I saw the phrase at a glance and assumed it meant something without reading it in detail. Are you saying that's never happened to you? Happens when I read quickly.
On a side note, I find it funny my post and its replies take up almost 50% of the comments for the story so far.
No, it's more a matter of me having seen the phrase at a glance and having assumed it meant something without reading it in detail. Are you saying that's never happened to you?
People can stop voting for politicians that do these things. Is there no politician on the ballot that doesn't do these things? Then people should write in their own and vote for him. The system works, if people care enough. The problem is that people don't care enough.
Be prepared. But you can't do anything about it so... have lots of fun, I guess. Hey actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea even if the world won't end.
I think we are mostly in agreement, but my argument was a bit poorly worded/inaccurately stated.
When I said "Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it.", by "it" I didn't mean "religion", but "the root problem", namely the blind reaction to pleasant and aversive things that happens as a result of not understanding what suffering is. The same problem which is required for religion to exist. I was merely pointing out that it would be more effective to address this problem directly, rather than address religion, which only arose cause that problem was there in the first place. I was a bit inaccurate though, in that criticizing religion might cause somebody to wake up from one delusional belief system, which might free up their mental energy somewhat.
But, even if you do away with all religions, the capacity in humans to believe will still be there, and the blind reaction to circumstances that causes suffering will still exist. Religion isn't the root problem - it's just a very gross manifestation of the root problem. That isn't to say that there isn't progress to be made by addressing religion somewhat, as Hitchens did... just that there is a subtler, deeper, more insidious thing waiting underneath.
Reason is certainly a step in the right direction. Far better to base things on reason rather than belief. However, you won't really crack the thing without some kind of introspective practice (i.e. a form of meditation, using the term very broadly) that you undertake as often as possible (i.e. every waking moment).
Hitchen's target is slightly off the mark, then. You allude to this here:
Invariable, as religions grow and spread they are twisted and used for evil and force people to abandon reason.
What causes the religion to start in the first place? What causes them to grow and spread? What causes them to be twisted and used for evil?
Buddhism, for example, did not start out as a religion. Siddartha Gautama figured out how to get enlightened (to end suffering completely in this lifetime) and started telling other people about it. He said you shouldn't kill people because it would hinder one's progress to enlightenment (not cause of any 'divine justice' or whatever, but simply cause the mental qualities that arise as a result of planning to and executing a murder are antithetical to the ones required to calm the mind and lead to the end of suffering). How did it get from that to people using Zen to justify slaughtering their enemies?
The issue is not with any particular religion. The issue is not with any particular person, either. The issue is the human mind's capacity to react blindly to what is happening. Not seeing what is happening with discernment, you make mistakes. You believe in things that have no proof. You cause yourself and other people to suffer. The issue is with this human capacity to believe. It's a process, not a thing.
Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it. Trying to convince particular people to not believe in their religion won't make a dent in it, because it won't solve the fundamental issue - that capacity to react blindly, aka to believe in things, aka to suffer and cause suffering.
What would make a dent in it is teaching people how to no longer react blindly to things. This is far more than just an intellectual pursuit. This capacity to react blindly and grasp at what is pleasant, reject what is unpleasant, and ignore everything in-between is quite deeply rooted... only made worse by social conditioning such as religion. Teach people a practice that, when undertaken diligently, allows for clearer and clearer seeing, which leads to less and less suffering, and less and less desire to cause suffering in others.
This is not easy. That's just what the Buddha was doing 2500 years ago. And he seemed pretty good at it - there are references to thousands of Arahats (fully enlightened people) in the Pali canon. Yet now you will be hard pressed to find one person claiming they are an Arahat. What happened? I don't know. Buddhism started out as an oral tradition for its first few hundred years... I suspect much was lost.
To summarize: going after the religion is going after something far, far further along than the root cause. If you shoot down one 'bad' religion, another will spring up, and so on ad infinitem. If you eliminate the root cause, though...
Any religion that promotes supernaturalism or offers mythology as a substitute for reality is bad.
The point of Buddhism (as I understand it) is to be a set of practice instructions that, if you follow them, will lead to the end of suffering (without needing to die and go into some afterlife). You don't even need faith - you can start doing the practice out of curiosity, and keep doing it once you see that it is working. The supernatural/mythological aspects are hardly the most important. At best you perhaps like them and as a result undertake the practice. At worst you simply don't need to address them at all.
That is not to say that people can't turn it into a religion, perhaps to the point of killing others in the name of it/with its aid (see "Zen at War"). But the good stuff is in there.
I used to try to lucid dream actively, and had a period of lots of lucid dreams then. I haven't really focused on it since starting to meditate, though they will happen when I think about them sometimes (like I'll remember they exist, then have one that night). When they have happened I've noticed that meditating while in the dream makes it more lucid, and is also actually great meditation - it's easier to do somehow in that state.
Meditating is indeed quite rewarding. I also invite you to post on the Dharma Overground if you like.. lots of experienced meditators there who can help you if you're looking to do something more with it or just refine what you're doing already.
