yes this is very in line with what I am suggesting.

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so
-D.Adams

You said "If you rid yourself completely of all belief, time the way we say, percieve, and describe it would cease to exist." It's possible to rid oneself of all belief? You said this was testable, what is the test? If time is just the measurement of change, what if everything stopped changing, wouldn't that mean that time stopped?

Also, this Fabric idea is beyond me, it just sounds like "don't ask any questions about the premises of my OP, just go with it, also here's a link"

You talk about assuming a technology will become available in the future so let's design uses for it so we're "ready", or something? Do you think these technologies will just appear overnight, without warning?

I for one don't understand any of what you are talking about. About anything. What do you do for a living?

The test is obviously to do it and see what happens?!

Time as we know it would stop yes

Fabric means if I want to bring an assumption or premise in we can argue about it in its own thread as to not clutter this one with a 2nd debate.

Not overnight but we can advance our technology in preparation for it.


I'm isildur1

True allegiances are the trickiest things to trace out.

Don't some allegiances change over time? Probably all do. If they don't change outwardly they can still change inwardly by deepening or weakening.

Some people say Buddhists are atheists while some people say they aren't.

Maybe it depends on the person because it seems to depend on who you ask. Maybe some Buddhists are atheists while some aren't.

Rather funny I was reading on Kipling this morning and see the lotus a symbol of Buddhism associated with the swastika:

Many older editions of Rudyard Kipling's books have a swastika printed on their covers associated with a picture of an elephant carrying a lotus flower. Since the 1930s this has raised the suspicion of Kipling being a Nazi-sympathiser, though the Nazi party did not adopt the swastika until 1920. Kipling used the swastika as it was an Indian sun symbol conferring good luck and well-being. He used the swastika symbol in both right- and left-facing orientations, and it was in general use at the time.[74][75] Even before the Nazis came to power, Kipling ordered the engraver to remove it from the printing block so that he should not be thought of as supporting them. As an indication of his views of the Nazis, less than one year before his death Kipling gave a speech (titled "An Undefended Island") to The Royal Society of St George on 6 May 1935 warning of the danger which Nazi Germany posed to Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudyard_Kipling

Allegiances can change so fast in this world history can't even keep up and document all the changes.

Kipling was a member of the Freemasons.

I'm just clarifying you are pointing out the swastika change views...not Kipling correct?

Christianity purports that God/Jesus are perfect morally. Admittedly it is difficult to defend. I cannot answer your question re Euthyphro dilemma. I don't know the answer to that. Anything I say would be conjecture. If God does exist how could I dissect his being and understand his construction?

Whether God is morally perfect or not, that is what Christians believe. Therefore just the ideas put forward by God and the Bible are a moral compass for Christians. Likewise much of the world has adopted those morals to some degree.

I would think a true atheist would want to toss out all those ideas (maybe even Jesus years .... lol) including morality.

I'm not sure I will just flat out agree with this but yes you understand how 'time' and 'morality' are beliefs that not everyone has to have....it maybe Jesus syndrome or it could be Mohammad syndrome. But I think its clear most or all 'atheists' are not really atheists.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about Kipling I don't know enough about him but I suppose he could change across time just like any human being can.

It's a bit contradictory to claim that God/Jesus are morally perfect yet also claim that it's impossible to know the 'construction' of God's morals. We'll move on from Euthyphro for the moment though.

Can you explain why you think a "true atheist" would want to abandon morality and why you think a Christian should be compelled to follow the morality of the Bible?

Which morals in particular, because I think you'll find that other cultures beat Judaism and Christianity to the punch for the ones we take seriously today.

Hitler got the swastika from occultist beliefs passed down through Helena Blavatsky (remember Bruce Lee's instructors, instructors, instructor). The swastika like you said had positive connotations. The lore associated with it was ancient Indian texts and scripts.

This knowledge and link to the past history was severed in India by British monarchical/Christianic colonization.

Kipling would have been supporting those positive beliefs when sporting the swastika. I think you suggested something else no?

Sorry, I'm not reading on Bruce Lee itt.

I was just pointing out to nek that some people say Buddhists are atheists and some don't and that it's hard to track people's true loyalities in this world.

Most people think far too stereotypically and that stereotypical thinking carries over into arguments.

When you research things though is when your opinions really start to change and become more informed and well rounded.

Ok ok, can we just agree to mess with the world and start telling people kipling started the nazis?

Maybe the person you asked is wrong? Atheism is a rejection of deities. Buddhism doesn't reject deities.

I had this mistaken idea once, since Buddhism doesn't postulate a creator. However, a Buddhist who is practicing and has taken vows, would not say there are no deities. I was corrected, thankfully.

Buddhism is non-theist and an atheist is a non-theist too, but not all non-theists are atheists.

BTW, all of the practicing Buddhists I know would not say Buddhism is atheistic.

First off I blame you Zumby for preventing me from getting my work done in the office. Secondly I am not that good at using quote function, but I will try and respond.

It's a bit contradictory to claim that God/Jesus are morally perfect yet also claim that it's impossible to know the 'construction' of God's morals. We'll move on from Euthyphro for the moment though.

Well it may be contradictory but that is how it is (from the Christian perspective). That is the prevailing Christian thought and what is communicated in the Bible. If you think it doesnt make sense that is probably why you are not a Christian ( I assume you are not a Christian). From the Christian perspective God is perfect and eternal. For me as a human to understand the inner workings of God and his morality is impossible (again from a Christian perspective). God embodies justice and what is right. Respectfully, I dont think Euthyphro's Dilemma is relevant because Christians acknowledge God as a moral standard and Atheists don't acknowledge God in general.

