Why do we suffer? Why do we love?

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s easy. “Please provide evidence that God exists.” There you go! Atheism in a nutshell.

we exist. see, just as easy under the actual definition of evidence. under your definition we exist, works both ways.

This in no way answers the question I posed. Let me rephrase it: Based on your own contingency argument, how do you know where the backstop is? How do you know it’s God? How do you know that the backstop isn’t 43 entities down the line? Where is your evidence??

using the real definition of evidence, existence the base predicate to being, is the backstop. anything past that doesnt exist. see how simple that is?

So what caused God? Or did God cause himself? Or did something else happen? Is your get-out-of-logic-free card the assertion that, “God has always existed?”And where’s the evidence for your argument?

none of the above, existence doesnt need a cause, because there is no such thing as non-existence or nothing. nothing is literally nothing. just an artifact of language.

Ah, the good old “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Nice work.

except its not a fallacy here, in order to be an athiest in anything more than name you have to know what is believed and why, except , you dont seem to know some very basic things to the discussion, that makes you a wannabe.

Metaphysics cannot be empirically documented, therefore any research holds zero value in a rational argument. Evidence MUST be empirical, otherwise it’s not evidence, it’s anecdote.

first, metaphysics uses the same empirical observations of the universe other schools do, your not using the actyual definition of evidence, just your personal one. ande where is your empirical evidence that animals have emotions, or that there is a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe? seems a little hypocritical not to follow your own definition of evidence.

Do you believe that by quoting your comments, I am somehow accepting them as evidence that I then choose to ignore? Or are you simply choosing to ignore my repeated observations that your ‘evidence’ is actually mere supposition?

neither i am disproving the claim that you didnt see any evidence, know that we know that its your personal definition, it makes sense, but then suddenly the hypocrisy of the 2 positions you hold, already mentioned is exposed.

Well, I no-see any evidence for God. But that’s not by choice, but by inevitability. You can’t see something that doesn’t exist.

and you cant see many things that do. electrons, heat, neutrinos, etc.

Well, ignoring your loaded words implying that the universe itself is evidence of God, then yes. I would like to see empirical evidence. This is the only evidence that matters.

im not implying it, im saying it is, indeed empirical evidence of G-d, i will be happy to shred any scientific theory of creation. go ahead and try.

That wouldn’t be very convincing - I’m sure I could make one of those, and I’m not God.

of course it wouldnt, but then you couldnt make a universe is it by corollary more convincing?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed - nail on the head. We can observe them by their effects. Repeated, consistent, independently verifiable effects. Observation by experiment. Exactly what you CAN’T do with God.

i belive that observation of the universe is repeated, consistent, and can be verified independently, so whats the difference? we both start with the empirical universe, science ends at planck time, logic doesnt. you seem a little too impressed with the utility of the scientific method.

I thought you were either lazy or illiterate. It turns out that you just consider yourself above such trivial matters as proper sentence structure, spelling accuracy etc.

none of the above, unconcerned, i think in pictures. words are a pain in the neck.

I can’t identify one, because I don’t know. I’m happy not to know, and not so arrogant and ignorant that I feel the need to fill the gap with superstition.

thats not arrogance or ignorance, thats fear of the unkown, hey lets not shine a light in the dark corner, thats where the boogey man might be.! its astounding how satisfied you are with a lack of knowledge, as long as its about G-d. a denial of the PSR.

The part where I suggested love may be a by-product.
And suggesting isn’t the same as asserting – a distinction which appears to continually elude you.What a vacuous comparison. How do you expect to be taken seriously?And yet again, you are ignoring the most basic of facts - that I am not asserting what love is, I am only offering a theory. The reason I am not asserting it is because there is no proof. And for precisely the same reason, theists who assert a God are being logically dishonest. And, incidentally, denying the PSR which you hold so dear.

a theory without some evidence or argument for it is what? an assertion. you could just as well say love is little fairy mpotes that fall from the sky,or that love is a product of cricket pheromones in china. big deal, tell me why it might be and how that fits the OP

I didn’t, I responded to your assertion that the absence of a “why” – in an intentional sense – is a dismissal of the PSR. You seem to have interpreted ‘reason’ in the sense of ‘intent’ rather than it’s correct sense – ‘cause.’

no, you, i think it was you, said that why had to do with intent, i mentioned it didnt. it can only be about cause.not intent, so why do you or whoever bring it up?

