Religious Brains vs Atheist Brains

[Buddha Dharma]

Defaming the Dharma is a major sin in the eyes of both vehicles. It violates the ten precepts of Mahayana, certainly.

You're misleading others about the Dharma and that's also a terrible thing.

 

[viole]

Too much physical world thinking. It's the physical world that is temporary. The permanence of the perfect spirit being burned is everlasting.

There is not such thing as too much physical world thinking.

I'd agree that consciousness is part information "processing," but it's more than that. It's beyond the physical or just the brain. It's also the mind, thoughts, virtual memory and pain and suffering (The last one is the one I learned recently through Buddhism. We do not want to be in continual dissatisfaction and pain.). There are different levels of consciousness at every moment.

Information is physical. A bit of information is physical, and its being physical is independent from the support, if any, that stores it. You can actually measure bits and bites in Energy/temperature if you want. And consciousness is therefore physical too. You cannot be conscious without crunching bits and heat your surroundings.

You probably believe that you can have consciousness without physics, but that is as plausible as angels using wings to fly in a spiritual realm without an atmosphere.

There is nothing that transcends the physical, and if there is, it is probably very dull.

Then you get more into the physical. Information isn't just physical. It can be metaphysical and virtual. We can't store complete HD video and audio in our brains. Yes, our bodies need food, but so does our mind/consciousness and spirit/soul with good religion such as Christianity or Buddhism. Conscience is part of our consciousness. Love is part of our soul which make up our spirit. The soul contains our personalities which are unique to each individual. Our bodies burns energy with good food and our spirit burns spiritual energy with good thoughts and impressions. Neurology, which once seemed promising, has gone towards atheist science. Now, it tries to explain everything as part of the body and brain. Everything is stored inside the physical. They just can't figure out when it all dies/ends nor can they figure out how it begins. Nor can they explain how it came to be from a fish or monkey ha ha.

Consciousness is an emergent property of information crunching in our brain. No brain, no consciousness, as you probably realize if you consider where your consciousness was before you acquired a brain at birth.

End of brain = game over. I would start getting used to the idea, instead of looking for totally implausible escapes whose only justification is wishful thinking and survival instinct.

And what you call atheist science, is only the logical conclusion rational people reach by analyzing the facts. Namely: we are what our brains compute. It is sufficient to assume a few glasses of not spiritual spirits (e.g. Vodka) to adios your metaphysical consciousness. It is sufficient to have a neuron destroying disease to kill anything that you would identify as a person. It is sufficient to have irreversible dementia or Alzheimer to have mothers not even recognizing their own sons or husbands that they loved so much before their synapses started playing crazy.

I mean, how much more evidence do you need? Do you really believe that a soul on earth with a kaputt brain will not recognize her own son or what she had for breakfast, while the same soul in Heaven will be hunky dory without any physical brain at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. That brain would not only be redundant, but counterproductive.

Therefore: No computation, no us. It looks very straightforward. Before birth = after death. Nice and symmetric. No evidence whatsoever of spiritual stuff of any kind that transcends that kilogram of disgusting looking blob that is in our skull. Any idea of a spiritual realm that will host our soul is also the result of naturalistic and physical mechanisms: namely our instinct to survive even beyond reproductive necessity. Our brains are the product of eons of naturalistic processes that optimized it for survival: it is not surprising that it misfires and makes up things when confronted with its own termination, or that shows "extended levels of awareness" on a scan

The spirit will continue beyond spacetime and we'll have to see how many dimensions beyond the physical there are.
Ciao.

I can telly you how many dimensions beyond the physical there are: ZERO, and I am being generous, by assuming that the spiritual is something that makes sense to start with. We have a lot evidence for the physical and ZERO for the non physical.

Alas, for all practical purposes, speaking of the spiritual is like speaking of xhfjhsbjfhsjdfhb.... a meaningless concept that does not even deserve that ZERO I conceded.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkstorn]

False..

That goes against the proselytizing rule of this forum.