Ah yea results-wise: fascinating altered states of consciousness (while sober). The aforementioned increase in concentration. Also learned a lot about how emotions work (and how suffering in general works) which makes it far easier to deal with stressful stuff. Also really increased sensual clarity (particularly vision).
I do different things now than when I started. First it was just following the breath 20min/day... then doing a technique called Mahasi-style Noting... at some point a shift occurred which made it far, far easier to concentrate on whatever I wanted and for however long (I basically am never bored anymore as there is always something interesting going on that I can observe). If you'd like to get into it more I invite you to introduce yourself on the Dharma Overground.
Anyone who meditates effectively for any length of time can attest to the fact that the brain can change quite dramatically as a result of what you do with it. Things that I did not even know were possible have happened to me as a result of it, and not in a subtle way, either.
But who do we trust to be that central repository of data, and not sell it to the highest bidder?
One take on it is: Nobody. You don't have the centralized repository in the first place. Having it is just an invitation for the government (or whatever agency controls it) to stomp on our privacy.
Who else thinks that facebook knew they would get in trouble for this, yet realized they would make more money by profiting from it in the mean-time and only changing their policy once officially caught? (Ford Pinto-style).
"How is this different than the paper money I have in my wallet?"
There is no difference, except that in a country with unbacked paper money, the government can steal from all its citizens by simply printing more dollars and spending them. They did that when there was still a 'gold standard', too - i.e. paper bills that were backed by gold - but they inflated so much that people started wanting to trade in their (worth less and less) dollars for gold, so the government put a stop to that by simply removing all backing, letting them inflate to their heart's content.
The US seemed to be doing fine before it introduced an income tax, or before the income tax grew to what it is today. The issue isn't "live in US and get taxed or move to Somalia", the issue is whether society could function a lot better with a smaller government and less taxes.
That could actually be a good measure for relative purposes. Measure the internet's worth of info for each year. See how 2001 compares to 2000, 2002 to 2001, etc, or 2010 to 2005, 2010 to 1995, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw the phrase at a glance and assumed it meant something without reading it in detail. Are you saying that's never happened to you? Happens when I read quickly.
On a side note, I find it funny my post and its replies take up almost 50% of the comments for the story so far.
No, it's more a matter of me having seen the phrase at a glance and having assumed it meant something without reading it in detail. Are you saying that's never happened to you?
Oh hah, thanks all. I misunderstood "until 6pm EST" as "for the rest of the night", or perhaps even "from 6pm EST on."
"Note: This will be the last story we post today until 6pm EST in protest of SOPA."
People can stop voting for politicians that do these things. Is there no politician on the ballot that doesn't do these things? Then people should write in their own and vote for him. The system works, if people care enough. The problem is that people don't care enough.
Be prepared. But you can't do anything about it so... have lots of fun, I guess. Hey actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea even if the world won't end.
AUBHGAUBHGUHHUAGUBUAGHubauhabuhbuhgbgubabbuhbaubabuhbauhba
I think we are mostly in agreement, but my argument was a bit poorly worded/inaccurately stated.
When I said "Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it.", by "it" I didn't mean "religion", but "the root problem", namely the blind reaction to pleasant and aversive things that happens as a result of not understanding what suffering is. The same problem which is required for religion to exist. I was merely pointing out that it would be more effective to address this problem directly, rather than address religion, which only arose cause that problem was there in the first place. I was a bit inaccurate though, in that criticizing religion might cause somebody to wake up from one delusional belief system, which might free up their mental energy somewhat.
But, even if you do away with all religions, the capacity in humans to believe will still be there, and the blind reaction to circumstances that causes suffering will still exist. Religion isn't the root problem - it's just a very gross manifestation of the root problem. That isn't to say that there isn't progress to be made by addressing religion somewhat, as Hitchens did... just that there is a subtler, deeper, more insidious thing waiting underneath.
Reason is certainly a step in the right direction. Far better to base things on reason rather than belief. However, you won't really crack the thing without some kind of introspective practice (i.e. a form of meditation, using the term very broadly) that you undertake as often as possible (i.e. every waking moment).
Related links: Apple Causes Religious Reaction In Brains of Fans. You might also enjoy this website's take on religion (particularly the "Related Discussions" links on the left-hand side.)
Invariable, as religions grow and spread they are twisted and used for evil and force people to abandon reason.
What causes the religion to start in the first place? What causes them to grow and spread? What causes them to be twisted and used for evil?
Buddhism, for example, did not start out as a religion. Siddartha Gautama figured out how to get enlightened (to end suffering completely in this lifetime) and started telling other people about it. He said you shouldn't kill people because it would hinder one's progress to enlightenment (not cause of any 'divine justice' or whatever, but simply cause the mental qualities that arise as a result of planning to and executing a murder are antithetical to the ones required to calm the mind and lead to the end of suffering). How did it get from that to people using Zen to justify slaughtering their enemies?
