Non-Belief and the Inner Self

[Ben Dhyan]

I think the distinction here is semantical, that is a difference in understanding just what is a "belief."

Indeed there is,.. after all, a discussion involving athiests, mystics, fundamentalists, etc., is sure to be problematical. The best one can do is try to understand the finer nuances associated with the terminolgies of other disciplines.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the distinction here is semantical...

What do you mean by "is"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So far as I know, a sense of fulfillment in life does not require one to in any sense be religious. I would strongly suggest the truth of the matter is closer to this: Regardless of whether or not one is religious, a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world than it is likely to come from some religious belief or practice. That's to say, I don't rule out a sense of fulfillment coming from some religious belief or practice, but I believe it uncommon when compared to how many people -- religious and otherwise -- find a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in exercising their talents and skills to meet the needs of the world.

Yes, you have expressed it very well, it is pretty much is how I understand it too.:yes:

 

[Escéptico]

The best one can do is try to understand the finer nuances associated with the terminolgies of other disciplines.

The problem arises when the terminology is mere jargon, intended to convey as little as possible to anyone who doesn't already acknowledge the validity of the discipline.

 

[Escéptico]

Regardless of whether or not one is religious, a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world than it is likely to come from some religious belief or practice.

Extremely well said.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That to my inexpert mind suggests your understanding of Buddhism is more or less typical of Westerners.

As Christianity is rooted in Judaism, Buddhism is rooted Hinduism.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So far as I know, a sense of fulfillment in life does not require one to in any sense be religious. I would strongly suggest the truth of the matter is closer to this: Regardless of whether or not one is religious, a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world than it is likely to come from some religious belief or practice. That's to say, I don't rule out a sense of fulfillment coming from some religious belief or practice, but I believe it uncommon when compared to how many people -- religious and otherwise -- find a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in exercising their talents and skills to meet the needs of the world.

This is really funny. don't know whether this comes under the heading of double-standards, hypocrisy, inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists say, in effect, "Just because it sounds good doesn't make it true." If "a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world" is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe. The only difference is the motivation. The question you should ask is what motivation is superior: "The Lord our God is one" or "do it because it makes you feel good"?
​

 

[Willamena]

This is really funny. don't know whether this comes under the heading of double-standards, hypocrisy, inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists say, in effect, "Just because it sounds good doesn't make it true." If "a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world" is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe. The only difference is the motivation. The question you should ask is what motivation is superior: "The Lord our God is one" or "do it because it makes you feel good"?

Illusions exist.

 

[Magic Man]

This is really funny. don't know whether this comes under the heading of double-standards, hypocrisy, inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists say, in effect, "Just because it sounds good doesn't make it true." If "a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world" is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe. The only difference is the motivation. The question you should ask is what motivation is superior: "The Lord our God is one" or "do it because it makes you feel good"?​

Why does motivation matter? Unless there is some God who made us with a specific purpose in mind, there is no universal purpose to life. Then it's as you say, there's no point except to make ourselves feel better. To most of us the best way to make ourselves feel better is to make others feel better. Why? Because people are more likely to be helpful or kind to you, if you are that way to them. Therefore it only makes sense to be kind, because it furthers your goal of being happy yourself. I don't care why you're kind to me, as long as you are. (And, no, being kind one minute so that the next you can backstab me doesn't count as being kind)

 

[Sunstone]

This is really funny. don't know whether this comes under the heading of double-standards, hypocrisy, inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists say, in effect, "Just because it sounds good doesn't make it true." If "a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world" is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe. The only difference is the motivation. The question you should ask is what motivation is superior: "The Lord our God is one" or "do it because it makes you feel good"?
​

If you're going to make word salad, at least make it fresh. Yours is old, tired, and wilted.

 

[YmirGF]

Word salad.

Your charitability knows no bounds.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Illusions exist.

On both sides.

Why does motivation matter?

Lasting power and purity. It is the difference between refining something in batches and in a continuing process.

Each of us is like a distillation tower in a refinery. We may argue and debate the existence of The One or how it is we are to love others as we love ourselves, but words and beliefs amount nothing to more than an indispensable part of the process.



The products are different but the process is roughly the same in all of them. The raw feed goes into the side of the tower somewhere at or below the middle. The feed that doesn't vaporize leaves out the bottom to be heated up (tested by experience). The excrement is disposed of, but a lot is returned to the structure (mind) to be purified. As ideas move up through each successive tray, it cools. The unwanted material condenses and eventually leaves through the “botts.” As the vapors are moving up, the purified liquid, having been condensed from the overhead vapors, return to the tower at top and flow down. (The "receiver" can be another tower or storage.) This process is much more efficient and the end products (top and bottom) are far more pure.

Secularism corresponds with bootleg whiskey made in a non-continuous process: inefficient and ultimately a relatively poor quality.

An example of the difference was shown in experiments performed on chimpanzees and human children and seen on PBS. (I mentioned somewhere else.) Both chimps and children were shown how to retrieve a treat by moving some rods with a stick, poking the stick through holes, and then using the stick to retrieve the treat from a slot at the bottom of the box. Shown a box with the same design but with clear sides, the chimps went straight for the treat while the children continued to go through the ritual even though it could clearly be seen to be pointless.

This might be interpreted as showing chimps were more intelligent, but in fact illustrates that, human children, more than the treat is involved.

