Quote:
Originally Posted by hue-man
More nonsense. The measure of proof is apparently still up for debate to most people, but saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that the biological decomposition of an organism is the end of the organism's existence is clearly false. What reason is there to believe that an organism's brain survives the decomposition process other than one's discontent with temporal existence? More importantly, you don't need faith or wishful thinking to disbelieve in a proposition for which there is no evidence. Disbelieving in something does not require that you leap. Either you believe in an afterlife or you don't believe in an afterlife. If you're not sure then that means that you don't believe in an afterlife. Agnosticism is a smug cop out for precisely this reason.



Do you consider what 'thought' is? A thought is always thought in a language, right? You think 'in' a language - if a human was never taught a language, isolated from all others, when would they begin thinking - as soon as they gain the ability to do so (which brings another question, can babies think?) or when they begin to make up their own language?

An interesting question but when you feel incapable of expressing your feelings does that indicate your feelings have no value? language is the ability to communicate not the reason for communicating.

Do you consider what 'thought' is? A thought is always thought in a language, right? You think 'in' a language - if a human was never taught a language, isolated from all others, when would they begin thinking - as soon as they gain the ability to do so (which brings another question, can babies think?) or when they begin to make up their own language?

Well, I mean if that is what you CHOOSE to believe thats fine but you are clearly wrong. Since science cannot prove the location of thought within the brain only the areas that are affected by thought, it is simply not science to believe that the brain is the origin of thought. But like I said, if you want to have FAITH that science will someday find the origin of thought in the body, thats entirely up to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.

Here you are making the assumption that "thought" exists in a "location". It doesn't seem to me that thought is something that can be bottled up in a quantity or located. Thought, emotion, sensation, and consciousness don't necessarily have any form, physical or spiritual, and don't necessarily "reside" anywhere. These things appear to be relationships between things that do have form, not things with form themselves. Objects in the environment have a relationship to nerve endings which have relationships with other nerve cells. You can't "locate" a relationship.

I say "don't necessarily" because I cannot state that they do not factually. There has been a lot of confusion in this thread about not being certain or having no evidence but holding a position being matters of "faith". One can believe only in that which they have evidence for, but still acknowledge that they may lack evidence. This does not imply that they have "faith" that there is no other evidence, or that they are wishy-washy in their thinking respectively. It simply indicates that that individual is aware of the potential of having limited perspective.

In the same way, there is simply and truly NO evidence of life after death or logical basis for believing there is life after death. At the same time, there being no evidence doesn't mean that there isn't life after death. All it means is that it is entirely illogical to believe that there is based on the current perspective we have.

It seems, to me anyway, those who continue to want proof for all things, are the ones who make the most noise. Noise is not only a pollutant of the ears, it clogs up the mind as well.

William

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Hey Phillipe if you are reading this, regarding my last post in your blog concerning William Bradford, note the number of post above before this one. ha! This kinda thing happens to me all he time. Coincidence? Not hardly.

william

Nice try at this straw man argument, but it was not I that tried to locate thoughts in the brain, I was merely pointing out that we have no scientific evidence to support that claim.

Now, if you want to discuss the validity of form necessary for existence that is fine. But I am sure that if you do a little research you will find almost every scientist in the academic world is perfectly fine with existence without form. Otherwise the Standard Model of the universe would be completely useless.

Nobody believes only that which they have evidence for. Everybody places FAITH in what they are told by their perceived authorities is true.
Unless you have seen an atom, you simply have faith that it exists. Unless you have personally harnessed a lightning bolt you have FAITH that it is electrical. Unless you have explored outer space you have FAITH that it is not a solid LCD dome over our heads.

FAITH is an integral part of our everyday life and is by no means restricted to religion.

Sure there is. If the body is the source of life, then offspring are simply a continuation of the parental life. Which usually continues on after the death of the original parent.

You can either have the existence of life as a non form, or millions of years of life after death, but you can't have it both ways?

You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.

It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.

Whats the difference between non-existence prior to birth, and non-existence after death? How can "I" not exist, and then exist? What exactly is the "I" and from where does it come? How does my conscious awareness differ from someone elses?

I have no reason not to believe, when I think in terms of eternity, that whatever caused me to exist now. Will cause me to exist again. Whatever I am.