Can you explain why you think a "true atheist" would want to abandon morality and why you think a Christian should be compelled to follow the morality of the Bible?

Maybe I can say it a different way. What is the basis of an atheist's morality? What is the reference point? Popular opinion?

Christians believe that the Bilbe is the inspired word of God. The Bible tells the story of God's redemption of mankind through Jesus Christ. I dont' need to explain all the teachings of Christianity I am sure you can look that up. In essence Christians obey God's commands out of respect and submission. God having forgiven our sin gives us guidelines on the best way to live life (outlined in the Bible). Eg. Don't murder, Don't commit adultery These are moral guidelines set out in the Bible. They are extensions of God's own character and also God's advice to mankind on the best way to live life. Christians are compelled to "obey" the Bible because they ultimately believe it is true and correct.

Which morals in particular, because I think you'll find that other cultures beat Judaism and Christianity to the punch for the ones we take seriously today.

I would argue from a historical perspective much of US law has been based on biblical ideas. But I do concede many other religions purport strong morals based on their various deities.

But the crux of my question is what is an atheist's moral reference point?

I'm unsure who 'corrected' you, but they got it almost entirely wrong.
(1) Atheism is not a rejection of deities (you're confusing positive/negative atheism); it is the mere lack of belief in one.
(2) Non-theist as it's used broadly and atheist are the exact same thing—atheism means 'without theism' after all.
(3) Buddhists are considered atheist.

Buddhism like all systems are subject to a sliding scale of comprehension and interpretation. We cannot clear this up with facts, but we can do it with understandings.

Buddhism is about taking a dogmatic mind and making it undogmatic. So coming from dogmatic perspective a person tango's with Buddhism and begins to shed their dogmas. As long as the are Buddhist they are still in the process of shedding dogmas whatever they maybe be.

Eventually one turns to Buddhism to shed it. If successful one can no longer be Buddhist. There is no enlightenment and no subject to achieve it. Therefore there is no dogmas to use, only ones that have been left behind.

This points to the time in Bruce Lee's life where he shut down his schools and said "I do not believe in schools"

So we can start to see why some suggest Buddhism is a dogma, while Buddhists suggest its not, even though they 'practice' it and obviously adhere to a dogma.

Zen would be a related concept that is more known for being less dogmatic. Now we can see why 'enlightenment' can be approached from so many different directions. We can see why many 'gurus' have their own approach. We can see why it is 'instant' in some people. We can see how Bruce Lee believed his martial art was a path to enlightenment.

With regards to (1), I would say meh. That is how it is generally used here on 2p2, but it is used differently in other places.

I don't really regard pantheists as atheists, but I would consider them non-theists.

Some buddhists are atheists--some are not.

Well, yes, it is used differently in other places. However, I would argue they're not justified in doing so.

I don't see why you wouldn't consider a pantheist a theist. It's right there in the name, for God's sake. Obviously you may not consider their interpretation of what represents a 'God' to be valid, but that is another argument entirely.

Of course. I was speaking broadly to what I perceive to be a Buddhist. This is necessary since this gets us out of unnecessarily convoluted situations (for instance, Christians can be atheist, and in fact, some are).

ok... I should have been more careful with my language. You are correct, atheism is a lack of belief in deities.

Atheists and non-theists are not synonymous.

Buddhists believe in deities, devas, dakinis and gods - how does that make them atheists?

I'm building up to that, honest. I used to be a Christian and am now an atheist, so it's worth us following this through in that direction, rather than me just tell you what I base my morality on.

Now, you've said that the reason Christians follow the moral teachings of the Bible is out of respect and submission to God. You have not mentioned anything to do with the consequences of moral actions and this may be a sticking-point because, given that I believe that morality is mostly if not entirely about the consequences of our actions. So to clarify I'd ask you to entertain the following thought experiment:

Imagine that you were presented with absolute proof that there was no God. Would you then want to go out raping and murdering? Give your reasons.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...eism?q=atheism

The only true dictionary, Land of Hope and Glory, apples and pears, knees up Mother Brown etc etc.

I think I would do whatever I felt like doing. If I was in a situation where I was mad at someone and thought I could get away with murdering them, then I for sure would crush them. I am not sure about rape, pretty brutal. Well I would probably just resort to hitmen to do my killings. Less chance of getting caught. I am pretty sure I would start growing/selling drugs since that is the fastest way to get rich. Probably just focus on getting as rich and powerful as I could.

Given the bolded, please elaborate on the distinction between atheist and non-theist.

It, of course, all comes down to what you qualify as a God, and what you qualify as some other form of supernatural being. I won't labor this point since the term "God" is so nebulous.

As between nontheism and atheism, nontheism is more a rejection of a personal god, a creator, a present god. These leaves room for Buddhist ideas of god. If atheism is as defined above, then it would be a subset of nontheisim.

Anyhow... There are gods in Buddhism. In fact, you can be born into the god realm. So, whatever... No offense, but the person who corrected me had some credibility - and I would say was entirely right.

Well, no offense as well, but if you're going to state that there are gods in Buddhism, then those Buddhists who believed would be classified as theist, not non-theist.

Oxford Dictionary
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods