Do you believe in souls?

Guessing and believing

Yeah, you do a lot of it.

Tasting...coffee

Touche

i guess what i am really trying to ask about buddhist rebirth is will there be future lives for my false-self? will there be a next life?

buddhists believe in reincarnation. there is hope.

Goldbars,

How many times do we have to answer this? In the sense you seem to mean, transmigration of souls, NO. You don't have a soul/self now, nor will you have one later. Thats all illusory. Nada, nothing. Let go of your attachment to the idea of self, and separateness of being, and things will be much easier.

Nobody knows what happens when we die nor does anyone know if a soul even exists. Many gain strength to combat their fear of dying through a belief in a soul. I believe the soul evolves but to be honest I don't think the soul is self-aware. Memories and personality are nothing more then stored chemical and electronic reactions that take place in our brain. Too many people confuse personality and memory as part of your soul but I don't see how any energy could carry with it the memories or personality that was stored as chemical and electronic interactions in our neural pathways.

The other side of the coin is the way nature has given us something called instinct. There are many documented behaviors that would be considered instinct. An almost pre-ordained knowledge that could not exist as memories or personality because they had yet to have been learned. How does an instinct, a true instinct as it exists in the wild get into an animal's head. I wish I had a few instincts to throw around that seem to defy the non-intelligent soul but at this time my mind draws a blank. Does that mean there is a soul or it must be conscious or intelligent, I don't know. Its just an area that is fuzzy when I try to make sense of it.

Goldbars...

...of course, if you don't want to go along with Asherman's guesses on this...you can guess whatever you want to guess also.

The main illusion on this planet appears to be the one that has so many people explaining REALITY when every indication is that they don't KNOW what they are talking about.

Okay - I have been out of this for some time - but I have read and caught up.

1) Asherman stated that he believes that the illusions of this world are generated by the ultimate ineffable reality. This is the problem I had had with Zen - that there is nothing. The absurdity here is that nothing can 'do' something. If the ultimate reality is that there is nothing - nothing cannot be confused about something.

But if you stated that you believed that there is a reality and all of these illusions are generated by this reality then this is not an issue.

Ash - I have NO problem that I may not exist - my version of Christianity (not very popular - but mine) is that we are little bits of God and that we are seperated from the ultimate by this 'reality' we see around us. If we manage to align our souls with the ultimate truth (living correctly) we will be allowed to transcend this reality and be reimmersed in God.

I also have little issue that I might be wrong - because religion never implied certaintude (atleast in my mind) I may be wrong. I work hard and think I am correct - but may be wrong.

Ash - I see your frustration and the sun stopping example is a salient one. However, you atlease need to admit that when you talk to Buddhists and you state the simple truth that something cannot come from nothing and they state that it is the illusion of this world that allows me to feel that and the ultimite reality is that there is nothing - that is equally as frustrating.

Ash - I think you JL, Frank, and others work thier butts off for thier beliefs - but that does not make us common. I think those that do not work hard are not ethical in thier beliefs. I hate to say but the blind Christian beleivers and the 'Greater Vehicle' Buddhist believers strike me as lazy and unethical in thier beliefs - even if they happen to be correct.

2) This leads me to Franks posts. Frank - I have no problem with how LITTLE I know. I see your frustration - the frustration that believers act like knowers. I think this is false. I believe I have had experience that informs my belief - but any person who has locked on to a belief and calls it knowledge is simply being dogmatic - and I think even within religion this is dangerous.

I can posit to Frank and Joe that I may be wrong - that my experience may not lead me to the conclusions I have faith in now - but I cannot go as far as they that my experiences do not count as evidence (and that conversation can be seen in the last 26 pages).

3) Faith is not reduced to a guess. This is what Frank wishes to do to faith. He rejects religious experience and because of this rejection calls faith - guessing.

This can only lead him to agnosticism - because if he were an athiest - he would have to state that his lack of experience has lead him to a belief in no greater reality. A lack of experience seems to be an experience (albiet in nothing) that cannot inform a belief.

I simply reject this concept - it seems to me to be rejecting all experience.

TTF

Over the years, I have debated these points with literally hundreds of Christians...with Jews...with an Islamic or three...and with atheists.

I have never had any of them offer any reasonable evidence of the things they say are so...

...and have had many, many, many of them offer "personal revelation" or "personal experience" as evidence.

Earlier this morning I was lectured by a Christian that my "failing" (I'm paraphrasing) was that I was unwilling to humble myself before what he called God...and if I were to do that and accept the God...that God would "reveal" Itself to me.

I will ask you the same thing I asked him...have asked of all who take that route...the same thing I've asked the Buddhists in this forum...

...HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WITH THIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?


If you do not know you are not deluding yourself...we have come full circle. It becomes pure guesswork!

