If I didn't expend synaptic activity, I would end up like the RMC Clock Tower in 1991.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
The absurdity of religion
If there is one true religion, then the rest are false. Ergo, all other not-religions are heresy.
Any religion that is not your religion is not-religion because it is not your one true religion.
Therefore, the odds are your religion is heresy since it is outnumbered by many others.
The set of all not-religions is the set including all not-your religions and your religion. So Christianity is included in the set not-Buddhism. The negation of your religion is the rest of the Venn diagram.
But how does any one find out which is true?
'Saturday, June 2, 2018
Integral Action in Buddhism does NOT MEAN Right Action
I have a great disagreement with most Buddhist monks whom do not study the meaning of words with the same fervor they take to chanting and mysticism. Assuming you understand a word and accepting it from dogma is not enlightenment, it is orthodoxy.
Right Action is the misunderstood component of the Noble Eightfold Path - towards enlightenment - that makes people assume what it means.
Samma-Kammanta's literal meaning is integral action not "right action".
This is the definition in question.
Integral Action: break down this concept:
Integral means "necessary and important as a part of a whole."
Action means "the process of doing something, especially when dealing with a problem or difficulty."
Right action is as confused as most monks are, what is right about any action? That action does "good"? There is no absolute good, nor evil.
To find the limit of evil is like swinging wildly into M.C. Echer's snake enigma above and only hitting one snake.
How does one determine the limits of evil when Buddhism is a personal raft built for one? No other Buddhist can judge - and when you attain deep personal awareness they cannot even advise - what is good in any other method than generalities. If killing Hitler would save 6 million people, a Buddhist mustn’t kill? Does this make sense for the good of 6 million other people? Extreme examples are still within the bounds of humanity.
In fact, Zen Buddhist Samurai took the interpretation over to the other extreme in that any interpretation of killing for the greater good ( for their master, for their house, ...) isn't just acceptable, it's obligatory under the code of a samurai. It is a convenient spin by those Buddhists that find that offensive to claim Samurai were not dedicated Buddhists as if that made their interpretation true.
To me, it would be shameful to reject the enlightenment of any one Buddhist that I don't agree with. That is intolerance.
To Zen Samurai, their interpretation is that acting for the whole, for the integrity of their community, was precisely what belief in Buddhism was for.
Action for the purpose of integrity does not mean without violence in all cases. If it can contain violence in one case, it can be contained in any case.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Violence in pursuit of purpose
My throat-clearing yesterday, Buddhism and violence, was meant as a precursor to my next exploration:
Violence in pursuit of purpose.
Violence to some is abhorrent. I agree.
Violence to some serves no purpose. To those I state, you do not understand.
All the universe for all time as we understand it is in a constant state of flux, by flux I mean energy and matter in transition. I won't describe this further but I instruct the reader to consider what any observer would see under Transport Theorem, how electromagnetic forces vary under Maxwell's equations, and of course the grandfather of all differential equations, the Helmholtz equations. If none of these awe you, then simply consider through Higgs waves (gravity) matter from across the universe is incessantly pulling on your every scrap of matter, from every direction, and will continue to pull on your remains once you cease to be whole.
There is no time nor space that is free from appearance or disappearance of matter. In fact, if you consider Lawrence Krauss' book
in fact matter can in deed appear from nothing. We can no more avoid transition than we can avoid death.
Buddhists do not fear death, if they understand, because to not accept death would be to not accept the aforementioned fact that matter and energy continues to flux without end. Even the universe, and everything in it, is posited to cease to exist at some eventual infinite moment we can only guess at. I won't mimic predictions here, because physics is incomplete at least because we can't explain dark matter. Not knowing what 70% of the universe's mass is makes any universal demise prediction as laughable as stating CO2 controls climate warming despite the fact that the trillion ton Sun, the solar energy forcing function, is discounted.
The second factor I would draw to your attention is the quest to know if mankind has free will. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant implored philosophers to work on three transcendental problems; the face of god, transcendental morality, and freewill of mankind in his Critique of Pure Reason. He also explained a lot about how other skeptics were practising more dogma than exposing it.
It's been almost 250 years since most philosophers ignored Kant, and soon with the help of MRI, CAT scans, and other natural philosophy (science) products we might soon explain the basis of that last problem faster than the entire field of philosophy could in 236 years of effort.
As Wittgenstein described, philosophers are expert at self-confusion. I digress.
Buddhists also do not hide nor deny the reality of death; any human that eats food is an accomplice to the death of other living things whether knowingly or not. No one escapes culpability. If you choose not to kill yourself upon learning this truth, then you choose of your own free will to accept your role in the death of other living things. Instead, Buddhists accept that sacrifice is necessary that we collectively may continue and serve a higher purpose. Death is not chosen, purpose is.
One cannot know right now if man has free will for certain. Let us make the case going forward with both possibilities.
To combine the two above factors:
If a man has free will he can choose to act, in some cases decide to act violently - to cause death to another living thing.
If a man does not have free will, he does not choose to act violently, but acts violently nonetheless. It appears in civil society that people do not randomly kill frequently enough, on the scale of billions, that this is not the predominant case.
All living things will die, to choose not to kill is to forestall their death until some future point in space-time. In general, we choose not to act violently. That seems an odd way to describe it, but the fact that violence does not occur to us to be necessary is exactly the same as consciously deciding to act. I would submit that we subconsciously decide to not act - it doesn't occur to act - more times than we consciously consider acting. But what accounts for an equivalence of the two ( choosing to not act (conscious) versus not choosing (unconscious) to act)? Logically, are they the same?
