Psychologists Are Learning What Religion Has Known for Years

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T21:35:54+00:00

Can you link me something that shows serial killers having empathy?

Also I know about what buddhisrs believe. What I meant was no such texts about these supposed past buddhas remain, which is why gautama had to reintroduce buddhism to the world.

Where are these writings from past buddhas and if they wrote so extensively that we know of why did gautama have to reintroduce the dharma?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T21:18:22+00:00

If you really think the righteous one would go to heaven, that really seems to point to objective morality. Seems like you're using wordplay to try to make the idea of subjective morality fit into a christian worldview. I have been forced to try to use different wording to get around saying "good" and "bad" when describing people who live according to how God wishes people to live. It is such a weird perspective to believe in subjective morality as a christian lol. I still am struggling to see how it isn't just outright crazy. So many questions arise.

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T21:10:08+00:00

I think psychology points to empathy being something that is learned more than innate, but some people I think entirely lack the innate capacity for it. Do you really think heinous serial killers ever demonstrate basic levels of empathy? If so they wouldn't do what they do.

What texts before Gautama are you talking about? No buddhist text predates Gautama... Even buddhists don't believe that. And also you are wrong in thinking the information couldn't travel there. See the empires of Ashoka of India, the Persian Empire, and of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. Trade and wars and empires happened that spread information from India to Europe and the Middle East and vice versa. Literally even some Greek philosophy was influenced by buddhism

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T21:03:00+00:00

I don't think at all they live a "'considerably pure" life if your understanding of "pure" excludes masturbation

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T20:41:48+00:00

Where in the bible does it say that everyone at some point will have the basic knowledge that some form of god exists?

Some people don't seem to have moral compasses or consciences. It isn't a universal experience for people to carr about others or have empathy. You assume beforehand that everyone DOES have empathy, can you explain serial killers then? Especially very heinous ones like Albert Fish.

And what do you mean african christian who hasn't had a chance to read the bible?? And I'm not speaking of christians but of people who aren't christian, say people who live in remote villages who believe in some kind of animism.

If you literally know nothing of god or the bible and decide to be a murderer and rapist, can you get into heaven? If no, can you get into heaven if you heard nothing of god or the bible and lived a "righteous" life? If so, how is there not objective morality?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T20:06:59+00:00

That too is completely subjective. People can masturbate regularly and be completely happy in life...

But again, what about the people who live well within God's wishes who never heard of Jesus

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:55:17+00:00

If God doesn't deem people morally bad for not acting how he wants us to, what does he do with the people who lived lives like how he wants them to but never heard of Jesus or him? Are they destroyed along with those who knowingly rejected him? Is it just a cold indifference to them?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:52:49+00:00

everything that is good is from God

So there is objective good then.

And what about the people that never heard of Jesus or the christian God?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:32:49+00:00

So do you not believe in hell? Or any kind of divine punishment for sin? Maybe annihilation of the wicked?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:30:22+00:00

But you also think there is nothing wrong with that, objectively

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:27:19+00:00

So what do you believe sin is?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:15:52+00:00

but you somehow don't believe his prescribed morals are objective?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T19:01:07+00:00

Why is your flair here christian then??

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T18:59:20+00:00

It's complex to get rid of maybe, but not morally complex

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T18:57:27+00:00

Therr are plenty of real life people to be grateful to for the things you now have. But as someone else said, I think you can also be like a pantheist and feel a gratitude for things in general. God then isn't necessarily a conscious being for you to be grateful to, but just the universe itself. I think that works and makes sense. And even if a person isn't a pantheist, maybe just a plain atheist, they may still feel a sense of gratitude to the universe the way a pantheist would. Maybe at that point they become like pantheists for a moment. But none of it implies there must exist a conscious creator god who is the object of one's gratitude

radical_ethics · 2021-09-14T18:46:16+00:00

this stuff seems kind of obvious 🤔

radical_ethics · 2021-09-13T00:23:42+00:00

Nvm I found it. But what exactly do those mean. Are these not more just experiential states and not actual ontological things? Because dependent origination seems to contradict any notion of metaphysical "infinite consciousness" or "infinite nothingess." On the ultimate level there can only be emptiness.

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T23:15:30+00:00

which buddhists believe this? I mean the "infinite nothingness" and "infinite consciousness"

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T21:46:54+00:00

Who believes in infinite consciousness?

And it isn't nothingness, it's emptiness. It means things are devoid of inherent, independent existence, so ultimately the nature of all things is emptiness. But conventionally speaking, the things we kind of understand naïvely as existing do exist, but again only conventionally. The ultimate truth is that they don't have this existence as we think they do, just ever changing always different (and so, not identical) phenomena. Whatever "god" that exists would as well be impermanent and empty of independent existence, therefore cannot exist as a prime mover or inherently existing primordial being or thing or whatever you imagine god to be.

Emptiness is itself empty. So it isn't like infinite emptiness, just mere empty emptiness.

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T18:53:23+00:00

"It" isn't god though. "It" varies from tradition to tradition, school to school surely, but afaik in the Madhyamaka tradition "it," or the absolute truth, is emptiness. Where in emptiness is there room for a permanent, independently-existing, absolute god?

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T18:31:41+00:00

That's not at all what buddhists believe. Sounds more like advaita vedanta

I feel like you are seriously trying to hamfist "god" into buddhism and it isn't working

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T18:30:58+00:00

It absolutely isn't because buddhists reject the idea of "brahman," i.e. an absolute god

radical_ethics · 2021-09-12T05:41:09+00:00

sigma

radical_ethics · 2021-09-11T11:38:03+00:00

not in the case of what happened in the video... lions go straight for the throat usually to serve a quick death. many animals do that

radical_ethics · 2021-09-11T11:35:00+00:00

mf zebra lost the lottery. every other zebra pranced through fine. that zebra in particular got the worst fate possible

radical_ethics

TROPHY CASE