Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-27-2003, 05:48 PM

Fear?

To the followers of this faith, there is no fear. Afterall, the blind won't feel the fear of falling no matter how high he is ... till it is too late

For non-followers, do you really need to fear them? What do you fear from them?

03-27-2003, 05:55 PM

http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/freethinkers.htm

Just something I've found and wish to share.

Harumi · 03-28-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
Fear?

To the followers of this faith, there is no fear. Afterall, the blind won't feel the fear of falling no matter how high he is ... till it is too late

For non-followers, do you really need to fear them? What do you fear from them?

Well, many Christians and Muslims fear the God they worship. They live in dire fear, praying that their God of Wrath and Justice won't throw them into Hell. They live in fear, and feel that they deserve that fear.

It's not a very happy way to live.

As for non-believers, well, I fear the followers, because who knows what they can do to bring the others to live in their perpetual state of fear? The KKK and such other hate groups are examples.

Harumi · 03-28-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim
http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/freethinkers.htm

Just something I've found and wish to share.

"The next advice is not to accept anything through logical argument. Argument depends on ability, knowledge and skill and a talented attitude but not on truth and fact. Argument can arouse emotion and egoism."

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you please explain? How could a purely logical argument without rhetoric arouse emotion and egoism?

Opera Nut · 03-28-2003, 03:39 PM

Have been going to a large Mahayana Chinese temple for a couple of months. I have enjoyed it a lot. I have so much trouble stilling my mind by counting breaths, I still think between the counts, as my mind is fast, so I chant mantras almost silently during meditation.

I studied Alan watts and DT Suzuki back in athe 70s when there was not much info about buddhism of any kind and they were popularizing Zen.

The things I am running away from : Xtian guilt and fear & esclusivity and condemnation to HELL; and western Iconography. I do not wnat to look at Jesus or at Mother Mary, since she is not a realistic goddess -- sexless but the perfect mother. HELLLLLOOOO -- this is the REAL world!

I am also studying Hinduism b/c I think you cannot understand Buddhism without understanding the Hindu culture he came from. Just as Jesus was a Jew and Xtians came along later, Buddhism got rid of excesses of Hinduism, I think particularly idol worship and polytheism.

I feel that as an atheist/secular humanist/Unitarian, I can meditate and learn buddhist teachings and they are compatible with atheism. I look at it as a system of ethics and thoughts to imrpove your life with. The concepts are challenging but I enjoy it.

Oriental cultures have very much to teach us, if we only check it out and study it. Fortunately I live in a huge city with thousands of Asians.

03-28-2003, 05:26 PM

By Harumi

Well, many Christians and Muslims fear the God they worship. They live in dire fear, praying that their God of Wrath and Justice won't throw them into Hell. They live in fear, and feel that they deserve that fear.

They should learn to relax a bit. It is Stupid to FEAR God whom they never met and call it faith. Faith is when you love someone NOT fear them.

I think fear is somekind of control. Priest controls the mass by fear of God so the mass (which the Priest could consider uneducated when comes to God) will not do things that is blamesphous (what's the damn words?).

It's not a very happy way to live.

There's an understatement.

As for non-believers, well, I fear the followers, because who knows what they can do to bring the others to live in their perpetual state of fear? The KKK and such other hate groups are examples.

Groups like this uses fear to intimidate others and separate them so they will be weak. As long as everyone stick together and put a fight, such people has no hold over you. To fight, you don't need weapons, you only need faith in yourself.

"The next advice is not to accept anything through logical argument. Argument depends on ability, knowledge and skill and a talented attitude but not on truth and fact. Argument can arouse emotion and egoism."

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you please explain? How could a purely logical argument without rhetoric arouse emotion and egoism?

It took a while for me to understand it, but I did understand it.
When in a debate, it is not WHO has the facts that wins, it is rather who has more skills in debating an argument that wins the debate.

Example - two person debating a topic. One person is a scientists with no debating skills WHATSOEVER but has a lot of data and scientific evidence and the other person is a regular person with moderate level of science but a LOT of debating experience. WHO do you think will win?

I will bet my money on the person who has debating skills because no matter what evidence you have, if you don't know how to present it, it will be useless. And even if you do present it properly, you must defend it as well.