When one chooses to act violently, and one has free will, it is based on the reason that ceasing another's life at that moment serves a purpose. One has become aware of circumstances that make action purposeful. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it doesn't matter what the excuses are, nor the reasons. Conditions have changed that make violence important or necessary. Necessary to whom? Necessary for what? Given above, are these even important?
To choose to end life is to purposefully change the condition of matter, now, in this moment, for a purpose. It cannot be otherwise as I have laid out. It could, in the case of non-free will violence, but as stated earlier that there are very few cases humans do that despite a multitude of compelling reasons one might ( greed, chemicals, boredom, apathy, pleasure, emotion, etc.). We decide to not act in almost all possible cases because ACTING SERVES NO COMPELLING PURPOSE.
To act is to become directly involved in the state of flux of the universe, to take possession of the course of events for another living thing. Humans are moral enough and purposeful enough to know how rare those conditions are. But that also underlines why violence is important when those unique conditions exist.
Even the cognitive dissonance people would feel about intervening, to act to defend, to act to attack, to act to hunt, to act to kill, are all conscious awareness events that an imperative purpose has arisen. This is not just instinct, it is not just reason. It is the unmasking of a purpose for violence.
That doesn't mean violence can't be for evil purposes. That doesn't mean violence can't be self-serving. It means that - from a holistic mindful perspective - it alone exists outside the means and the ends.
I am urged to remind you that inside Buddhism one can find nihilism - anarchy - and chaos if one chooses to interpret all I have said strictly on these facts alone. Even Machiavelli might find these ideas acceptable.
But the teachings of the Buddha more than any other implore all to remember that the state of all beings is suffering and finding ways to become more enlightened is the ultimate goal, not possession and not passion. All those evil nihilistic aims have a purpose which is roughly outside the scope. If you are killing for sport, for territory, for gain, you are not Buddhist in the slightest, you are not enlightened in the least.
On the other hand, killing to prevent murder, killing to reduce global unhappiness or increase global happiness, killing to prevent evil committing atrocities, to defend the defenceless, these can all be interpreted within the eightfold path.
For example, Samma-Kammanta (integral action) means acting with integrity. "Right action" if you learn it in the West. Acting according to understanding, acting along the beliefs of Buddhism includes respect for all living things. What is more respectful than acting to prevent harm to others?
Samma-Sati (complete awareness ) can make you aware of impending suffering or evil about to be committed against the defenceless.
In fact, most of these are easier to interpret these paths in Buddhism as complimentary in a capitalist society than Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood ). Right livelihood expressly forbids exploitation and yet exploiting some advantage is the essence of commerce. To my mind, you are a more noble Buddhist wielding a sword than peddling a cart. But that is not my role to judge others, perhaps those same businessmen also conduct charity.
To act violently with purpose in the eightfold path it must conform to the following:
1. It must not be personal, it must not involve anger or other emotions arising from a familiarity of the target. That would be a crime of passion. The reason you are acting is because you are nearest to the danger or able to respond.
2. It must not be profitable, the loss of one is a loss to society and must always be the least worst option outweighed by the sanctity or survival of other life. If you need to shoot at something to prove your mettle or show your worth, hunt humans THAT SHOOT BACK. They are far more dangerous than any predator. Pick up a rifle and join a civil war. Fight for something and risk dying for purpose. We will all join you shortly.
3. It must not be glorified. There is no trophy, no recognition because that is fulfilment of lusting and passions are never for the greater good. I don't shoot trophy animals. I don't revel nor parade what I do for anyone on earth.
4. It must not be without purpose. There must be an obvious, immediate purpose that waiting, stalling, negotiating, bribing, or any other mollifying action cannot solve.
5. It must not be indiscriminate. To act without focus is itself committing evil.
6. It must be impending. To act now means there is no other choice.
7. It must be completed swiftly. One mustn’t increase suffering of the target by not completing the act. I shoot vermin that risk my friend's horses. If those vermin are hurt and I can reach them I smash their heads in without the slightest hesitation. Last week I hit one through the neck and he was wounded writhing on the ground. Often they run into the hole to die, but this was a case for a coup de grace. If you can't imagine smashing your target's head in to end suffering, then don't begin violence in the first place. I sleep fine because I am at peace with my purpose but I'm not proud of it either.
Violence is always abhorrent, it is always the lowest of human effort and it tarnishes more than it burnishes. There is nothing great in violence. No one violent is great because of it.
But to not act violently when the cost is great is to invite more suffering and tragedy onto an already suffering mankind.
Violence with an enlightened purpose can coexist with the eightfold path.
Violence in pursuit of purpose.
Violence to some is abhorrent. I agree.
Violence to some serves no purpose. To those I state, you do not understand.
All the universe for all time as we understand it is in a constant state of flux, by flux I mean energy and matter in transition. I won't describe this further but I instruct the reader to consider what any observer would see under Transport Theorem, how electromagnetic forces vary under Maxwell's equations, and of course the grandfather of all differential equations, the Helmholtz equations. If none of these awe you, then simply consider through Higgs waves (gravity) matter from across the universe is incessantly pulling on your every scrap of matter, from every direction, and will continue to pull on your remains once you cease to be whole.