Okay, well if you selectively ignore the things that show your naivety then there’s not much point holding the discussion, is there?

how did i ignore it, i told him he could choose any of the technical terms, i just dont think its going to matter.

If you truly believe that the non-survivalist actions of the individual affect the propagation of the species as a whole, then you are woefully uninformed. By your standard, we should get rid of extreme sports, non-essential plane flights and car journeys, space and ocean exploration, and so on. It’s a nonsensical argument born of your ignorance of how evolution works.

dif enough individuals do it, then yes it can be detrimental, and it is not optimal. hard to see how if it is benign why its universal among all humans. and yes i understand natural selection just fine mr, PSR, modalism, possible world semantics.

Yes, and I’ve covered both aspects of love – both the physical – or chemical – urge, and the intellectual attraction. In fact, I’ve shown that from an objective point of view, there is no substantial difference between hetero- and homosexual love.I never implied causality. I explained one theory for how homosexual love occurs. Essentially in the same way as heterosexual love.You seriously need to read up on evolution. You’re being far too simplistic. But even if we ignore your ignorance of this matter and take your statement at face value – how will the ‘homosexuality’ gene (if such a thing were to exist) propagate among the species?

just my point, if it were genetic how could it proprogate? you seriously need to read up on evolution, its sucha great mystery.

Rephrasing your original fallacy doesn’t make it less fallacious. If you truly think the theist has good cause to ask the atheist for proof that God doesn’t exist, then you misunderstand atheism. Which is quite ironic given your criticism of me as a ‘wannabe!’

who rephrased it? m pointing out the contradictory nature of youre statement, nor would i ask you to prove a universal domain negative. get a grip, im pointing out that your lack of knowledge in specific areas shows that you arent a real atheist in anything but name, yo want to be one, but when confronted you dodge, deflect, ad hom, deride, and do anything to avoid the loss of your cherished ideal.

How can you assert a possibility? You’re talking nonsense.

then what would you call a theory, other than a possibility? without evidence or argument its an assertion.

I haven’t dodged anything.I have addressed it, by pointing out that bare assertion does not qualify as evidence. Just because you believe something, that doesn’t make it evidence

if you knew the topics involved then you would know the arguments that make it more then bare assertion, that what i mean by wannabe. shouldnt you know things before you make a decision? or are you just practicing the faith of atheism?

.I’ve explained this. Please have the courtesy to read my posts (in this case, Post #52) before you dismiss them. If the best you can do to refute me is repeat an unjustified chant, then you’re wasting your own time as much as everybody else’s.Fair enough – I don’t know which search engine you used – let’s block this side-alley now.

ive read your posts, nor do i know what unjustified chant your refering to, but its simple. i expect you to know the arguments, why should i repeat endless arguments for every atheist that pops by? do your own research.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is outmoded, you don’t need evidence to change zeitgeist.

a lack of evidence isnt some feeling of the era, its just a plain out lack of evidence. in animals its always possible that its programmming and not emotions, but because it seems similar to us people feel justified making the assumption. peoples feelings changed, not the evidence for the issue.

I have a troupe of pixies living in my sock drawer. What, you don’t believe me? But I just told you it’s true, stop denying the evidence!!

ahere is a perfect example of you dodging the evidence, instead of replying to it, you make light of it. you dodged, why? if its so absurd then surely you have a reply that adresses it directly?

btw, pixies are mortal enemies of socks, who would believe a lie like that?

