The tenacity. The mental and physical toughness.

lol, makes me think of the current thread on affectation. I don't think you could blame the monks who ended up beaten to death in fights over nominalism versus realism of being guilty of affectation. Even less the people who were tortured to death over questions surrounding transubstantiation. Given how academic philosophy is today, it's sort of comical to think of Pythagoras starving himself to death or Bruno and Polycarp accepting being burnt at the stake over the same ideas.

“I have wild animals,” the proconsul said. “I’ll throw you to them unless you change your mind.”

“Call them in,” Polycarp replied, “for we are not allowed to change from something better to something worse.”

A Platonist until the end!

Immediately they began to pile the wood around him. They were going to nail him to the stake as well, but Polycarp said, “Leave me the way I am. He who gives me power to endure the fire will help me to remain in the flames without moving, even without being secured by nails.”

Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. :roll:

Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. — 180 Proof

They are hard to find. Well, depends on one's standards.

For example, I know of even university professors of Buddhology who were also "practicing" Buddhists and who distanced themselves from Buddhism, but who nevertheless have holes in their knowledge of Buddhism that even I at my level can notice.

What I have noticed consistently is that the belief system of "unbelievers" or "former believers" tends to reflect first and foremost their relatively solid and secure (upper) middle class socio-economic status, rather than some profound insight into religions or life.

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.
— baker

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok. — Tom Storm

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear.

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

Of course, via the language you use. I have brought this up with you at least once before (as well as with some other posters). And I wouldn't bring it up, if this weren't a philosophy forum, and if you wouldn't work in some counselor capacity. I presume you had to be professionally trained in different styles of communication, and so you should know what I'm talking about.

I guess it depends on where you loiter. I'm a disbeliever (since 1978/9) with decades of comparative religions and theological literacy, briefly a practicing Soto Zen Buddhist (1982-3), raised and educated a working-class Roman Catholic for a dozen years (1969-81, beginning with Dominicans and ending with Jesuits), and I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF (though I've also found it much easier to find believers who think they know what they are pontificating about but don't).

1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said.

My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. — praxis

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother?

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions.
If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on.
If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too.

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear. — baker

You're assuming that you are entirely in control of your communication style. I'm not sure we know that. About anyone here.

I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF — 180 Proof

This has not been my experience.

But, nevermind. My "religious problem" has actually lost almost all the life there was to it, simply due to inertia. Over the years, I've somehow managed to endure it, and to focus on other, more practical things. Now, if I can't sleep, I think about how to build raised beds in our garden, or what can be learned from this year's tomato blight and corn smut, and such.

You and your you-language.

You and your deflection.

*sigh*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message


Can you formulate what you want to say in the form

"When Baker says [insert what you're referring to], I [Tom Storm] feel ____ / think ____ ."

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two.

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two. — baker

That’s funny coming from someone who has a habit of interpreting things in the most sneering manner possible.

This is not relevant to the thread and an ongoing distraction. If you want to explore further via PM’s fine, otherwise..

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively. — baker

That’s how the law works too. If, for example, you unintentionally kill someone you may be off the hook, depending on the particulars (perhaps including such things as the color of your skin). If you intentionally kill someone you’re going to be in hot water with the law, particularly if you’re poor and can’t afford good legal representation.

The practice of law follows a series of well established steps that take intention into account and is not imponderable.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said. — baker

Yes, I remember you saying that.

Do you remember me asking you: You're claiming that karma & rebirth in Buddhism are not based on cause & effect?

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else. — baker

Sorry I upset you. Maybe try to focus on the “anything else” part and ignore the hostility, if you’re capable. A few deep breaths might help.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother? — baker

My mission is not necessarily to learn, though I’m certainly open to the prospect. You responded to statements that I made, not questions.

Why bother? I don’t know.

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions. — baker

Not sure why you mention this.

If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on. — baker

Are you suggesting that some Buddhists may be able to answer ‘imponderable’ questions about karma and rebirth but don’t because they’re stingy with their time? I don’t think so. I think they can’t answer because they don’t know. Just like no one can answer questions about God.

If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too. — baker

That covers them and me to some degree, not that it is in any way relevant to our chat. I would ask why you’re evasive, if I cared.

Unanswerable question #2:
What is it that travels from one body to the next body in Buddhist rebirth? They say it’s a soul in Hinduism.