 

[Magic Man]

On both sides.
Lasting power and purity. It is the difference between refining something in batches and in a continuing process.

Each of us is like a distillation tower in a refinery. We may argue and debate the existence of The One or how it is we are to love others as we love ourselves, but words and beliefs amount nothing to more than an indispensable part of the process.



The products are different but the process is roughly the same in all of them. The raw feed goes into the side of the tower somewhere at or below the middle. The feed that doesn't vaporize leaves out the bottom to be heated up (tested by experience). The excrement is disposed of, but a lot is returned to the structure (mind) to be purified. As ideas move up through each successive tray, it cools. The unwanted material condenses and eventually leaves through the “botts.” As the vapors are moving up, the purified liquid, having been condensed from the overhead vapors, return to the tower at top and flow down. (The "receiver" can be another tower or storage.) This process is much more efficient and the end products (top and bottom) are far more pure.

Secularism corresponds with bootleg whiskey made in a non-continuous process: inefficient and ultimately a relatively poor quality.

An example of the difference was shown in experiments performed on chimpanzees and human children and seen on PBS. (I mentioned somewhere else.) Both chimps and children were shown how to retrieve a treat by moving some rods with a stick, poking the stick through holes, and then using the stick to retrieve the treat from a slot at the bottom of the box. Shown a box with the same design but with clear sides, the chimps went straight for the treat while the children continued to go through the ritual even though it could clearly be seen to be pointless.

This might be interpreted as showing chimps were more intelligent, but in fact illustrates that, human children, more than the treat is involved.

So, why does motivation matter?

 

[Willamena]

If ... is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe. The only difference is the motivation. The question you should ask is what motivation is superior: "The Lord our God is one" or "do it because it makes you feel good"?

Or you could do it because it makes makes you feel good to believe that "The Lord our God is One"...

If what you hold is the truth (or me, or him, or her), the illusion doesn't end. It's all make-believe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem arises when the terminology is mere jargon, intended to convey as little as possible to anyone who doesn't already acknowledge the validity of the discipline.

If one were to perceive this to be the case, it is probably wise to respectfully avoid engagement.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So, why does motivation matter?

What would rather have? Values that have to be learned anew every few generations, or same way to pass them from one generation to the next?

 

[Sunstone]

This is really funny. don't know whether this comes under the heading of double-standards, hypocrisy, inconsistency or intellectual dishonesty.

Are you projecting?

I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists say, in effect, "Just because it sounds good doesn't make it true." If "a deeply felt sense of fulfillment in life is more likely to come from matching up one's talents and skills with the needs of the world" is rooted in the illusion of meaning or fulfillment (if we all end up dead, what's the point in anything we do except to make ourselves feel better?), it is nothing more than make-believe.

Surely you are not serious in asserting the adolescent notion a thing has to last forever for it to have value or meaning?

A few years back, Stone, I use to know many young people between the ages of 13 and 22 in my town. The notion life was meaningless because we all die in the end was a quaint, romantic notion some of them, in a cute adolescent way, cherished as "deep". Fortunately, they tended to drop such thoughts and feelings once they got laid a few times. So, I learned to chalk their nihilistic feelings up to adolescent horniness.

At any rate, the transitory nature of all things does not render life meaningless to a healthy brain and body, except perhaps during adolescence. Just my observation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What would rather have? Values that have to be learned anew every few generations, or same way to pass them from one generation to the next?

Still,... one must consider that the very environment in which each generation find themselves is different from the last, so both are appropriate. Much of what was considered essential values and passed on from one generation to the next, at some time may be no longer essential and so it is appropriate that all the eggs are not in the one basket. Confusing as it is to the mortal mind, I suspect the 'alchemy' of life on and of planet earth is unfolding according to its design criteria.

 

[YmirGF]

Are you projecting?

Some things are self-evident, Phil.

Surely you are not serious in asserting the adolescent notion a thing has to last forever for it to have value or meaning?

I'm with you here 100%. Some of the sweetest things in life are all the sweeter because they are fleeting. As you understand well, permanence is an illusion.

At any rate, the transitory nature of all things does not render life meaningless to a healthy brain and body, except perhaps during adolescence. Just my observation.

Personally, I tend to think it is because the mind is not fully developed in adolescence. I do agree with the sentiment that the very transitory nature of the physical experience is one of the factors that gives it great meaning. The clock is ticking and most of us don't know when it will run out. That in itself should imbue the human animal with all the incentive they need to be. I must be a dullard, as I still find great meaning in petting animals, giving them pleasure or smelling flowers or... a host of other mundane activities. On the other hand that is possible because this will likely be my last romp on terra firma.

 

[Ozzie]

Are you projecting?



Surely you are not serious in asserting the adolescent notion a thing has to last forever for it to have value or meaning?

A few years back, Stone, I use to know many young people between the ages of 13 and 22 in my town. The notion life was meaningless because we all die in the end was a quaint, romantic notion some of them, in a cute adolescent way, cherished as "deep". Fortunately, they tended to drop such thoughts and feelings once they got laid a few times. So, I learned to chalk their nihilistic feelings up to adolescent horniness.

At any rate, the transitory nature of all things does not render life meaningless to a healthy brain and body, except perhaps during adolescence. Just my observation.

The transition according to RS is organic. His is geological whilst yours is hormonal. So you agree.