There is no time nor space that is free from appearance or disappearance of matter. In fact, if you consider Lawrence Krauss' book
Buddhists do not fear death, if they understand, because to not accept death would be to not accept the aforementioned fact that matter and energy continues to flux without end. Even the universe, and everything in it, is posited to cease to exist at some eventual infinite moment we can only guess at. I won't mimic predictions here, because physics is incomplete at least because we can't explain dark matter. Not knowing what 70% of the universe's mass is makes any universal demise prediction as laughable as stating CO2 controls climate warming despite the fact that the trillion ton Sun, the solar energy forcing function, is discounted.
The second factor I would draw to your attention is the quest to know if mankind has free will. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant implored philosophers to work on three transcendental problems; the face of god, transcendental morality, and freewill of mankind in his Critique of Pure Reason. He also explained a lot about how other skeptics were practising more dogma than exposing it.
It's been almost 250 years since most philosophers ignored Kant, and soon with the help of MRI, CAT scans, and other natural philosophy (science) products we might soon explain the basis of that last problem faster than the entire field of philosophy could in 236 years of effort.
As Wittgenstein described, philosophers are expert at self-confusion. I digress.
Buddhists also do not hide nor deny the reality of death; any human that eats food is an accomplice to the death of other living things whether knowingly or not. No one escapes culpability. If you choose not to kill yourself upon learning this truth, then you choose of your own free will to accept your role in the death of other living things. Instead, Buddhists accept that sacrifice is necessary that we collectively may continue and serve a higher purpose. Death is not chosen, purpose is.
One cannot know right now if man has free will for certain. Let us make the case going forward with both possibilities.
To combine the two above factors:
If a man has free will he can choose to act, in some cases decide to act violently - to cause death to another living thing.
If a man does not have free will, he does not choose to act violently, but acts violently nonetheless. It appears in civil society that people do not randomly kill frequently enough, on the scale of billions, that this is not the predominant case.
All living things will die, to choose not to kill is to forestall their death until some future point in space-time. In general, we choose not to act violently. That seems an odd way to describe it, but the fact that violence does not occur to us to be necessary is exactly the same as consciously deciding to act. I would submit that we subconsciously decide to not act - it doesn't occur to act - more times than we consciously consider acting. But what accounts for an equivalence of the two ( choosing to not act (conscious) versus not choosing (unconscious) to act)? Logically, are they the same?
When one chooses to act violently, and one has free will, it is based on the reason that ceasing another's life at that moment serves a purpose. One has become aware of circumstances that make action purposeful. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it doesn't matter what the excuses are, nor the reasons. Conditions have changed that make violence important or necessary. Necessary to whom? Necessary for what? Given above, are these even important?
To choose to end life is to purposefully change the condition of matter, now, in this moment, for a purpose. It cannot be otherwise as I have laid out. It could, in the case of non-free will violence, but as stated earlier that there are very few cases humans do that despite a multitude of compelling reasons one might ( greed, chemicals, boredom, apathy, pleasure, emotion, etc.). We decide to not act in almost all possible cases because ACTING SERVES NO COMPELLING PURPOSE.
To act is to become directly involved in the state of flux of the universe, to take possession of the course of events for another living thing. Humans are moral enough and purposeful enough to know how rare those conditions are. But that also underlines why violence is important when those unique conditions exist.
Even the cognitive dissonance people would feel about intervening, to act to defend, to act to attack, to act to hunt, to act to kill, are all conscious awareness events that an imperative purpose has arisen. This is not just instinct, it is not just reason. It is the unmasking of a purpose for violence.
That doesn't mean violence can't be for evil purposes. That doesn't mean violence can't be self-serving. It means that - from a holistic mindful perspective - it alone exists outside the means and the ends.
I am urged to remind you that inside Buddhism one can find nihilism - anarchy - and chaos if one chooses to interpret all I have said strictly on these facts alone. Even Machiavelli might find these ideas acceptable.
But the teachings of the Buddha more than any other implore all to remember that the state of all beings is suffering and finding ways to become more enlightened is the ultimate goal, not possession and not passion. All those evil nihilistic aims have a purpose which is roughly outside the scope. If you are killing for sport, for territory, for gain, you are not Buddhist in the slightest, you are not enlightened in the least.
On the other hand, killing to prevent murder, killing to reduce global unhappiness or increase global happiness, killing to prevent evil committing atrocities, to defend the defenceless, these can all be interpreted within the eightfold path.
For example, Samma-Kammanta (integral action) means acting with integrity. "Right action" if you learn it in the West. Acting according to understanding, acting along the beliefs of Buddhism includes respect for all living things. What is more respectful than acting to prevent harm to others?
Samma-Sati (complete awareness ) can make you aware of impending suffering or evil about to be committed against the defenceless.
In fact, most of these are easier to interpret these paths in Buddhism as complimentary in a capitalist society than Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood ). Right livelihood expressly forbids exploitation and yet exploiting some advantage is the essence of commerce. To my mind, you are a more noble Buddhist wielding a sword than peddling a cart. But that is not my role to judge others, perhaps those same businessmen also conduct charity.
To act violently with purpose in the eightfold path it must conform to the following:
1. It must not be personal, it must not involve anger or other emotions arising from a familiarity of the target. That would be a crime of passion. The reason you are acting is because you are nearest to the danger or able to respond.
2. It must not be profitable, the loss of one is a loss to society and must always be the least worst option outweighed by the sanctity or survival of other life. If you need to shoot at something to prove your mettle or show your worth, hunt humans THAT SHOOT BACK. They are far more dangerous than any predator. Pick up a rifle and join a civil war. Fight for something and risk dying for purpose. We will all join you shortly.
