Life has no "objective" meaning. People continue to live because they prefer to find subjective meaning in their own lives, an excuse, because they believe existence, especially if it is a happy one, is preferable to non-existence.
eh? I was actually thinking most ahtheists would be the opposite, enjoy life to the fullest, most atheists (okay not that I've had profound philosophical discussions with them, and most of them are xtians) tend to be like that.
Like Known Unknown said, people find their own individual "meaning" to life. Usually, it is things like family, friends, interests/hobbies, etc. that keep people going. So, even though there is no "grand meaning" to our existence, we can still find happiness in little things in life, which give our individual lives "meaning".
Well your signature is a quote from a spineless leader who can not say better than that to remain on the fence.
You are absolutely wrong. According to your argument, the devil should be tormenting only one other person....but as you will certainly agree good is happening to many people and bad is happening to many more people. So unless the devil is omnipresent he cannot torment many people at the same time. So as there is GOOD and EVIL, GOD and DEVIL also co-exist.
No, it indicates uncertainty
Is this why you are still living?? You imply this for all people so in essence it is your own reason for living as well.
Actually, my signature at the time I made the post was completely different. It had something to do with the concept of morality being bullshit, but I forgot the exact quote.
I don't know how much of this is true, but I was quite influenced by this philosophy, every living moment you are chasing happiness/pleasure/gratification.
What is wrong with saying so? Concepts of "karma" and "reincarnation" cannot be scientifically proven. As far as I am concerned, they are indeed bogus. I have no reason to take the word of so-called "meditation masters".
Those idiots were a fringe of a fringe. It is you who is the real bogus one here with your attitude, as you are wanting physical evidence for something which is beyond the physical plane.
They were perceived as "fringe idiots" only by the majority, who were the true idiots. Just as people like Galileo were seen as heretical crackpots for the time, when they were entirely right. When you live in a society dominated by irrational religious dogma, the few rationalists who speak the truth will of course be denounced as "fringe idiots". One of the great things about ancient Indian civilization is that these rationalists were at least allowed to live, even if they were largely ignored and ridiculed, unlike in some other places where they were just killed.
Prove to me that conciousness ceases with the brain first! Also let me understand you correctly, Lord Buddha was a "true idiot" then? If he wanted to, since we do not believe in atta, he could have accepted such annhiliationist philosophy, but this sage of the Skayas, the blessed one who spread the glory of the one true Dhamma all over Asia did not believe such a ludicrous theory. I believe it would have appeared logical to such an intelligent man as him but he categorically rejected it.
I suggest you read "Greater Magadha" a recent academic book by Bronkhorst. It clearly lays out evidence that during time of Lord Buddha, there was no widespread acceptance of karma/reincarnation in the society.
A human who has suffered extensive brain damage and has entered a chronic coma has no "consciousness". It is not possible for a human to experience consciousness without a brain, because like all other phenomena, consciousness is nothing more than a result of physical interaction between matter. In particular, it is the neurological interactions in the brain between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex which allow a human being to experience consciousness. When the thalamus of the brain is seriously damaged, the result is a loss of consciousness, i.e. a coma. A comatose patient has no self-awareness, cannot respond to external stimuli, and cannot initiate physical actions on his/her own accord.
Many Buddhist philosophers accepted certain assertions that cannot be empirically proven, such as those regarding transmigration of souls, reincarnation, consciousness, etc. By modern standards they may appear as "idiots" for accepting such assertions as true. However, I think it is important to keep in mind that the ancient Buddhist philosophers and Siddhartha Gautama himself did not have access to the modern scientific knowledge that we do today. Given the absence of this knowledge, they lacked some key insights into the nature of the physical world and the physical human body that we have today. The state of scientific knowledge in the 6th century B.C.E. was not advanced enough to decisively support materialism; the Charvaks and other such materialists could not cite scientific journals and information to support their arguments, but instead had to resort to philosophical debates. Even in the 21st century, when scientific knowledge overwhelmingly supports materialism and increasingly shows how ludicrous and backwards religions are, there are many humans who still cling to their personal religions and reject scientific theories out of reasons of "faith". One can only imagine how the situation must have been 2500 years ago. The Charvaks and other rationalists must have had a very difficult time back then, and it is not too surprising that they went extinct and were never extremely popular.
What is your point? Are you challenging the notion that Magadha in the 6th century B.C.E. was a very religious society overall, or that Buddha believed in karma/reincarnation? The modern inhabitants of Magadha are extremely religious even today, and comparatively few are atheists, rationalists, and/or materialists. It does not not matter what exactly they believed in, as long as they were religious, which they undoubtedly were.
I do not consider myself a follower of Buddha Dhamma, and I am certainly not an anagarika. My conception of "dharma" is not identical with the dhamma of Buddhists.
I disagree both your statements.
Absolute morality is BS.
Is that how you explain the technology of the ancient days. Why were the great scientists of our day not able to explain how the stone henge was built or why were they not able to explain the Indus valley civilization which was far more advanced and what about Phaistos Disc and Mummies and Pyramids and The first stone calendar and 300 million year old iron screw and Teotihuacan, Mexico....................the list goes on and on. Dont mislead people with your BS. One day you and I will also be extinct and people will study us and say they "fcuking rationalists must have had a very difficult time back then, and it is not too surprising that they went extinct and were never extremely popular." Hope you like that
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Atheism and Orthodoxy in Modern Russia | General Multimedia | 1 | |
|
China auto thread | China | 332 | |
|
Russian civil aviation thread | Europe and Russia | 44 | |
|
|
Russia auto thread | Europe and Russia | 926 |
