Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Surprise! Surprise! I'm being called names by a Christian. Star428, I bet you would like to burn me at the stake. Like the Christian Church used to do back in the good old days of the inquisition.Kill the non-believer. Kill the non-believer. Kill the non-believer. Kill the non-believer.
You are so filled with HATE, how can you even call yourself a Christian? Typical Christian!
Face it, you can't deal with what I have to say, so you resort to childish name calling.
I hope you get banned for it.
as if your post was filled with love? disgust this guy will never change... this is what he's good at... and now, he's instigating a quarrel...
anyone in his right senses won't believe that the Inquisition is a Christian doctrine... it is clearly written both in Old and New Testament that it is prohibited to kill... your poor attempt to put Christianity in bad light fails in epic proportions...
i don't think your personal vendetta against Christianity will rest... but one thing i can say is that the Christian doctrines are written in the Bible, so if any person who claims he is a Christian but is not abiding the Christian doctrines in the Bible is not a true Christian...
you criticize Christianity... but when you are being criticized, you will say that we are filled with hate - collectively! wow... well, if that's your case - under your own dose of logic - all Buddhists are a$$holes like you... but i won't say that because i have a more rational thinking that one member does not represent the whole...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now I believe a little bit different then this person, because they are a different type of Buddhist from me. But you can see that even different schools within Buddhism have something in common; we are not literalists. We use our brain, and our knowledge to understand the writings of the past.
and all Christians don't use their brains? see how this "Buddhist" talk? so full of himself... didn't Siddharta Gautama teach you humility? or even respect other people? and when you are being called out on your attitude, you will dodge the issue and point other people on theirs? man up, dude...
you're so preoccupied in antagonizing Christians that you don't even realize how bad your attitude is... freedom of speech? you don't monopolize that liberty... you bash Christianity, we defend it... we call you out, and you go like "typical Christian, filled with hate"... dude, your style has worn out... and you've shown your true colors... you are one who's filled with hate... hate on Christianity and people who believe in it... stop pointing fingers...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t disconnect the inner world from the outer world. One leads to the other. Your actions are the result of your beliefs.
I agree with your first statement, but I don't understand how you can still admit that actions result from beliefs. If anything, beliefs come from actions.
Let's try to express what I think by analogy: belief is like fiction, it might be ruled by realism or expectations that are obtained from actual experience, but it will always remain fictional. While fiction can affect how we experience reality, it would be absurd to say reality is the result of fiction.
Originally posted by dyajeep
[B]
anyone in his right senses won't believe that the Inquisition is a Christian doctrine... it is clearly written both in Old and New Testament that it is prohibited to kill... your poor attempt to put Christianity in bad light fails in epic proportions...
Inquisition and the Dark Ages are definitely Christian made.
To deny this is stupid.
Christianity was born of innocent blood and I do not mean Christian blood.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Bentley
I agree with your first statement, but I don't understand how you can still admit that actions result from beliefs. If anything, beliefs come from actions.Let's try to express what I think by analogy: belief is like fiction, it might be ruled by realism or expectations that are obtained from actual experience, but it will always remain fictional. While fiction can affect how we experience reality, it would be absurd to say reality is the result of fiction.
I don't think it is that absurd. Reality is fiction, if we define reality as the mind's construct of sensory input. You could say that there is a reality of the mind and a reality of nature, or a true reality. How far apart the two realities are is a measure of this fiction. We as humans only need to perceive as much true reality as we need to function. Therefore, there is a curtain amount of fiction in the reality of the mind to bridge the gap from the mind to the true reality.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think it is that absurd. Reality is fiction,
I think that's the definition of absurd.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...if we define reality as the mind's construct of sensory input.
I can't debate with définitions like that though. Starting an argument by admitting such a constricting definition (which also contradicts conventional language) would be meaningless.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
...You could say that there is a reality of the mind and a reality of nature, or a true reality. How far apart the two realities are is a measure of this fiction. We as humans only need to perceive as much true reality as we need to function. Therefore, there is a curtain amount of fiction in the reality of the mind to bridge the gap from the mind to the true reality.
In that case, is still reality that's shaping belief. I just don't see how any of what you just said points out towards the opposite. Belief isn't there before actions make it be there.
Originally posted by Bentley
I think that's the definition of absurd.