3. It must not be glorified. There is no trophy, no recognition because that is fulfilment of lusting and passions are never for the greater good. I don't shoot trophy animals. I don't revel nor parade what I do for anyone on earth.
4. It must not be without purpose. There must be an obvious, immediate purpose that waiting, stalling, negotiating, bribing, or any other mollifying action cannot solve.
5. It must not be indiscriminate. To act without focus is itself committing evil.
6. It must be impending. To act now means there is no other choice.
7. It must be completed swiftly. One mustn’t increase suffering of the target by not completing the act. I shoot vermin that risk my friend's horses. If those vermin are hurt and I can reach them I smash their heads in without the slightest hesitation. Last week I hit one through the neck and he was wounded writhing on the ground. Often they run into the hole to die, but this was a case for a coup de grace. If you can't imagine smashing your target's head in to end suffering, then don't begin violence in the first place. I sleep fine because I am at peace with my purpose but I'm not proud of it either.
Violence is always abhorrent, it is always the lowest of human effort and it tarnishes more than it burnishes. There is nothing great in violence. No one violent is great because of it.
But to not act violently when the cost is great is to invite more suffering and tragedy onto an already suffering mankind.
Violence with an enlightened purpose can coexist with the eightfold path.
Monday, June 12, 2017
Buddhism and violence
Despite all the yoga mats, meditation, and facile introduction of Westerners to Buddhism, many misunderstand the global tenets of Buddhism. They assume that it is outside the norm when compared to other religions. The biggest misunderstanding is that Buddhists would never use violence.
Here is a Thai example of Buddhists advocating violence in defence of attacks by global muslim jihad.
This next passage explains the eigthfold path:
The path is a process to help you remove or move beyond the conditioned responses that obscure your true nature. In this sense the Path is ultimately about unlearning rather than learning - another paradox. We learn so we can unlearn and uncover. The Buddha called his teaching a Raft. To cross a turbulent river we may need to build a raft. When built, we single-mindedly and with great energy make our way across. Once across we don't need to cart the raft around with us. In other words don't cling to anything including the teachings. However, make sure you use them before you let them go. It's no use knowing everything about the raft and not getting on. The teachings are tools not dogma. The teachings are Upaya, which means skillful means or expedient method. It is fingers pointing at the moon - don't confuse the finger for the moon.
Remember that Buddhism like any religion is occupied by humans, ones that don't understand, others that inject their personal interpretation into it, ones that fall accustomed to luxuries that the Buddha himself would blush at. Any religion drifts and repurposes reality as needed. I wrote earlier dispelling the existence of Buddhism itself.
Recall that while the Dalai Lama possesses nothing and lives nowhere, his monk minders gather $400 per person per event to upkeep his personal well being despite that. Does this fully agree with what Buddha had in mind? While I am not here to judge another's personal interpretation, I hasten to point out there are many interpretations on many issues.
The Buddhists you should least trust in interpretation are the dogmatic ones telling you a Buddhist can't do that. The ones that don't listen to the original meaning are just as guilty of hubris as christians or muslims.
The hang up word is "right" - right speech, right action, right livelihood...
Right in the dogmatic West is not the whole meaning.
"Right action" in the West means always do good, or never do wrong. But define what is wrong and right in a holistic Buddhist perspective? Good doesn't mean follow the law - even christians disobey the ten commandments and national law at will. Are you certain that covers all action within a Buddhist mindset? The problem is that the original (eightfold) path guides you to decide what is best to discover (uncover) your true nature and contribute to well-being. You reach nirvana when you've shed everything else, when you attain perfection through the removal of imperfections. How you arrive was meant as a personal journey, not a church-directed one. Buddhism is not a lazy man's religion where your lot is measured for you and your role is obedience.
Thich Quang Duc killed himself in the 1960's protesting.
Does this look like a nonviolent act? This monk determined the greater good, the global happiness, was better served by his action for the benefit of others than to live in silence and contemplation as the world he knew burned.
Like anything else there is a tension between two competing goals. Global happiness and personal attainment can mean many things. If one's purpose requires violence to attain nirvanna then that is not excluded by
Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood )
Samma-Vayama (full effort )
Samma-Sati (complete awareness )
Samma-Kammanta (integral action)
Here is a Thai example of Buddhists advocating violence in defence of attacks by global muslim jihad.
This next passage explains the eigthfold path:
The path is a process to help you remove or move beyond the conditioned responses that obscure your true nature. In this sense the Path is ultimately about unlearning rather than learning - another paradox. We learn so we can unlearn and uncover. The Buddha called his teaching a Raft. To cross a turbulent river we may need to build a raft. When built, we single-mindedly and with great energy make our way across. Once across we don't need to cart the raft around with us. In other words don't cling to anything including the teachings. However, make sure you use them before you let them go. It's no use knowing everything about the raft and not getting on. The teachings are tools not dogma. The teachings are Upaya, which means skillful means or expedient method. It is fingers pointing at the moon - don't confuse the finger for the moon.
Remember that Buddhism like any religion is occupied by humans, ones that don't understand, others that inject their personal interpretation into it, ones that fall accustomed to luxuries that the Buddha himself would blush at. Any religion drifts and repurposes reality as needed. I wrote earlier dispelling the existence of Buddhism itself.
Recall that while the Dalai Lama possesses nothing and lives nowhere, his monk minders gather $400 per person per event to upkeep his personal well being despite that. Does this fully agree with what Buddha had in mind? While I am not here to judge another's personal interpretation, I hasten to point out there are many interpretations on many issues.