OK, assuming the person who has experience wins the debate, does that means that what the Scientist knows is false? That his facts are wrong? No, it simply means that the Scientist doesn't know how to present the fact properly.

BUT in the mind of the person who wins the debate, that will not be the case. He will take it that he won because HE is right and the scientist is wrong. He will take it that his facts is better and appropriate and whateer facts the Scientist presented is wrong. Thus that is what will cause the Ego and arouse emotion.

BTW- This is my opinion only, from what I understood.

Harumi · 03-31-2003, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Opera Nut
Have been going to a large Mahayana Chinese temple for a couple of months. I have enjoyed it a lot. I have so much trouble stilling my mind by counting breaths, I still think between the counts, as my mind is fast, so I chant mantras almost silently during meditation.

I studied Alan watts and DT Suzuki back in athe 70s when there was not much info about buddhism of any kind and they were popularizing Zen.

The things I am running away from : Xtian guilt and fear & esclusivity and condemnation to HELL; and western Iconography. I do not wnat to look at Jesus or at Mother Mary, since she is not a realistic goddess -- sexless but the perfect mother. HELLLLLOOOO -- this is the REAL world!

I am also studying Hinduism b/c I think you cannot understand Buddhism without understanding the Hindu culture he came from. Just as Jesus was a Jew and Xtians came along later, Buddhism got rid of excesses of Hinduism, I think particularly idol worship and polytheism.

I feel that as an atheist/secular humanist/Unitarian, I can meditate and learn buddhist teachings and they are compatible with atheism. I look at it as a system of ethics and thoughts to imrpove your life with. The concepts are challenging but I enjoy it.

Oriental cultures have very much to teach us, if we only check it out and study it. Fortunately I live in a huge city with thousands of Asians.

A lot of atheists here claim that those making the positive assertion are the ones with proof. Just as describing something negatively (what God isn't, not what he is) is also not viable proof. Oriental philosophy seems to do a lot of this though.

Could you explain it?

Harumi · 03-31-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim

It took a while for me to understand it, but I did understand it.
When in a debate, it is not WHO has the facts that wins, it is rather who has more skills in debating an argument that wins the debate.

Example - two person debating a topic. One person is a scientists with no debating skills WHATSOEVER but has a lot of data and scientific evidence and the other person is a regular person with moderate level of science but a LOT of debating experience. WHO do you think will win?

I will bet my money on the person who has debating skills because no matter what evidence you have, if you don't know how to present it, it will be useless. And even if you do present it properly, you must defend it as well.

OK, assuming the person who has experience wins the debate, does that means that what the Scientist knows is false? That his facts are wrong? No, it simply means that the Scientist doesn't know how to present the fact properly.

BUT in the mind of the person who wins the debate, that will not be the case. He will take it that he won because HE is right and the scientist is wrong. He will take it that his facts is better and appropriate and whateer facts the Scientist presented is wrong. Thus that is what will cause the Ego and arouse emotion.

BTW- This is my opinion only, from what I understood.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that the debater is right. People are like that. Is Buddha saying then, not to debate? Or not to think that just because a person won does not necessarily mean that he is correct?

Please explain, thank you.

Opera Nut · 03-31-2003, 11:42 AM

Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced,

believe not because it is your national belief,

believe not because you have been made to believe from your childhood,

but reason truth out, and after you have analyzed it,

then if you find it will do good to one and all,

believe it, live up to it and help others live up to it.

----Gautama the Buddha.

03-31-2003, 06:28 PM

By Harumi

Yes, but it doesn't mean that the debater is right. People are like that. Is Buddha saying then, not to debate? Or not to think that just because a person won does not necessarily mean that he is correct?

Please explain, thank you.

I will go with your second guess - just because a person won, that doesn't means that he is correct.

Also, just because a person loses a debate, it doesn't mean that he is wrong either.

Here's a question for you (thought about it for about an hour) :

1 + 1 = 2

Is this THE truth about getting the value 2?

Think and answer.

