John Dub

@Sherlock

Now that’s an honest statement at last, there’s doubt – Dawkins would never say such a thing!  — Sherlock

Maybe you should take some more time and read the threads first instead of doing these blitzkrieg postings.  You commented here 2 days ago. Go read the OP of that thread. An evolutionary biologists uses the word “faith” when talking…[Read more]

The current model includes theories of states without time or matter that are unstable and led/lead to a Big Bang. I can provide some details, but I’m not a physicists.

Secondly, those unstable states happen (I would say “all the time”, but they aren’t in time). The physical universes they create will have different constants, so it kind of is l…[Read more]

More like it there is no you or no actor, you cannot see the eye that sees.

It says you can’t see it, not that it doesn’t exist. Quote exactly where you think it says there is no you.

Snow city saw a comment that agreed with him. That’s all the proof he needs.

This video tells you to say yes to life. It assumes there is a “who” in relationship with others. It tells you to choose who you are.

This guy describes something very different than what you say. He even warns against indifference. Pretty funny. Apparently other students of Buddhism have made the same mistake you have and masters have given a name to it and teach how to avoid it.

Reference please. Document. Author, year, page

Yes Sherlock, you’re posts are repetitive

Did I post the article about economics somewhere? Most of the 150 million who vote don’t vote based on a calculus of how well a candidate matches up with facts. They look at the price of cheese and how well their car is running and vote. Incumbents have an advantage because this country has been doing pretty well for a while now, so most people…[Read more]

No you cannot. You cannot explain “how the laws of nature came to exist” by relying on “concepts discovered by science”.

That does sound like a circular argument when you put it that way, and circular arguments are fallacious. Also, you can’t keep saying “well because” infinitely, you run out of explanations or out of time. But really science…[Read more]

Show me that in Buddhist scripture, not Browser, something from their source documents.

But where does he discuss the critical need for “honesty” when discussing scientific and political issues? — CC

But did he say anything about there being times within or across cultures that lies are suppressed as something to disdain, vs when lies become a normalized part of the society, such that the best liars are in control? –Tim…

[Read more]

That your wants and dislikes are just creations you make up.

As human beings we create things. Our bodies grow hair, we expel oxygen, sound comes out of our mouths. Those are creations from us. Also our brains create thoughts. We don’t understand exactly how that happens. Then, we do this thing called making up stories. We understand that a…[Read more]

This is from the rules

(h) Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.

I’m a moderator now, so I read them and sometimes remind people of t…[Read more]

The first line in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Metaphysics

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.

** mic drop gif

Apparently Buddhism also has modern science to back it according to the wiki link. –Xian

Note this statement at the top of that page:

This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by presenting facts as a neutrally-worded summary with appropriate citations. Consider transfer…

[Read more]

The sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping. How can that be wrong?

Nicely done Tee

This is where I’d hopped this thread was going, but it stalled out. They talk about Chalmers and much more.