The Buddhists you should least trust in interpretation are the dogmatic ones telling you a Buddhist can't do that. The ones that don't listen to the original meaning are just as guilty of hubris as christians or muslims.
The hang up word is "right" - right speech, right action, right livelihood...
Right in the dogmatic West is not the whole meaning.
"Right action" in the West means always do good, or never do wrong. But define what is wrong and right in a holistic Buddhist perspective? Good doesn't mean follow the law - even christians disobey the ten commandments and national law at will. Are you certain that covers all action within a Buddhist mindset? The problem is that the original (eightfold) path guides you to decide what is best to discover (uncover) your true nature and contribute to well-being. You reach nirvana when you've shed everything else, when you attain perfection through the removal of imperfections. How you arrive was meant as a personal journey, not a church-directed one. Buddhism is not a lazy man's religion where your lot is measured for you and your role is obedience.
Thich Quang Duc killed himself in the 1960's protesting.
Does this look like a nonviolent act? This monk determined the greater good, the global happiness, was better served by his action for the benefit of others than to live in silence and contemplation as the world he knew burned.
Like anything else there is a tension between two competing goals. Global happiness and personal attainment can mean many things. If one's purpose requires violence to attain nirvanna then that is not excluded by
Samma-Ajiva ( right livelihood )
Samma-Vayama (full effort )
Samma-Sati (complete awareness )
Samma-Kammanta (integral action)
Friday, November 18, 2016
Islam is a Trojan Horse Ideology
+General Michael Flynn is in hot water for warning about islam; but he's not wrong on his analysis.
All the Abrahamic religions have fire and brimstone commandments authorizing bloodshed, slaving, sacrifice, and unique rights for pious believers. They can all be turned into a weaponized ideology. He wasn't wrong. While liberals/progressives become offended at the idea of evil intent generic or stereotyped to be a whole group, the problem is radical adherents get to live and hide in the religion because they can question the faith of more moderate members. By rebuking moderates, they are neutralized from real criticism and the extremists continue using the goodwill of others.
Moderate islamists cannot complain about stereotyping them with extremists, for they agree to follow the religion, more or less, with radicals. When islamists do not get their way in mainstream life, they are allowed to turn to become a religious scoundrel and exploit the poisons of religious belief against society.
All the Abrahamic religions have fire and brimstone commandments authorizing bloodshed, slaving, sacrifice, and unique rights for pious believers. They can all be turned into a weaponized ideology. He wasn't wrong. While liberals/progressives become offended at the idea of evil intent generic or stereotyped to be a whole group, the problem is radical adherents get to live and hide in the religion because they can question the faith of more moderate members. By rebuking moderates, they are neutralized from real criticism and the extremists continue using the goodwill of others.
Moderate islamists cannot complain about stereotyping them with extremists, for they agree to follow the religion, more or less, with radicals. When islamists do not get their way in mainstream life, they are allowed to turn to become a religious scoundrel and exploit the poisons of religious belief against society.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Buddhism doesn't exist
People tend to forget, if they get caught up in the Buddhist spiritualism, the human made pageantry and ritual of a religion like Buddhism, that even Buddhism doesn't exist.
As humans, we need "metaphysical" things / mental constructs to help us practice and remember, to share common understanding, to alter behavior, to join a tribe, to cling to, and so on. This has more to do with how our brains work than what and how we choose to believe.
Believing in the eightfold path does not make it real. Believing in reincarnation does not make it real. Simple people seem to miss the mental flaw underlying the Buddhist belief system. When I look at Buddhists operating in a Buddhist manner I am reminded that my belief is while Buddha explained and encouraged behaviour that would make his ideals flourish, I do not think Buddha was certain reincarnation or karma existed.
Buddha knew what he was creating didn't exist. Ponder that for a moment.
If making his teachings part of a belief system that would spread better and faster needed the extra jewellery of metaphysical constructs, then allow them he did. Like Machiavelli, even the middle way is a practice in pragmatism; ends justifying means. If letting uneducated unwashed illiterate peasants encrust his ideals in ritual and if that made them happier, made them more productive and increased the chances people find harmony, that that was in essence the first compromise of Buddhism with itself.
This reality is why I define my spirituality as "pseudo-Buddhist". No, I will not chant incessantly and play silly human games. I will not pray and meditate for hours for the benefit of a cause or a person. I don't wish anyone ill, I wish all well, but conducting a ceremony made for the other purpose - to solidify the Buddhist practice - is not necessary. It doesn't exist. So in a way I can also claim to be an atheist.
What is necessary if one doesn't want to live as a nihilist or an anarchist, is to adopt a set of operating principles, based in an understanding of humanity, that allows one to tread lightly in the universe. The eightfold path, offers a compassion and goodwill based philosophy.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
Religion is the last form of ideological fascism
Secular Bangladeshi writer murdered in the street
It must be painfully clear to the reasonable in society, that the last great refuge of ideological fascism, is religion. Any religion, for any reason justifies evil against anyone that dares to disagree. If you hold agreeable religious ideals you are safe from death, if you disagree - by which extremists get to interpret as "insulting" the religion - then you are right for killing for speaking up or just not going along with religion. Those that kill for religion are deemed to be pious instead of just shunned as awful evil murderers. Why is this so?
Religion is the last tired form of human-manufactured dictatorship based on old nonsense and in contravention of free ideas, free speech, free society. Society will not move forward until we remove the grip of religion.