03-28-2003, 03:39 PM	#115
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	buddhism Have been going to a large Mahayana Chinese temple for a couple of months. I have enjoyed it a lot. I have so much trouble stilling my mind by counting breaths, I still think between the counts, as my mind is fast, so I chant mantras almost silently during meditation. I studied Alan watts and DT Suzuki back in athe 70s when there was not much info about buddhism of any kind and they were popularizing Zen. The things I am running away from : Xtian guilt and fear & esclusivity and condemnation to HELL; and western Iconography. I do not wnat to look at Jesus or at Mother Mary, since she is not a realistic goddess -- sexless but the perfect mother. HELLLLLOOOO -- this is the REAL world! I am also studying Hinduism b/c I think you cannot understand Buddhism without understanding the Hindu culture he came from. Just as Jesus was a Jew and Xtians came along later, Buddhism got rid of excesses of Hinduism, I think particularly idol worship and polytheism. I feel that as an atheist/secular humanist/Unitarian, I can meditate and learn buddhist teachings and they are compatible with atheism. I look at it as a system of ethics and thoughts to imrpove your life with. The concepts are challenging but I enjoy it. Oriental cultures have very much to teach us, if we only check it out and study it. Fortunately I live in a huge city with thousands of Asians.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2003, 05:48 PM	#111
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	Fear? To the followers of this faith, there is no fear. Afterall, the blind won't feel the fear of falling no matter how high he is ... till it is too late For non-followers, do you really need to fear them? What do you fear from them?

03-27-2003, 05:55 PM	#112
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/freethinkers.htm Just something I've found and wish to share.

03-28-2003, 05:26 PM	#116
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By Harumi Well, many Christians and Muslims fear the God they worship. They live in dire fear, praying that their God of Wrath and Justice won't throw them into Hell. They live in fear, and feel that they deserve that fear. They should learn to relax a bit. It is Stupid to FEAR God whom they never met and call it faith. Faith is when you love someone NOT fear them. I think fear is somekind of control. Priest controls the mass by fear of God so the mass (which the Priest could consider uneducated when comes to God) will not do things that is blamesphous (what's the damn words?). It's not a very happy way to live. There's an understatement. As for non-believers, well, I fear the followers, because who knows what they can do to bring the others to live in their perpetual state of fear? The KKK and such other hate groups are examples. Groups like this uses fear to intimidate others and separate them so they will be weak. As long as everyone stick together and put a fight, such people has no hold over you. To fight, you don't need weapons, you only need faith in yourself. "The next advice is not to accept anything through logical argument. Argument depends on ability, knowledge and skill and a talented attitude but not on truth and fact. Argument can arouse emotion and egoism." I'm not sure I understand this. Could you please explain? How could a purely logical argument without rhetoric arouse emotion and egoism? It took a while for me to understand it, but I did understand it. When in a debate, it is not WHO has the facts that wins, it is rather who has more skills in debating an argument that wins the debate. Example - two person debating a topic. One person is a scientists with no debating skills WHATSOEVER but has a lot of data and scientific evidence and the other person is a regular person with moderate level of science but a LOT of debating experience. WHO do you think will win? I will bet my money on the person who has debating skills because no matter what evidence you have, if you don't know how to present it, it will be useless. And even if you do present it properly, you must defend it as well. OK, assuming the person who has experience wins the debate, does that means that what the Scientist knows is false? That his facts are wrong? No, it simply means that the Scientist doesn't know how to present the fact properly. BUT in the mind of the person who wins the debate, that will not be the case. He will take it that he won because HE is right and the scientist is wrong. He will take it that his facts is better and appropriate and whateer facts the Scientist presented is wrong. Thus that is what will cause the Ego and arouse emotion. BTW- This is my opinion only, from what I understood.

03-31-2003, 11:42 AM	#119
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it is your national belief, believe not because you have been made to believe from your childhood, but reason truth out, and after you have analyzed it, then if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it and help others live up to it. ----Gautama the Buddha.

03-31-2003, 06:28 PM	#120
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By Harumi Yes, but it doesn't mean that the debater is right. People are like that. Is Buddha saying then, not to debate? Or not to think that just because a person won does not necessarily mean that he is correct? Please explain, thank you. I will go with your second guess - just because a person won, that doesn't means that he is correct. Also, just because a person loses a debate, it doesn't mean that he is wrong either. Here's a question for you (thought about it for about an hour) : 1 + 1 = 2 Is this THE truth about getting the value 2? Think and answer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.