And if you do not know that you are not - how do you know - I have a feeling you don't think yourself as guessing.

Knoweldge is a pretty strong word - I think you have a belief - or else we must ask what evidence you use to base your belief - and please do not use experience or the lack there of - a lack of experience is still experience.

TTF

Huh???

Could you go over that again slowly.

I'm not being a wiseass...I truly want to respond.

I like your posts...and I want to trade opinions with you.




I don't think I do...but I am more than willing to discuss anything that you see coming from me as "belief."

Let's do it.




See above.




Flesh this out.

I do not understand it at all.

How do you see a lack of experience as being experience?

We seem to have a definitional difficulty here.

TTF[/quote]

I have strong knowledge and belief that santa clause exists, because I see him every christmas season. Both my parents and children tell me he exists. How can I not believe?

One's beliefs may be wrong, but they are not necesarilly based on guesses.

Ooops

When one bases their belief on personal experience, it isn't a guess. However, personal experience can be inaccurate, mistaken, or misleading. In a blind taste a person given a bit of onion may identify the onion as an apple. They base their belief on their taste experiences, that happen to be wrong. They aren't guessing, but are mistaken.

Many people in different times and cultures report a transcendant experience which they describe in terms similar to the Buddhist experience of Awakening. A casual reader may choose to believe, or not to believe, those descriptions accurately depict the nature of reality. Once a person has the transcendant experience, it won't probably be described as belief any longer, but as "knowing". I "know" what the experience is, because I personally experienced it. Now a thoughtful person has to admit that their knowledge derived from personal experience may be faulty and mistaken. Ultimately, we "know" nothing because no evidence of a high order can be provided. We do have a high-order of belief, usually because we have personally experienced a thing, or accept the assertions of others based on mutually experienced phenomena and/or the logic of mathematics and physics ... which still at the most fundamental levels is ... belief, not guesses. Even the most accepted mathematical reasoning is ultimately only a strong belief that math truly reflects reality. 2 and 2 may just as well equal 44 as 4. Angles might be divided in thirds, and the laws of physics may be nothing more than accidents. Probably not, but they remain beliefs backed by some evidence and experience greater than "guesses".

Frank is adament that no one can "know" anything, and ultimately he is correct. I think, though, that he goes too far to typify all belief as guesses. Beliefs that are based on personal experience, or on evidence of at least middle-order reasoning is, to me, quite different from forming opinions on low-order evidence, lack of personal experience, or chance.

Since beliefs can be mistaken, I'm of the opinion that rather than take a chance on my belief being a mistake, I'd rather lean on the assumption that gods and souls do not exist, becaues I've observed too much negatives from people who believe in such things. I've lost nothing if any belief can be a mistake.

C.I.,

ultimately everything is belief. We get to choose how much credence to put into each of the beliefs on which we live. Many, perhaps most, people don't give much thought to whatever it is they believe, they just accept it as if their beliefs were Truth. Folks adopt the beliefs of their parents, their teachers, their clergy because that's the easiest, and least "risky" way to get on in the world. It's always been that way, and probably always will be.

To question, to weigh the "evidence" and change one's opinions are some of the more promising traits we see in human-beings. Pondering the nature of things has led us from the darkness into the twilight. Being able to set-aside prejudice and objectively consider the full range of possibilities is a prerequisite for "progress". To hold ideas/ideology is so fixed that event the possibility that they are mistaken is the source of great mischief. When we accept that our conception of Truth may be wrong, we have in our hands the key to tolerance. We have to let go of certainty, to question even our own experience and ability to reason.

Everyone lives according to their beliefs, and every belief is held as "true" or they wouldn't believe it. We need ways to test and weigh those beliefs if we are ever to be free of prejudice and the destructive potential of being "True Believers". How can we determine how much value to place on one belief over another?

We can demand a high-order evidence in support of the belief. Is the belief in accordance with mathematics, physics and the best understanding of contemporary science? Is the assertion reproducible by others? Are there any logical flaws in our reasoning when we consider the truth/falsity of our belief? If our belief is based on what we've been taught, told, or read, how much credence should we put on the source of the belief? Did the source of our belief profit in someway by transmitting the belief to us?

A second way to weigh our beliefs, is to examine their consequences. Do the thoughts, words and actions that spring from the belief tend to cause greater suffering, or less? What have been the historical consequences of a belief? Does the belief tend to promote social stability and security, or does it tend to be destructive of civil accord?

The thoughtful person will hold a belief-set that is generally consistent and that has been tested by personal experience. They will be confident in their belief-set, no matter how many others hold the same set of beliefs. Above all, they will remain open to the possibility that their beliefs may be to some degree wrong, and mistaken. The thoughtful person will be tolerant, and open to compromise on most things.