It must be painfully clear to the reasonable in society, that the last great refuge of ideological fascism, is religion. Any religion, for any reason justifies evil against anyone that dares to disagree. If you hold agreeable religious ideals you are safe from death, if you disagree - by which extremists get to interpret as "insulting" the religion - then you are right for killing for speaking up or just not going along with religion. Those that kill for religion are deemed to be pious instead of just shunned as awful evil murderers. Why is this so?
Religion is the last tired form of human-manufactured dictatorship based on old nonsense and in contravention of free ideas, free speech, free society. Society will not move forward until we remove the grip of religion.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Truth in belief: a critique of theist's proclamations...
I was cleaning up the basement and painting things and had the xbox / Youtube on with this Wilson / Hitchens debate; I thought Wilson was one of the best opponents that Hitchens faced. While Mr. Wilson didn't score any knockout blows he did state cases that are hard to assail. He did concede where he should and he had some rather bizzarre disconnects like he believed certain Christian miracles but he didn't believe in Muhammad's miracle. He was a reasonable debater with some problematic opinions.
All except the basic one I wanted to point out here in a reply.
Mr. Wilson makes the case that based on belief in the stories of certain apostles of Jesus that he believes that the resurrection miracle, for instance, is true.
What he did was state the truth of his belief. He claimed that his belief is true because he believes it's true. Where is the fault in that? There is none.
If a religious person that believes something unprovable is true then it should be stated to make it clear that the truth is in the belief.
But, if a religious person states that a miracle IS true without any proof then it should be nothing more than a belief. It should not be taken as the same as a fact that can be proven. Most ancient history is based on hearsay, so like anything else we can't demonstrate or prove it true. It is intellectually dishonest to substitute a belief in a fact for a truth as if they are equivalent. They are not.
With religious fervor they tend to overstate the case without qualification. Be on guard for this deception. They are proclaiming their faith and not apologizing.
When a religious person claims a fact is true without proof mistaken for a belief, it is fair game for the anti-theist to point out it doesn't have to be true. There is no proof so there is nothing holding up all other arguments.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Freedom for all: Islamists should be allowed to leave for da'esh, only they agree to give up their passports and citizenship.
It's hypocritical for a free society to restrict people from joining a caliphate. Like allowing people to join christian missions or the peace corps, we do not make people stay away from all foreign participation - we certainly don't restrict people from going abroad for business.
If you have the freedom to kill yourself in a climbing accident or in a sky-diving accident, then why can't you die for your ideals?
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Bad phrases lead to bad ideas
If we want to change the future, the single biggest way we influence that is by use of words and phrases for the memes that they represent. Ideas are what people store in their minds and use to construct their belief about reality. I didn't understand this until I read philosophy. We can confront a different future by exploiting ideas. We can reconstruct what other people think, by removing faulty ideas from the superstructure of beliefs.
If we want people to stop glorifying an imaginary friend, we need to stop using misleading phrases.
My daughter and I were trying to find a restaurant and couldn't see it nearby in a city we don't know. She punched in the name in a phone and used GPS to find it in a row of businesses you couldn't see from the highway. She called it a god send. That's the kind of stuff we all say without thinking.
That snapped me back to reality. I said, "you know, when you say that it takes away the credit from all the hard working scientists and engineers that worked for decades to make cellphones and the GPS satellite system."
This is nothing more than a comforting idea to religious people and it really has no place in our society.
It steals credit for the sacrifice that those people made; and by saying it we are perpetuating wrong ideas that are actually church doctrine and not reality. We need the next generation to understand our parents made those things, not divine intervention, and not church doctrine. The god of the gaps argument is an indoctrination idea that we can't afford any longer.
Let's not undermine what humans did by praising the wrong things and allowing the wrong ideas.
Instead, let's teach our kids about the GPS satellites, how they were launched into space and how they orbit until they burn up and reenter. Nothing mysterious in that.
If we want people to stop glorifying an imaginary friend, we need to stop using misleading phrases.
My daughter and I were trying to find a restaurant and couldn't see it nearby in a city we don't know. She punched in the name in a phone and used GPS to find it in a row of businesses you couldn't see from the highway. She called it a god send. That's the kind of stuff we all say without thinking.
That snapped me back to reality. I said, "you know, when you say that it takes away the credit from all the hard working scientists and engineers that worked for decades to make cellphones and the GPS satellite system."
This is nothing more than a comforting idea to religious people and it really has no place in our society.
It steals credit for the sacrifice that those people made; and by saying it we are perpetuating wrong ideas that are actually church doctrine and not reality. We need the next generation to understand our parents made those things, not divine intervention, and not church doctrine. The god of the gaps argument is an indoctrination idea that we can't afford any longer.
Let's not undermine what humans did by praising the wrong things and allowing the wrong ideas.
Instead, let's teach our kids about the GPS satellites, how they were launched into space and how they orbit until they burn up and reenter. Nothing mysterious in that.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Legal protection for hackers fighting ISIS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326912/ISIS-dismiss-Anonymous-hackers-idiots-threatening-shut-Twitter-accounts-just-open-new-ones.html
As citizens in a free yet lawful society, we should make it clear to governments that hackers operating against ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group are doing a societal good that protects us all. Hacking is still illegal. Hacking should not be prosecuted for those fighting anti-society forces. It is done for the greater good. That should outweigh other concerns. It should be recognized as such and guarantees should be made on their behalf.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
An atheist replacement for religion
If there is to be a long term replacement for Christianity, or any religion, in today's society then there must be a substitute that equals the same components that people find in organized religion. A religion offers more tangible contributions than just dogma (from christianity etc.) that shouldn't be trivialized nor minimized in terms of the overall impact of any religion.