No, I haven’t. I suspect that this is because the question of suffering is one more commonly posed by philosophers. I don’t know, but I believe that neither question would have occurred to me if left to my own devices, as I don’t believe there is a “why” (in the context of intent) to either of them. Of course, they are not of the same genre either – asking why people suffer is not the same as, for example, asking why people experience despair. Suffering is the cause of emotion, whereas love is the emotion itself.

fair enough.

Yes, they can monitor brain activities, but these are in very general terms. Like using nothing but blurry X-rays to determine how every part of the knee joint works… but with a factored increase in complexity.

maybe someday, i thought they could get down pretty claose, i wonder what the resolution is?

 

[wanstronian]

no wonder you keep saying there isnt any evidence, you dont even know what it is!!!

dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

you made up your own definition of evidence!! no wonder! hey, how about we stick with the actual definitions of the words instead of the ones you make up so you dont have to adress actual evidence?

I’ve addressed your ridiculous comments about the level of evidential integrity required on another thread, so I won’t repeat myself here. Your desperate use of semantics to try and prove me wrong has had a presumably unwanted side-effect - you are confirming that what you have been presenting as evidence cannot actually prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

the way your using the word, everyone thinks you mean that the evidence we present isnt valid, but then never back up the assertion!

So we’re both right within our scope of the word, but your definition excludes having to actually prove anything!

your personal definition doesnt mean jack, and its hypocrititical because you accept things without empirical evidence, animal emotions for example. further, you accept that there is a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe something entirely without empirical evidence!

You’re repeating yourself, I have shown you why you are wrong on this thread, I won’t bother to repeat.

so how about you adress the evidence and stop dodging? but you wont, if you could have you would have done so long ago. i think you just want to be an atheist, you can back it up, so you dodge.

Yes, yes, again you have made these erroneous accusations on the other thread, where I have shown them to be drivel.

i expect you to know the arguments, its not assertion you are ignorant of the field. research is your job.

Again, I refer you to the other thread. Are you playing to the crowd?

2 things,

1 its simply an analogy of why it wasnt possible for first cause to have a previous cause, and still be first cause.

1. you already showed you dont know what evidence is

And you have shown that you can’t debate without resorting to baseless schoolyard taunts.

and you accept the empirically unobservable position that there is a scientific explanation for said universe–FAITH.

Again, answered on the other thread.

and how does this relieve you from the responsibility of doing your own research? now i encourage you to do your own research.

I’d like to know why you are now ignoring the original point and have started attacking on unrelated matters.

not conjecture, another argument you refuse to do you research on. hint, try out lokking at a book called the summa

Why would I research something that is clearly logically false? Unless there is another aspect to the argument that you have failed to provide, there is no need for me to read the same nonsense elsewhere.

wow…what else to say other than wow?.., this is the third time now that you have displayed a glaring ignorance of some of the most basic philosophical underpinnings of these arguments. you are completely unarmed and only bleating for a standard of evidence that you dont follow yourself. why dont you actually look up possible world semantics

. if you knew enough to be embarrased, this would leave you hiding in the closet:blush:Hang on a moment - you stated that multiple worlds was fact. It is you who should be embarassed… unless you have evidence of your claim. Your loaded words do not detract from the fact that you are unable to provide the evidence which is necessary to justify your claim. Again, I have shown in another thread that my standards are consistent. You should be ashamed of your dishonesty.

look up possible world semantics and modal logic. you dont know enough to know soem of the basics, so id say your logic wasnt fine at all.

No need, it is now apparent that it was your phraseology that caused the problem. Stating something as fact that is actually a philosophical concept is where you went wrong. Shame you felt you had to blame me!

why is asking for evidence of animal emotions linked to my theism? there is either valid evidence or there is not. nor have i rejected basic logical premises, though given your redefinition of evidence, maybe you have a personal definition of that too.

Is it not? If not, I apologise, I may have attributed someone else’s comments to you, regarding statements like, “God gave us animals to use as we see fit.” (paraphrasing]

and they keep giving you evidence,

That’s just the point - they don’t. Not evidence of sufficient integrity to actually prove anything.

you just ignore it under some personal definition of the word.

