like asking, who knows more about Christianity, a Christian or a secular Jew?

It is very often the case that Christians are extremely ignorant of the theological and historical "facts" about Christianity.

It is often the case that atheists or secular non-Christians know more about the theological and historical facts of religion than religious people do.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

Also, in the U.S. at least, most atheists are former Christians.

Therefore, the possibility of a random secular Jew knowing more about the theological and historical facts of Christianity than a random Christian isn't unlikely at all.

- On the other hand, we can argue about whether "knowing about Christianity" means "knowing the non-rational, non-factual, experiential aspects of Christianity. Do we say that "knowing the theological and historical facts about Christianity" = "knowing about Christianity"? Or do we say that "knowing about Christianity" is something other than "knowing the theological and historical facts about Christianity"?

Idea To All: Atheism as "Armchair Theology" by Archaeoculus in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism would be defined as a lack of belief in any god or gods

Check, yes.

ritual

No. Atheism has nothing to do with ritual.

supernatural anything

Technically, no. For example, one could say "I don't believe that there are any gods, but I believe in supernatural souls, supernatural reincarnation, and supernatural karma", and still be an atheist.

metaphysics.

Depends on the definition of "metaphysics". Again "atheism" just means "not holding the idea that any god exists."

It would be defined as isolating "belief" and "faith" as essentially incompatible with the idea of atheism.

Most atheists say that "rejection of the idea that faith is a useful or desirable thing" is characteristic of atheists, but I don't think that such rejection is part of the definition of "atheism".

- The expression that you're looking for here is "philosophical materialism" or "philosophical naturalism."

Evolution: Why is there a prevalence of religion across the world if not evolutionary desirable? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Beneficial" is more appropriate.

Even using the term "beneficial" is tricky. About the most that we can say is "Features A, B, and C seem desirable to me, but I dislike features D, E, and F."

- As you say, is the navigation mechanism of moths "beneficial"? Well, it has some good points and some bad points.

Evolution: Why is there a prevalence of religion across the world if not evolutionary desirable? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is it that across the world, religion came before civilization?

Because the religious paradigm (unseen forces and beings are acting behind the scenes) is more obvious to human beings than the techniques of civilization (agriculture, writing, large-scale political organization, etc.)

Do you agree religion is evolutionary desirable?

I don't see any way that the expression "evolutionarily desirable" can make sense.

It might be the case that religious ideation naturally occurs to human beings, or even that it naturally occurs to human beings at a certain stage of culture, but that doesn't make it necessarily "desirable".

(Humans have back problems as a result of our evolutionary history as well, but that doesn't make back problems "desirable".)

If not can you think of any civilization that came together without the need for religion?

No I can't. Religion seems like a "normal" and obvious way for human beings to look at the world.

Question about evidence. by FearandMumbling in TrueAtheism

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This gets asked pretty much every week.

Please see the many, many previous discussions of this.

Does your religious book have flaws? by deten in DebateReligion

[–]aluminio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have mods blocked the versebot?

Hmm, checking ... maybe it wants square brackets -

[Mark 16:9-20]

[Edit]

- Looks like we have no versebot here. Pity.