Originally posted by Bentley
I can't debate with définitions like that though. Starting an argument by admitting such a constricting definition (which also contradicts conventional language) would be meaningless.
Originally posted by Bentley
In that case, is still reality that's shaping belief. I just don't see how any of what you just said points out towards the opposite. Belief isn't there before actions make it be there.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is not the definition.
It was a figure of speech.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t know what you mean by that. You don’t perceive all of reality. Otherwise you would never be tricked by optical illusions. The reason an optical illusion exists is because your brain makes assumptions, and those assumptions are basically fictional.
We already discussed that reality is not changed by how we think and proccess it, reality has a good chunk of external phenomena attached to it. There can be no optical illusion without an actual truth that is read as an illusion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can you say that? You can’t see inferred, you can’t hear infrasound; you are missing a lot of reality. As a matter of fact there is a blind spot right in the middle of your eye where the optic nerve connects. Your brain fills it is with fiction.
Both perceptible objects and invisible ones can be real. In both cases they both exist and define perception, I don't see the point in establishing a different order to it.
Originally posted by Bentley
It was a figure of speech.We already discussed that reality is not changed by how we think and proccess it, reality has a good chunk of external phenomena attached to it. There can be no optical illusion without an actual truth that is read as an illusion.
Both perceptible objects and invisible ones can be real. In both cases they both exist and define perception, I don't see the point in establishing a different order to it.
No, not really. If you what to find out what is real and what is not you have to dig into the Quantum world. You will find that real is subjective. It all depends on the observer. That is way I absolutely disagree with you. The reality that you think is real, is just another illusion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, not really. If you what to find out what is real and what is not you have to dig into the Quantum world. You will find that real is subjective. It all depends on the observer.
I wouldn't be so fast as to claim reality depends on the observer. But that actually goes beyond what we were actually discussing. Remember, there is a difference between the model we use to describe physics and the phenomena itself.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is way I absolutely disagree with you. The reality that you think is real, is just another illusion.
I don't personally think reality and fiction are different entities.
But that has nothing to do with it. What I meant is that there is literaly no point in assuming fiction creates reality. Either none is created by the other or fiction is created by reality.
Originally posted by Bentley
I wouldn't be so fast as to claim reality depends on the observer. But that actually goes beyond what we were actually discussing. Remember, there is a difference between the model we use to describe physics and the phenomena itself.I don't personally think reality and fiction are different entities.
But that has nothing to do with it. What I meant is that there is literaly no point in assuming fiction creates reality. Either none is created by the other or fiction is created by reality.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Because the thing you call reality is just a construct in your mind. And the things this construct is based on is just a set of probability within the waveform of the universe. There is no one true reality.
We disagree alright, but our convictions have nothing to do with my argument.
Going by your statement:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And the things this construct is based on is just a set of probability within the waveform of the universe. There is no one true reality.
That would be reality. At no point there is any agent needed, no subjectivity, no belief. What's the point of pretending thought matters in an universe that is essenially a huge accident?
Originally posted by Bentley
We disagree alright, but our convictions have nothing to do with my argument.Going by your statement:
That would be reality. At no point there is any agent needed, no subjectivity, no belief. What's the point of pretending thought matters in an universe that is essenially a huge accident?
😂 The universe is not an accident. The entropy of the early universe was extremely high. That is the opposite of an accident, which is low in entropy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😂 The universe is not an accident. The entropy of the early universe was extremely high. That is the opposite of an accident, which is low in entropy.
Again, you go admitting that was the early universe.
But you know that was also a figure of speech.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But it requires an observer.
It has observers. That is not to say it needs them.
The system you have been describing doesn't particularly care for observers, if anything, it readily dismisses them.
Originally posted by Bentley
Again, you go admitting that was the early universe.But you know that was also a figure of speech.
It has observers. That is not to say it needs them.
The system you have been describing doesn't particularly care for observers, if anything, it readily dismisses them.
What "figure of speech"?
How can the universe dismiss something? I was talking about Quantum Mechanics.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What "figure of speech"?
Referring the universe as an accident.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can the universe dismiss something? I was talking about Quantum Mechanics.
The concept of the universe can dismiss something as unneeded, as in, it wouldn't be fundamental for it's definition. That's what I meant.
You believe Quantum Mechanics need an observer in order for them to work as they do? That's quite a claim.