Secular Buddhists are defaming the Triple Gem and doing just what the Buddha warned about- bringing about the degeneration of the Dharma.

I am not talking about secular Buddhists, or their views. I'm talking about the teachings themselves not being theistic. OR atheistic. That is it. You are not only misunderstanding me, you are misrepresenting my words.

Many Buddhists are atheists and many are not. And i find your insults towards secular Buddhists childish at best.

The Buddha believed in the gods. What secular Buddhists say doesn't resemble historical Buddhism in any way.

I have made NO claims regarding the Buddha's beliefs. But you have. I have not made claims of MY beliefs either. You do not know that you're arguing with a secular Buddhist. You are making that assumption out of malice.

Go ahead and say the Buddha was wrong about such a big subject.

I'm only going to say that you are wrong about such a big subject. And you have no way of verifying the Buddha's views except through the sayings of others. And they all say different things. I am aware of this and fully respect all available viewpoints regarding the subject. But: The teachings of Buddhism are not about teaching belief in creator gods. That much is certain.

Why call him your teacher?

Why consider yourself a benefit for humanity with this kind of spite?

You think you know better than the fully awakened Tathagata- when the scriptures possessed by both vehicles show him discoursing with Indra, Brahma, and others?

You are welcome to take things literally, and you are welcome to make the assumption that i have given you any idea of what i think. But i haven't. You are making that assumption yourself. I honestly believe that you're not being constructive.

Being a Buddhist means believing in the Dharma and having faith in the Blessed One's words.

Yes, oh Great Teacher. I will take your proselytizing into consideration.

Defaming the Dharma is a major sin in the eyes of both vehicles. It violates the ten precepts of Mahayana, certainly.

I am not a Mahayana Buddhist and i believe you are guilty of lacking empathy for other schools of thought. You sound like a person with too many preconceptions. THAT is not Buddhism.

You're misleading others about the Dharma and that's also a terrible thing.

I most certainly am not. You are misrepresenting my words and proselytizing your version of events as Truth. You are very close to being reported with this kind of behaviour. I have done nothing to you. I was talking to a person who was trying to justify Christianity using Buddhism. Please, as a fellow human, at least consider my words in that context. And consider that i have done nothing expect make the claim that Buddhism as a religion is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is your loss for not understanding this and expending this much effort into insulting me.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not a believer in neurotheology, but I would think that there is more activity and awareness in the religious brain, especially the frontal lobes, versus that of an atheist brain. This isn't to say that atheists are dull thinkers, but that they do not experience the full sense of consciousness or awareness of that of a religious person. The atheists are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Through prayer, chanting and meditation, the religious are able to tap into their neurological selves better in order to better achieve a closer to Nirvana or enlightenment state. In this sense, I am for the better enlightenment of all here.

Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

The picture you show here says "meditation", which is not in any way religious by nature. It can be used for religius purposes I guess, but atheists are not less likely to meditate than religious people. Actually, my experience is that atheists meditate far more than religious people who seem to pray as a replacement. Meditation has been proven to help with brain activity. But, I have not seen the same with prayer, which is an entirely different practice.

All in all, you seem to associate meditation with religious people when that couldn't be further from the truth? Where did that incorrect assumption come from?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not a believer in neurotheology, but I would think that there is more activity and awareness in the religious brain, especially the frontal lobes, versus that of an atheist brain. This isn't to say that atheists are dull thinkers, but that they do not experience the full sense of consciousness or awareness of that of a religious person. The atheists are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Through prayer, chanting and meditation, the religious are able to tap into their neurological selves better in order to better achieve a closer to Nirvana or enlightenment state. In this sense, I am for the better enlightenment of all here.

Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

Meditation is secular. It can be used for religious purposes, but it isn't religious by nature.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not a believer in neurotheology, but I would think that there is more activity and awareness in the religious brain, especially the frontal lobes, versus that of an atheist brain. This isn't to say that atheists are dull thinkers, but that they do not experience the full sense of consciousness or awareness of that of a religious person. The atheists are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Through prayer, chanting and meditation, the religious are able to tap into their neurological selves better in order to better achieve a closer to Nirvana or enlightenment state. In this sense, I am for the better enlightenment of all here.

Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

I do think that people who meditate regularly have a huge advantage over those who don't. It just has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Many Buddhists are atheists and many are not. And i find your insults towards secular Buddhists childish at best.

Insults? No. I'm letting you know that Buddhism is not atheistic. It is non-theistic. There is a difference.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I have made NO claims regarding the Buddha's beliefs. But you have. I have not made claims of MY beliefs either. You do not know that you're arguing with a secular Buddhist. You are making that assumption out of malice.

You presented Buddhism as though it were atheistic in the post I responded to. Shall I requote it?

Also, no- not out of malice, but because I think it is wrong to distort the Dharma as historically practiced. Some Buddhist thinkers were very dire on this point, and I won't say what they said- because you'd take it as malice.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But: The teachings of Buddhism are not about teaching belief in creator gods. That much is certain.

Creator gods agreed, but this is not how you presented Buddhism in your original post I responded to. You said flat out that Buddhism is atheistic. That is WRONG. This is not malice on my part. This is the paramita of zeal for the Dharma.

 

[Darkstorn]

You presented Buddhism as though it were atheistic in the post I responded to. Shall I requote it?

I actually said in another post that it's more accurate to call it non-theistic. You are welcome to base my entire view on one post when i made many, but that again, is your loss. I can fetch you the quote if you wish.

Insults? No. I'm letting you know that Buddhism is not atheistic. It is non-theistic. There is a difference.

Heh, i actually called it non-theistic before you. But you focused on one bit of one of my posts, out of many posts. Maybe you should have considered all available information before jumping the gun?

And yes, insults. "You're misleading others about the Dharma."

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You are welcome to take things literally, and you are welcome to make the assumption that i have given you any idea of what i think. But i haven't. You are making that assumption yourself. I honestly believe that you're not being constructive.

Of course, because that'd be easier than actually discussing authentic Buddhism wouldn't it? To dismiss me as not being constructive.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yes, oh Great Teacher. I will take your proselytizing into consideration.

That was a statement about Buddhist orthodoxy. Not proselytizing.

 

[Darkstorn]

Stop posting every single paragraph in a separate post.

That was a statement about Buddhist orthodoxy. Not proselytizing.

*Mahayana orthodoxy.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am not a Mahayana Buddhist and i believe you are guilty of lacking empathy for other schools of thought. You sound like a person with too many preconceptions. THAT is not Buddhism.

If you are a Theravadan, you are also wrong on that count- so why not quote me and things I said? Hm? The Theravadan Suttas speak of the supernatural. I know factually that Theravadans invoke the gods in a protective sense in traditional prayer books.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you are a Theravadan, you are also wrong on that count- so why not quote me and things I said? Hm?

Wrong on what count?

 

[leibowde84]

Insults? No. I'm letting you know that Buddhism is not atheistic. It is non-theistic. There is a difference.

What do you mean by "non-theistic"? Just that it doesn't speak to the existence of God or gods in any way?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There are points of agreement between Theravada and Mahayana you know. That pretty well means you're going against what 99% of Buddhists historically thought.

 

[Darkstorn]

There are points of agreement between Theravada and Mahayana you know. That pretty well means you're going against what 99% of Buddhists historically thought.

How am i going against them? I called it non-theistic. And atheistic.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What do you mean by "non-theistic"? Just that it doesn't speak to the existence of God or gods in any way?

No, that the gods are not saviors in Buddhism, so belief in them isn't meritorious. To say they don't exist though is a clear denial of something the Buddha taught.

 

[Darkstorn]

No, that the gods are not saviors in Buddhism, so belief in them isn't meritorious. To say they don't exist though is a clear denial of something the Buddha taught.

NO ONE here has said that. Atheism is not JUST about direct claims of there not being gods. This again, is your misunderstanding.