Any replacement for religion must satisfy all the same human needs; it must have three main components:
- It must have an organization with rules and corporate knowledge.
- It must have a way to appeal to people's spiritual needs.
- It must give a sense of fellowship and community for membership.
With or without a belief centre, it must give the same benefits that humans crave and need. Without which, all efforts are doomed to push people back to religion.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Dear Walmart: what is your Halloween persecution policy?
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Attn: Customer Service
702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
Dear Walmart;
Tonight I went into my local store wearing a "political candidate" mask. I bought it at a Halloween store and I'll let you figure out who it's similar to.
I would like to ask you what your mask policy is. I looked in http://corporate.walmart.com/policies and there is no stated one.
I was walking around getting blank stares and maybe one in five smiles. Most people were uninterested. Then, one of your employees told me to take the mask off. I asked why? She replied that I shouldn't wear a mask in here. I asked who she was, the social police? She told me yes, I am an employee and I am telling you to take that off. She said I should wait until Halloween to wear my mask. She said the mask was upsetting people.
Now, I thought about making a scene, I looked around and thought for the sake of harmony but also freedom. I did comply but I was not happy about it for reasons I will now explain.
For one, I have a problem with an employee stating I can't wear a mask yet you sell them in your stores. Exactly how are customers supposed to try them on?
Ridiculous.
I suspect your employee was reacting out of personal experience.
Second, since there is no stated policy I object to an infringement of my personal liberty. How dare your employees feel they can make personal arbirtrary fashion decisions when we've all seen The People of Walmart:
There were a few masks in the images pool I've seen...
And what about hoodies?
walked by a young lady exercising freedom of religion by wearing one of these.
So when your employee makes a complaint that a mask of a politician is upsetting, because it is not Halloween, but they seem to be OK with a misogynistic, sadistic, infidel-beheading, mass genocide-mongering religion Islam; that is associated with this:
Then it is objectionable in the highest that someone can be OK with religious symbols that are directly upsetting in the highest form.
It is offensive that a Halloween mask for fun and silly nonsense can be so upsetting yet taken seriously, while a symbol of oppression and human indignity is acceptable.
Attn: Customer Service
702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
Dear Walmart;
Tonight I went into my local store wearing a "political candidate" mask. I bought it at a Halloween store and I'll let you figure out who it's similar to.
I would like to ask you what your mask policy is. I looked in http://corporate.walmart.com/policies and there is no stated one.
I was walking around getting blank stares and maybe one in five smiles. Most people were uninterested. Then, one of your employees told me to take the mask off. I asked why? She replied that I shouldn't wear a mask in here. I asked who she was, the social police? She told me yes, I am an employee and I am telling you to take that off. She said I should wait until Halloween to wear my mask. She said the mask was upsetting people.
Now, I thought about making a scene, I looked around and thought for the sake of harmony but also freedom. I did comply but I was not happy about it for reasons I will now explain.
For one, I have a problem with an employee stating I can't wear a mask yet you sell them in your stores. Exactly how are customers supposed to try them on?
Ridiculous.
I suspect your employee was reacting out of personal experience.
Second, since there is no stated policy I object to an infringement of my personal liberty. How dare your employees feel they can make personal arbirtrary fashion decisions when we've all seen The People of Walmart:
There were a few masks in the images pool I've seen...
And what about hoodies?
Can an employee decide when a hoodie is unsettling people? Nonsense!
But what made me absolutely irate about the nonsensical treatment was then I
walked by a young lady exercising freedom of religion by wearing one of these.
So when your employee makes a complaint that a mask of a politician is upsetting, because it is not Halloween, but they seem to be OK with a misogynistic, sadistic, infidel-beheading, mass genocide-mongering religion Islam; that is associated with this:
Then it is objectionable in the highest that someone can be OK with religious symbols that are directly upsetting in the highest form.
It is offensive that a Halloween mask for fun and silly nonsense can be so upsetting yet taken seriously, while a symbol of oppression and human indignity is acceptable.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Religion poisons everything: 6 N.Y. church members arrested after teen dies in assault
Religion poisons everything: people beat teen to death for not confessing sins... so sins are so evil it is worth killing a sinner over:
The assaults occurred after a Sunday night
service at the church, which is located about 250 miles north of New
York City. The congregation held what Inserra called a "counseling
session" for the two brothers.
Teen dies in N.Y. church assault 02:29But the session became violent, the police chief said."Both brothers were continually subjected to physical punishment over the course of several hours in the hopes that each would confess to prior sins and ask for forgiveness," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/us/new-york-church-assault-case/index.html
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Modern society cannot coexist with radical Islam.
Modern society cannot coexist with radical Islam. There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are Islamists and those that will soon be persecuted by Islamists.
Every time society tries to be reasonable, the other side is not bound to do or think the same. For Islam, there is no accommodation, only stalemate on the way to final victory. Those that are moderate Islamists are in denial.
Society should stop kidding itself there's a peaceful solution.
If this isn't the case then why the rush to suicide bombers? This is one attack that ISIS will never take credit for because it will galvanize Turkey against them.
And if this attack is from ISIS then why does the media ignore this reality yet give honest and smart Ben Carson more problems for pointing these facts out? HE'S BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG BUT THAT'S NOT A CONTROVERSY.
He's not the first one to use stupid ideas to market to the American people.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Religion poisons everything: you're going to see God in just about one second
Religion poisons everything.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/index.html
Where did this gunman get his moral righteousness to open fire on innocents? Christianity.
