Basis of Belief

[rational experiences]

Science owns their belief.

They remove huge layers of earth and state this is back in time by the bones of dead things. Once living. Huge holes back in time on earth.

Science.

Hence science knowing exactly what it means made sin by K constant holes.

Huge sink holes caused by machine effects.

As they know what they mean.

When you personally take machine body and substance from the planet. You said it was the God of science.

Even though you theory atmosphere by atmosphere you said now I owned conscious advice how to.

So we taught Christ consciousness heavens told lying men a criminal intent that stone God was nothing like it.

They removed it anyway as God earth one.

So the coercive persuasion when men claim I look for God to resource they dug up and convert god....is to leave no earth. No God after. Direct intent.

By human law we already came to the exact conclusion.

Belief hence was proven evil.

Why science says it's intention was to understand by study and experiment as if it were necessary to remove god.

As they need to know for men reasons.

Why belief is real as science says to experiment means i don't know.

As yet earth still exists. Why science cons you claiming it is not a belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But it also mentions the additional criteria to go by. It's when you know for yourself if something (when committed to) leads to benefit/harm and suffering.

Yeah, one should critically analyze if his/her beliefs are true. That is when people loose faith in God or soul.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, one should critically analyze if his/her beliefs are true. That is when people loose faith in God or soul.

So how do you do morality and/or ethics?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yeah, one should critically analyze if his/her beliefs are true. That is when people loose faith in God or soul.

Buddha's analysis is more in the style of Pascal's wager. It's good to be good if there are consequences in afterlife and it's still good to be good if there is no afterlife (and God).

 

[Aupmanyav]

So how do you do morality and/or ethics?

That I leave to the society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha's analysis is more in the style of Pascal's wager. It's good to be good if there are consequences in afterlife and it's still good to be good if there is no afterlife (and God).

Buddha never believed in any after-life. 'Anatta' (Non-substantiality), 'Anicca' (Non-permanence), 'Skandhas' (Aggregates), 'Nama-Rupa' (Name and form), 'Pattica Samuppada' (a Seeming Dependent Co-origination). You are talking of something which you do not know.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Buddha never believed in any after-life. 'Anatta' (Non-substantiality), 'Anicca' (Non-permanence), 'Skandhas' (Aggregates), 'Nama-Rupa' (Name and form), 'Pattica Samuppada' (a Seeming Dependent Co-origination). You are talking of something which you do not know.

You misunderstood me. I said: IF there is afterlife... Read from Sutta (emphasis added):

“Kālāmas, when a noble disciple‘s mind is free of hostility, free of affliction, free of impurity, and purified in this way, there are four assurances he has attained about the visible world.​

“‘If there is another world and there are effects and results of good and bad deeds, then when I am separated from this body after death, I will arise in a good destination: a heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he has attained.​

“‘If there is no other world and there are no effects or results of good and bad deeds, then in this visible world I keep myself free of hostility, free of affliction, untroubled, and happy.’ This is the second assurance he has attained.​

“‘If harmful deeds return to the doer, then I know that since I have done nothing harmful, suffering cannot touch me.’ This is the third assurance he has attained.​

“‘If harmful deeds do not return to the doer, then I see myself as pure in both ways.’ This is the fourth assurance he has attained.”​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Suttas were written after Buddha's time. These words do not carry the philosophy of Buddha. May have been said/written by an evangelical monk. The states of India where Buddha lived did not even have writing at that time (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar).

 

[AppieB]

What is the primary basis of your beliefs?*

Do you feel one primary basis or foundation is more correct than another? Why or why not?

I voted experiential.

It starts with the notion that I experience. "Cogito ergo sum" ( I think, therefore I am). That is the basis of all of my beliefs/understanding of reality.

From there on there are other basic beliefs (or assumptions) from experience and evidence (and out of necessity).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mine is what works for me to believe in, And since there is no one method for that, I use different ones depending on context.

 

[AppieB]

Once again, I'm not arguing against usefulness. Our sensory mechanisms are designed to convince us that the car is yellow. Since it's not (the yellowness is added by our sensory mechanisms in such a manner as to make us think the car is yellow) we can speak factually concerning our lyin eyes.

The yellow cab is yellow. And by "yellow" we mean the color we perceive trough our sensory mechanisms (eyes and brain) as yellow. That's the label we put for a visual property of light that is reflecting from the cab.
A bee might perceive the yellow cab as purple (and by "purple" I mean the color we perceive trough our sensory mechanisms as purple).
That doesn't mean that saying: the yellow cab is yellow, is a lie (or not true). Or that our eyes are lying.

 

[AppieB]

Mine is what works for me to believe in, And since there is no one method for that, I use different ones depending on context.

But you to start somewhere, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you to start somewhere, right?

Well, there is no single methodology for all contexts, so I use different approaches for different contexts.

 

[AppieB]

Well, there is no single methodology for all contexts, so I use different approaches for different contexts.

I don't think this is about a methodology (that's not how I interpret the OP). Before one can even start with a methodology, one has to have a basic belief about reality. Or so it seems to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think this is about a methodology (that's not how I interpret the OP). Before one can even start with a methodology, one has to have a basic belief about reality. Or so it seems to me.

There is no foundational method that can answer everything in a positive sense. And in practice you rely on several ones. Science, logic, social, psychological, moral and so on.
Even methodological naturalism is not the only one that is non-religious.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Suttas were written after Buddha's time. These words do not carry the philosophy of Buddha. May have been said/written by an evangelical monk. The states of India where Buddha lived did not even have writing at that time (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar).

As I understand Buddha's teaching what matters is living a happy and noble life without harm and suffering. Reality of God(s), heaven, karma... are regarded irrelevant. No matter what is true it's still best to strive for noble life. It doesn't change anything.

 

[AppieB]

There is no foundational method that can answer everything in a positive sense. And in practice you rely on several ones. Science, logic, social, psychological, moral and so on.
Even methodological naturalism is not the only one that is non-religious.

I don't think this addresses what I've said. It's not about answers or what you believe to be true, but the basis of this belief. At least, that's how I interpret the OP.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think this addresses what I've said. It's not about answers or what you believe to be true, but the basis of this belief. At least, that's how I interpret the OP.

Yes, but you don't just have one belief. You have several.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think this addresses what I've said. It's not about answers or what you believe to be true, but the basis of this belief. At least, that's how I interpret the OP.

I agree, it seems reasonable to have a foundational basis for what believes or disbelieves. Else one can literally believe anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree, it seems reasonable to have a foundational basis for what believes or disbelieves. Else one can literally believe anything.

Well, there is no foundational method for all of the world. Not even science.