Here you go again…

further, do you know the difference between theology, logic, philosopy and science? , how do you avoid reading the appropriate philosophy? and if you ignore theological works also, then arent you excluding possible evidence on grounds of an assumption?

Possibly I am. But as nobody is able to summarise for me, why waste my time reading through reams of documentation? If it were provable, the majority of the world would believe it.

namely that it is conjecture? dawkins is a brilliant biologist, and an extrememly poor philosopher, and scientist in general. as there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe

Stop the bus - “there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe???” Where did THAT assertion come from, and where is your proof? Or do you simply mean we can’t prove using current science, how the universe was born? That I’ll accept, although it proves nothing either way regarding God.

, what does evolution matter?

Lots of evidence for evolution. Proper evidence.

none. he is a one trick pony, a trick only 13.7 billion years too late.

But he effectively refutes every argument for the existence of God. His ideas on the ‘evil’ of religion are a little extreme, I’ll give you that. Although some of the comments I’ve seen on the Apologetics forum make me extremely concerned.

yet you have reached the exact same conclusions as any atheist site on the web, but you dont know what the PSR is, or Modalism, or possible world semantics. on top of that you dont even follow your own standard of evidence, im not making an accusation, you are and apparently dont know it.

I am encouraged by the fact that you have resorted to basic and repeated insult - I take it as a sign that you are unable to provide any rational argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’ve addressed your ridiculous comments about the level of evidential integrity required on another thread, so I won’t repeat myself here. Your desperate use of semantics to try and prove me wrong has had a presumably unwanted side-effect - you are confirming that what you have been presenting as evidence cannot actually prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

i used the dictionary to prove you wrong, and as to a side effect, that applies to all knowledge, you cant prove anything even with direct observation because your senses may be faulty. though why dont you apply your standard to your self?

So we’re both right within our scope of the word, but your definition excludes having to actually prove anything!

im right, your wrong becuase you arent using the actual definition of the word evidence, but a higher standard that you dont apply to yourself.

You’re repeating yourself, I have shown you why you are wrong URL=“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5662662&postcount=88”]on this thread

, I won’t bother to repeat.

you havent shown why im wrong, i showed you were wrong by the actual definition of the word as standardized in a dictionary, see, even now you dont really care about empirical evidence if it doesnt support you.

Yes, yes, again you have made these erroneous accusations on the other thread, where I have shown them to be drivel.Again, I refer you to the other thread. Are you playing to the crowd?And you have shown that you can’t debate without resorting to baseless schoolyard taunts.Again, answered on the other thread.I’d like to know why you are now ignoring the original point and have started attacking on unrelated matters.

dodge, dodge, dodge. and because you are purposely dodging.

not conjecture, another argument you refuse to do you research on. hint, try out lokking at a book called the summa

Why would I research something that is clearly logically false? Unless there is another aspect to the argument that you have failed to provide, there is no need for me to read the same nonsense elsewhere.

another bare assertion here, its clearly logically false? so all the philosophers and schools over the last millenia have missed something that you, the guy who didnt know what the PSR, modalism, or possible world semantics. just picked up? DODGE!

Hang on a moment - you stated that multiple worlds was fact. It is you who should be embarassed… unless you have evidence of your claim. Your loaded words do not detract from the fact that you are unable to provide the evidence which is necessary to justify your claim. Again, I have shown in another thread that my standards are consistent. You should be ashamed of your dishonesty.

where did i say that multiple worlds were a fact? maybe you should look up possible world semantics, as to the rest. DODGE!

No need, it is now apparent that it was your phraseology that caused the problem. Stating something as fact that is actually a philosophical concept is where you went wrong. Shame you felt you had to blame me!

my phraseology? again, you obviouslyt lack the requisite research to discuss mot of these issues but again DODGE!

Is it not? If not, I apologise, I may have attributed someone else’s comments to you, regarding statements like, “God gave us animals to use as we see fit.” (paraphrasing]

again, how does that effect the need for evidence? DODGE!