Biochemical process. The I just believes itself to be a substantial thing. But it is a mistake because cognition has this as a side effect. There is no "I". You never existed before, you don't exist now, and you won't exist in the future. The only thing that is happening is cognition believing itself to be a real being but it is an illusion.

It is interesting to reflect that Buddhist philosophy agrees that the ego is not a substantial thing, but that re-birth is nevertheless inevitable, unless one has become liberated from samsara prior to dying. So what to make of that?

Well there are two ways in which it is interpreted.

Ignorance breeds ignorance. You can take the word breed here in both it's meanings. Those who have awakened probably have no ambition to continue creating ignorance or passing it on. It is possible that life itself is ignorance.

The Buddha also warns us not to speculate on where we came from, where we are and where we are going. I don't think he means that because it can't be known, but instead it is an error to even consider it because the illusion itself. Since there is no substantial self, why would you ask the question?

I think these sorts of beliefs were not originally taught by the Buddha. They are misrepresentations of the teachings as a way to force people into doing good by planting the seed of fear of unfavorable existences if they do not behave. A sort of Santa Clause effect.

I would be more than happy to be wrong about this. However; if there is no end to existence then to me, existence would already be hellish. It would mean there is no escape to existing. You could not kill your mind or make the process end. Not even awakening or enlightenment could bring it to an end. You would still exist as an enlightened being, perhaps not in the usual sense but you would still exist in some state.

...I know they say once you are awakened you completely end the cycle of ignorance. But that can't be completely true, or else the Buddha never would have achieved enlightenment. It is a contradiction in terms.

I don't think there are other realms of existence outside of this frame of mind. I don't think there is anything that will continue beyond this life. Once we die, that is the end, and what ever actions or deeds we did in life will ripple out into the world and among the people we leave behind. Eventually those ripples will calm and all the effects you ever had on the world would be forgotten.

This is what the Buddha meant by impermanence. Nothing lasts, not even the Dharma.

How many on this forum actually believe when you're dead your dead?
All that is you just disappears and that's all there is for you. No such thing as eternal life. Nothing about you continues. That's it!

Now if this is true, then where in the world could the idea of eternal anything come from? Considering everything that has ever lived, dies? Usually an idea sparks from something that is in our memory that is familiar with it and we add to it creating a new idea.

Whats the difference between non-existence prior to birth, and non-existence after death? How can "I" not exist, and then exist? What exactly is the "I" and from where does it come? How does my conscious awareness differ from someone elses?

and if it IS the end, we won't know then, either.

So to believe that we have something substantial like a soul or mind that will continue endlessly into the future in some other form is a mistake.

Doing nothing, an endless meditation for eternity, does not sound like a good way to exist.

I don't think there are other realms of existence outside of this frame of mind. I don't think there is anything that will continue beyond this life. Once we die, that is the end, and what ever actions or deeds we did in life will ripple out into the world and among the people we leave behind. Eventually those ripples will calm and all the effects you ever had on the world would be forgotten.

The peace which literally passes understanding

Biochemical process. The I just believes itself to be a substantial thing. But it is a mistake because cognition has this as a side effect. There is no "I". You never existed before, you don't exist now, and you won't exist in the future. The only thing that is happening is cognition believing itself to be a real being but it is an illusion.

No, that ain't it. That is not death.

Nevertheless it is indubitable that the Buddhist understanding (and Indian tradition generally) takes the cycle of birth and death for granted. In all of the accounts of the Buddha's awakening, it is explicitly stated that he recalled his previous existences, down to the last detail, and for many thousands of lifetimes, immediately prior to his enlightenment. The absence of the substantial self is understood by the analogy of 'passing the torch'. It is also understood in terms of the difference between relative and ultimate truth. The interpretation of 'anatta', no-self, is actually a pretty subtle matter.

It is true that to practice Buddhism, a belief in an afterlife is not required, in that the results are visible 'here and now'. In that sense, it is perfectly applicable as a secular philosophy with no such beliefs. On the other hand, in the traditional view, the denial of the afterlife is regarded as nihilism. The theory of karma does not make sense without re-birth (for where are the fruits of one's deeds to be realised?)

One name for the Buddha is 'tathagata', 'Gone thus'. Gone, gone, gone beyond.

I don't think that is the teaching of impermanence, I think it is nihilism.