I wrote this in a comment; I'll put it here for clarity.
Whether or not he followed religion is not the point here but it could be, let me code it.
Shooter pseudocode
Fact 1: Some people are Christians
Fact 2: Guns kill people
Belief A: Christians can go to heaven when they die.
Belief B: Christians enter heaven if they are innocent or sins are forgiven.
Belief C: Innocent victims have their sins forgiven.
ERGO: Killing Christians makes them VICTIMS and sends them to heaven.
Where did he get those ideas from? FORTRAN?
The gunman, while reloading his handgun, ordered the students to stand up and asked if they were Christians, Boylan told her family."And they would stand up and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,'" Boylan's father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying her account.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/index.html
Where did this gunman get his moral righteousness to open fire on innocents? Christianity.
I wrote this in a comment; I'll put it here for clarity.
Whether or not he followed religion is not the point here but it could be, let me code it.
Shooter pseudocode
Fact 1: Some people are Christians
Fact 2: Guns kill people
Belief A: Christians can go to heaven when they die.
Belief B: Christians enter heaven if they are innocent or sins are forgiven.
Belief C: Innocent victims have their sins forgiven.
ERGO: Killing Christians makes them VICTIMS and sends them to heaven.
Where did he get those ideas from? FORTRAN?
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Life under religion
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34313337
The International Centre for the Study for Radicalisation (ICSR) at King's College, which published the report, estimates that hundreds of former militants have now defected or attempted to defect.
Dozens are thought to have made it out via Turkey while others have reportedly been caught and executed. The ICSR claims that the 58 cases in their study are "likely only a fraction of those disillusioned, ready to defect and/or willing to go public".
What the defectors said
- "I opened up my jacket and said, 'I have a suicide vest, but I don't want to blow myself up'" - Usaid Barho, Syrian teenager
- "Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed" - anonymous defector
- "The restrictions on leaving made it feel a bit like a prison" - Abu Ibrahim, 'Westerner'
The researchers identify several key narratives among the reasons for leaving IS. Most defectors said they were concerned with brutality against fellow Muslims and perceived "un-Islamic" behaviour among members, including corruption.
Some admitted they were disappointed with the quality of life under IS. "They were typically among the ones who had joined the group for material and 'selfish' reasons, and quickly realised that none of the luxury goods and cars that they had been promised would materialise," the report says.
Two fighters said they defected after learning they were to be suicide bombers. Speaking to the BBC last year, one defector, who asked not to be named, said the "brutality of IS terrifies everyone".
"Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed," he said.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854
Best quote of the article:
IS is the enemy of humanity
Saturday, September 5, 2015
ISIS isn't the only problem, religion is.
Truth is a relative thing where people hide and find whatever meaning they wish.
Our Prime Minister is certain that ISIS is the reason for all the problems in Syria and Iraq.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/canadian-forces-have-no-role-to-play-in-syria-iraq-mulcair-1.2548223
Harper's premise is: a certain gang of Islamic people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq.
Here's my version: a certain gang of RELIGIOUS people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq.
Take away the religious justification and this guy:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
becomes this guy:
Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria - Pablo Escobar.
A drug-running narco terrorist. Compare and contrast what each did and why.
Take away religion, that odious varnish of dubious respectability that seems to attach to justify evil, and there is nothing left but a gang of people against society.
Maybe we should tackle the bigger problem first, and the smaller problem will take care of itself. Then we don't have actions like this:
He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting: “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15… What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.” …He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act. Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers… In an often rambling letter to the authorities, and family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Williams calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family.” He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work He says he has been attacked by black men and white females He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man “Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace….” “The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”
Why does he feel at peace with his actions? Perhaps because he is "going to a better place?". Where does this smug ignorance arrive from?
We want to bomb people and rescue refugees, but does anyone want to solve the real problem?
Our Prime Minister is certain that ISIS is the reason for all the problems in Syria and Iraq.
Harper criticized the NDP for its refusal to fight what he said is the "root cause" of the suffering, namely the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
"It is deeply wrong and it is out of step with what Canadians believe," Harper said while campaigning in Whitehorse.
Mulcair said no military action could have prevented the deaths of refugees who drowned trying to flee the conflict.
"The NDP disagrees with the use of Canada's armed forces in that conflict," Mulcair said. "We've been clear on that since the beginning."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/canadian-forces-have-no-role-to-play-in-syria-iraq-mulcair-1.2548223
Harper's premise is: a certain gang of Islamic people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq.
Here's my version: a certain gang of RELIGIOUS people is the reason - "the root cause" of what is going in in Syria and Iraq.
Take away the religious justification and this guy:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
becomes this guy:
A drug-running narco terrorist. Compare and contrast what each did and why.
Take away religion, that odious varnish of dubious respectability that seems to attach to justify evil, and there is nothing left but a gang of people against society.
Maybe we should tackle the bigger problem first, and the smaller problem will take care of itself. Then we don't have actions like this:
He writes what triggered today’s carnage was his reaction to the racism of the Charleston church shooting: “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15… What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.” …He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act. Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers… In an often rambling letter to the authorities, and family and friends, he writes of a long list of grievances. In one part of the document, Williams calls it a “Suicide Note for Friends and Family.” He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work He says he has been attacked by black men and white females He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man “Yes, it will sound like I am angry…I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace….” “The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily…I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”
Why does he feel at peace with his actions? Perhaps because he is "going to a better place?". Where does this smug ignorance arrive from?
We want to bomb people and rescue refugees, but does anyone want to solve the real problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)