That’s just the point - they don’t. Not evidence of sufficient integrity to actually prove anything.

so now its evidence?

Here you go again…Possibly I am. But as nobody is able to summarise for me, why waste my time reading through reams of documentation? If it were provable, the majority of the world would believe it.

first, the majority of the world does, abrahamic religions alone are were more than half the world population in 2000, second, even th0ough it works in my favor your making the fallacy of argument from authority. if you havent read any of it, as is obvious as you speak almost dorectly from common atheist websites, then you dont have any idea if it is logical or valid at all, do you? i suggest research, it will avoid embarrassing public instruction such as this.

Stop the bus - “there is no possible scientific explanation for the universe???” Where did THAT assertion come from, and where is your proof? Or do you simply mean we can’t prove using current science, how the universe was born? That I’ll accept, although it proves nothing either way regarding God.

sure, we cant see past planck time, it is a physical impossibility. check your physics. maybe you mean some day we wlill invent time travel, what then if it turns out to be G-d standing there?

but it does prove your own standard of evidence doesnt support your belief there is a scientific explanation does it? thats called being hoist b your own petard!

Lots of evidence for evolution. Proper evidence.

lots of evidence for airplanes too, and just about as useful in determining the existence of G-d

But he effectively refutes every argument for the existence of God.

he actually ignores them. in fact he straight out dodges metaphysics, as he must, he doesnt understand it and knows that he would be slaughtered. hes just a one trick pony.

His ideas on the ‘evil’ of religion are a little extreme, I’ll give you that. Although some of the comments I’ve seen on the Apologetics forum make me extremely concerned.

opnions are of little use, we find atheism evil, they think we are.

i am encouraged by the fact that you have resorted to basic and repeated insult - I take it as a sign that you are unable to provide any rational argument.

you havent offered any rational argument, you are just dodging, using personal definitions, etc, to avoid any substantive adress of the issues. welcome to atheism.

 

[wanstronian]

i used the dictionary to prove you wrong, and as to a side effect, that applies to all knowledge, you cant prove anything even with direct observation because your senses may be faulty. though why dont you apply your standard to your self?

im right, your wrong becuase you arent using the actual definition of the word evidence, but a higher standard that you dont apply to yourself.

you havent shown why im wrong, i showed you were wrong by the actual definition of the word as standardized in a dictionary, see, even now you dont really care about empirical evidence if it doesnt support you.

dodge, dodge, dodge. and because you are purposely dodging.

not conjecture, another argument you refuse to do you research on. hint, try out lokking at a book called the summa

another bare assertion here, its clearly logically false? so all the philosophers and schools over the last millenia have missed something that you, the guy who didnt know what the PSR, modalism, or possible world semantics. just picked up? DODGE!

where did i say that multiple worlds were a fact? maybe you should look up possible world semantics, as to the rest. DODGE!

my phraseology? again, you obviouslyt lack the requisite research to discuss mot of these issues but again DODGE!

again, how does that effect the need for evidence? DODGE!

so now its evidence?

first, the majority of the world does, abrahamic religions alone are were more than half the world population in 2000, second, even th0ough it works in my favor your making the fallacy of argument from authority. if you havent read any of it, as is obvious as you speak almost dorectly from common atheist websites, then you dont have any idea if it is logical or valid at all, do you? i suggest research, it will avoid embarrassing public instruction such as this.

sure, we cant see past planck time, it is a physical impossibility. check your physics. maybe you mean some day we wlill invent time travel, what then if it turns out to be G-d standing there?

but it does prove your own standard of evidence doesnt support your belief there is a scientific explanation does it? thats called being hoist b your own petard!

lots of evidence for airplanes too, and just about as useful in determining the existence of G-d

he actually ignores them. in fact he straight out dodges metaphysics, as he must, he doesnt understand it and knows that he would be slaughtered. hes just a one trick pony.

opnions are of little use, we find atheism evil, they think we are.

you havent offered any rational argument, you are just dodging, using personal definitions, etc, to avoid any substantive adress of the issues. welcome to atheism.