The issue is not with any particular religion. The issue is not with any particular person, either. The issue is the human mind's capacity to react blindly to what is happening. Not seeing what is happening with discernment, you make mistakes. You believe in things that have no proof. You cause yourself and other people to suffer. The issue is with this human capacity to believe. It's a process, not a thing.
Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it. Trying to convince particular people to not believe in their religion won't make a dent in it, because it won't solve the fundamental issue - that capacity to react blindly, aka to believe in things, aka to suffer and cause suffering.
What would make a dent in it is teaching people how to no longer react blindly to things. This is far more than just an intellectual pursuit. This capacity to react blindly and grasp at what is pleasant, reject what is unpleasant, and ignore everything in-between is quite deeply rooted... only made worse by social conditioning such as religion. Teach people a practice that, when undertaken diligently, allows for clearer and clearer seeing, which leads to less and less suffering, and less and less desire to cause suffering in others.
This is not easy. That's just what the Buddha was doing 2500 years ago. And he seemed pretty good at it - there are references to thousands of Arahats (fully enlightened people) in the Pali canon. Yet now you will be hard pressed to find one person claiming they are an Arahat. What happened? I don't know. Buddhism started out as an oral tradition for its first few hundred years... I suspect much was lost.
To summarize: going after the religion is going after something far, far further along than the root cause. If you shoot down one 'bad' religion, another will spring up, and so on ad infinitem. If you eliminate the root cause, though...
Any religion that promotes supernaturalism or offers mythology as a substitute for reality is bad.
The point of Buddhism (as I understand it) is to be a set of practice instructions that, if you follow them, will lead to the end of suffering (without needing to die and go into some afterlife). You don't even need faith - you can start doing the practice out of curiosity, and keep doing it once you see that it is working. The supernatural/mythological aspects are hardly the most important. At best you perhaps like them and as a result undertake the practice. At worst you simply don't need to address them at all.
That is not to say that people can't turn it into a religion, perhaps to the point of killing others in the name of it/with its aid (see "Zen at War"). But the good stuff is in there.
Hah, I find it funny that this post is modded flamebait.
I'm on Chrome. I don't use bookmarks anymore. Just: "r", "g", "d", "s", "st", "sl".
I used to try to lucid dream actively, and had a period of lots of lucid dreams then. I haven't really focused on it since starting to meditate, though they will happen when I think about them sometimes (like I'll remember they exist, then have one that night). When they have happened I've noticed that meditating while in the dream makes it more lucid, and is also actually great meditation - it's easier to do somehow in that state.
Meditating is indeed quite rewarding. I also invite you to post on the Dharma Overground if you like.. lots of experienced meditators there who can help you if you're looking to do something more with it or just refine what you're doing already.
Ah yea results-wise: fascinating altered states of consciousness (while sober). The aforementioned increase in concentration. Also learned a lot about how emotions work (and how suffering in general works) which makes it far easier to deal with stressful stuff. Also really increased sensual clarity (particularly vision).
I do different things now than when I started. First it was just following the breath 20min/day... then doing a technique called Mahasi-style Noting... at some point a shift occurred which made it far, far easier to concentrate on whatever I wanted and for however long (I basically am never bored anymore as there is always something interesting going on that I can observe). If you'd like to get into it more I invite you to introduce yourself on the Dharma Overground.
Anyone who meditates effectively for any length of time can attest to the fact that the brain can change quite dramatically as a result of what you do with it. Things that I did not even know were possible have happened to me as a result of it, and not in a subtle way, either.
But who do we trust to be that central repository of data, and not sell it to the highest bidder?
One take on it is: Nobody. You don't have the centralized repository in the first place. Having it is just an invitation for the government (or whatever agency controls it) to stomp on our privacy.
Who else thinks that facebook knew they would get in trouble for this, yet realized they would make more money by profiting from it in the mean-time and only changing their policy once officially caught? (Ford Pinto-style).
"How is this different than the paper money I have in my wallet?"
There is no difference, except that in a country with unbacked paper money, the government can steal from all its citizens by simply printing more dollars and spending them. They did that when there was still a 'gold standard', too - i.e. paper bills that were backed by gold - but they inflated so much that people started wanting to trade in their (worth less and less) dollars for gold, so the government put a stop to that by simply removing all backing, letting them inflate to their heart's content.
on windows. haven't tried it on linux, though.
We have enough to give every person currently alive 10000000000000000000000000000 different IPv6 addresses. I think we'll be OK.
The US seemed to be doing fine before it introduced an income tax, or before the income tax grew to what it is today. The issue isn't "live in US and get taxed or move to Somalia", the issue is whether society could function a lot better with a smaller government and less taxes.
Deflation doesn't strangle an economy. On the gold standard up to 1913 there was deflation and the economy was great. "Deflation is bad" is a belief.
That could actually be a good measure for relative purposes. Measure the internet's worth of info for each year. See how 2001 compares to 2000, 2002 to 2001, etc, or 2010 to 2005, 2010 to 1995, etc.