romansh

Again ... a tree is more like a verb than a noun. Just because we treat it as noun does not negate that the tree is the universe in action. And for the benefit of thormas … The universe in Action.

Speaking personally … my stance, whether objective or subjective, is a confabulation as a result of my genetics and my societal influences. Both, genetics and societal influences, effectively are my environment. Both temporally displaced in time, societal influences over generations, genetics over billions of years. Interestingly, if mankind is made in God's image, then God should wear some responsibility, warts n' all. You continually ascribe to God, as what you see subjectively, as positives in humans. Then you say we should be more like your ascribed God to be Truly Human©. Not a coherent argument.

The fact that think there is an issue and that it is obvious, undermines your argument. Interestingly LBGT rights as a whole are less of an issue for those without religion than those with, at least in the Western world.

We disagree and it was not coherent. The LBGT issue is not obvious. Is the illegal immigrant issue also obvious?

Frankly I am not surprised. Your interlocutors here are not advancing a coherent argument. What they don't realize is this some better person will be worse from another point of view. Say you advocate for LBGT rights. Some might think you are better others will think you a promoting sin. Some might help an illegal immigrant others might look at it as sponsoring crime and terrorism.

Of course I answered my own question Joseph … it was your answer that I was looking for.

Joseph Campbell used a similar phrase to describe us … I think perfection points at a duality that in reality does not exist. Nevertheless what you and Campbell are pointing at is in the right (accurate) direction. While your perfectly human is accurate … by and large humans can be nothing other than human, assuming such a separation exists. We cannot be otherwise (if free will does not exist). So I would argue it follows perfection and its counterpart imperfection are illusions

theism has two general meanings …. pertaining to a god (any flavour thereof) and pertaining to a personal god. It is the context that allows us to differentiate between the two.

So excuse me if I ask a question (cynical or otherwise) … can we have rational beliefs? When choose a belief was it done rationally? I would have thought if I could defend a belief with evidence, that would count as rational. Of course our evidence might not be terribly strong, or that our premises are built on sand. By being (highly) subjective does not mean we can't collectively glean some so called objectivity. But then objectivity and subjectivity are not what the seem either.

Would anyone care to have a go at this question?

Again Paul … regarding reality should it exist … I don't think we can prove something per se. We can bring corroborating evidence to the table and perhaps reduce the uncertainty to the point we can venture forth into the world with confidence. But relying on facts and knowledge, as agnostics, I would argue we should be a little circumspect. Science ultimately is a descriptor, better than many if not most religions in my opinion, we have to face up the fact the descriptions may not be accurate, but they are useful.

Is believing that an angel came to Mary two thousand years ago and foretold of a parthenogenetic birth a rational, irrational, or delusional position, based on the understanding we have on the way the universe ticks today?

OK thormas I tracked down the source of your confusion. I suggested we do a book review together. You suggested Hart amongst others. But you declined doing the review together and you suggested I read it by myself. I like my lamb medium rare.

So you have no evidence. When presented with the evidence against your position, you accuse me of a dodge?

There is a handy dandy search function for you thormas. Type in the word "read" and hit the magnifying glass icon. You will find I have not used the word "read" in conjunction with Hart Let the fingers do the walking … evidence wins out all the time. Apology accepted and can I choose the restaurant? ?

Thanks Joseph … I have a copy of Buddhism for Dummies which uses slightly plainer language. The authors seem really well qualified: Jonathan Landaw is the former English Translation Editor, Translation Bureau of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Stephan Bodian has studied and practices several schools of Buddhism. Gudrun Bühnemann, Professor, teaches the Sanskrit Language and its literature, along with courses on the religions of South Asia. The book taught me enough to know that I am not a Buddhist (dummy or otherwise) but can see parallels. I will have to walk my own path on this one. What other path could I walk? I am happy to accept the illusory nature of existence. I can't quite agree the implied delusion in your link. A reflection yes. We can work to reduce the aberrations.

double post

Where did I say I would? But the question you asked of possibility clearly shows you are missing the point. The self does exist but it is not what it seems … and we have been over this many times. This is why I disagreed with Joseph when he said "no self". And we have been over this many times and yet this question is repeated. Also possibility nailed it when she said:

Let me answer this question on my behalf. Reason based on evidence. Do reason and evidence resonate with you thormas? Here is a typical Zen meditation for you thormas … Where are you between thoughts?

Well I have to bow to your experience here … as I have none. Stephen Batchelor is another Buddhist type I follow. Blackmore is not a Buddhist though she does practice Zen meditation … if I have understood her correctly. ?

I occasionally look at what passing bots or even people are examining, and this old thread came up. I got to wondering what are the latest Gallup poll data on this subject And here is the poll. Essentially there has been a big jump upwards since the original post in the acceptance of evolution in some form. And of course if we are pantheistically inclined then directed by god and regular evolution become harder to distinguish. Again education plays a role in acceptance, though a large portion creationists are educated to some degree. And I wondered how the UK compared and I found this: https://sciencereligionspectrum.org/in-the-news/press-release-results-of-major-new-survey-on-evolution/ Essentially the UK is far more accepting of the evolution concept even if people believe it is god guided. As a bonus there are some Canadian data for comparison. Canadians are in between the US and UK, not surprisingly, but far closer to the UK when it comes to belief (or lack of) in evolution. And below the data in pretty pictures. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://sciencereligionspectrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SRESYouGov-survey-preliminary-findings-5.9.17.pdf&hl=en_GB

This is accurate I think ? edit Just as an aside … I don't think meditation is about self love etc. Not that you said it was per se. But self love is a stepping stone that we will get off if we want to move on with our quest … whatever that quest may be. Ten Zen Questions might be of interest to some … there is an abridged version on line and the book itself is short. Susan Blackmore of course. It may have a different title in North America.

Then this becomes a delusion and not an illusion. That I think is a little more justifiable. Even the Buddhists amongst us don't go for no one … it is more a not self. I can't see how that the "I" and all the trappings of ego and consciousness are not a product of an unfolding universe. We all unfold together so to speak. I would argue it is the ego itself that is trying to quiet the ego. A sense of self exists, even if that self is not what it seems. Again I think Buddhists see no self and not self as different entities. "rom" is a verb as is "JosephM" as is "tree". Treating them as nouns gives them their separateness. "Self" is a verb as well, though non philosophical grammarians will disagree.

I see it as a very difficult science to apply rigorously in that all the variables are difficult to identify nevermind to control. Err no … science is a process. It will autocorrect over time for dependent observers. Science in fact teaches us there is no such thing as an independent observer. While truths might not be pleasant to overly dependent observers. If the axioms can be considered as true for the "evidenced by rationality" then I would like to see an example where appropriate axioms processed rationality are not to be considered true.

It's not a question of debating, more concern for a friend injuring themselves.