And you are simply dishonest. You are fooling yourself in an attempt to deny the fundamental logic that shows the gaping flaws in your argument. I can’t be bothered with this any more. As I have said to other stubborn, irrational, dogmatic, narrow-minded theists on whom I have given up trying to get them to understand basic logic - consider this a victory if you count your victories by clasping your hands over your ears and chanting until you opponent gives up in pity!

Life is too short, and it ends when you die.

 

[tonyrey]

As I have said to other stubborn, irrational, dogmatic, narrow-minded theists on whom I have given up trying to get them to understand basic logic…

You pride yourself on being logical yet you stubbornly, dogmatically and narrow-mindedly attribute your rationality to irrational processes…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And you are simply dishonest.

the last refuge of those unwilling to abandon their cherished position, the other argument must be dishonst!

You are fooling yourself in an attempt to deny the fundamental logic that shows the gaping flaws in your argument.

you have yet to make an argument, or to adress any evidence whatsoever, much less show gaping holes in an argument. every post ive seen you make has been to claim a standard of evidence you dont follow yourself, and then to dodge anything that you couldnt answer. i suggest your position is more faith based than mine.

I can’t be bothered with this any more. As I have said to other stubborn, irrational, dogmatic, narrow-minded theists on whom I have given up trying to get them to understand basic logic -

As I have said to other stubborn, irrational, dogmatic, narrow-minded non-theists on whom I have given up trying to get them to understand basic logic -

i would bash that statement, but a simple reversal makes the point as eloquently

consider this a victory if you count your victories by clasping your hands over your ears and chanting until you opponent gives up in pity!

victory? who is here for victory? you wont even sit down to adress any issue. you wont do more than summarily dismiss any argument or evidence you are presented with? you seem unwilling to adress these issues, what else am i to assume than you fear the loss of a cherished ideal?

Life is too short, and it ends when you die.

then why are you wasting time talking about it? i suggest that you are as fascinated with the question of G-d as any theist is. let go and come on over. its hard, its binding, you will no longer be free to do as you wish, you will be called names, people will think you odd, i can only guaruntee you a lifetime of suffering and the enmity of every one you know and love. but what i can promise you is a chance at a clean conscience, a life of more meaning and consquence then one solely lived for the respect of others, or personal pleasures. come on in, the water is fine

 

[cantheist]

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
5. Life means suffering.
   To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.
6. The origin of suffering is attachment.
   The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardour, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a “self” which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call “self” is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.
7. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
   The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.
8. The path to the cessation of suffering.
   There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely “wandering on the wheel of becoming”, because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

 

[cantheist]

The Noble Eightfold Path

1. Right View

Wisdom
2. Right Intention

3. Right Speech

Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action

5. Right Livelihood

6. Right Effort

Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness

8. Right Concentration

The Noble Eightfold Path describes the way to the end of suffering, as it was laid out by Siddhartha Gautama. It is a practical guideline to ethical and mental development with the goal of freeing the individual from attachments and delusions; and it finally leads to understanding the truth about all things. Together with the Four Noble Truths it constitutes the gist of Buddhism. Great emphasis is put on the practical aspect, because it is only through practice that one can attain a higher level of existence and finally reach Nirvana. The eight aspects of the path are not to be understood as a sequence of single steps, instead they are highly interdependent principles that have to be seen in relationship with each other.

1. Right View
   Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.
2. Right Intention
   While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.
3. Right Speech
   Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.
4. Right Action
   The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

 

[cantheist]

1. Right Livelihood
   Right livelihood means that one should earn one’s living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.
2. Right Effort
   Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
3. Right Mindfulness
   Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualise sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualisation in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.
4. Right Concentration
   The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

 

[ready]

In a nutshell, we suffer because of our first parents’ original sin which entered into the world, and we love because we are made in the image and likeness of our heavenly parent, God.