Actually, it's called "Begging"

A Chihuahua has begun joining in daily prayers at a Buddhist temple in Japan.

He’s probably praying the monk stops the pointless ritual and feeds him already.  There's probably more chance that’ll come true than whatever the monk’s praying for.

Comments

[Benjamin]

What is it about a Buddhist monk meditating that makes it a "pointless ritual"? Surely there is some purpose in him doing it, even though you may not know or care what that purpose is.

Why is it that self proclaimed skeptics are so quick to label anyone with a different perspective or lifestyle an idiot?

Ideally, shouldn't a skeptic be skeptical of everything, including his own beliefs? Perhaps if you had been more skeptical of your own assumptions, instead of your knee jerk reaction to the word prayer, you would have done a minimal amount of research to find out what exactly Buddhist prayer entails.

You would have then found that, most importantly, Buddhists are atheist. They are not praying to a supernatural deity. Secondly, they are not praying for anything material, but rather for things like love, peace and compassion for all living things. And by praying for this they don't really believe that some mystical energy force is going to bring these things about, but rather they use these prayers to develop their own inner peace.

So what exactly is it about all that you find objectionable? What it is about a monk wanting his chihuahua to keep still while he meditates that makes him a "religious idiot"?

And more generally, why is it that those in the skeptical community are so quick to ridicule those they believe they disagree with? Ridicule first, ask questions later seems the general principle among skeptical blogs.

Looking forward to your response.

[King of Ferrets]

Buddhists aren't precisely atheist, from what I recall they believe in reincarnation and the soul. They made not believe in any god, but supernatural souls and reincarnation aren't exactly atheistic things.

[Brian]

Buddhism is a non-theistic philosophy. However, there are degrees of rationalism and empiricism in any group. Sam Harris is a Buddhist, by the way. Most skeptics confuse skepticism with cynicism, thus explaining the hateful comment of the monk engaging in a "pointless ritual."

[Darthcynic]

Actually Ben if you had bothered to read the article the picture is from you would have seen that they 'are' attributing a 'religious' element to this. They claim that the dog is joining in daily prayers, that the dog may be giving thanks for its treats and that the priest would like to see the dog meditate also. This does seem a little silly and par for the course of the religious minded. But I did not see at any point a declaration that it was wrong or objectionable in Skeptico's article, just a "look how silly this is". You appear to just assume this objection as well as completely missing the humour of the post in your charge to have a go at the skeptics. A bit of knee jerk yourself.

[Benjamin]

Darthcynic,

I did read the article. In fact, I did one better and looked up separate sources of this story. The same picture and story is featured here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/picture-post-paws-for-thought-a-dog-at-prayer-800165.html

Here there is a quote from the monk in question "Basically, I am just trying to get him to sit still while I meditate," he says, adding: "It's not like we can make him cross his legs." There is nothing about the dog praying or doing anything except keeping still while mimicking his master. So perhaps the monk is not quite as silly as the other article would have us assume?

I see a declaration that the monk's actions were wrong and objectionable by Skeptico when s/he calls Buddhist prayer a "pointless ritual" and files the post under "religious idiocy". Calling someone an idiot seems like a rather strong declaration that you find something objectionable. Don't you think?

Also, Skeptico ridicules the monk by saying that whatever he is praying for is not going to come true. And he is doing this while seemingly not having any idea what exactly the monk is praying for, or knowing what exactly Buddhist prayer actually is.

[Tom Foss]

Benjamin:

Surely there is some purpose in him doing it, even though you may not know or care what that purpose is.

There you go, right off the bat, assuming people here don't know what the purposes of Buddhist meditation and prayer are. "Ignorance" and "disagreeing with the utility of the action" are not the same thing.

Why is it that self proclaimed skeptics are so quick to label anyone with a different perspective or lifestyle an idiot?

Why is it that woos are so prone to broad generalizations?

Yes, irony intended.

Ideally, shouldn't a skeptic be skeptical of everything, including his own beliefs?

Yes indeedy. That's why we subject our own beliefs to the same methods of scrutiny and standards of evidence which we demand from everything else. What's your point?

You would have then found that, most importantly, Buddhists are atheist.

So?

Secondly, they are not praying for anything material, but rather for things like love, peace and compassion for all living things.

Great. You know what would be more useful? Doing something to promote love, peace, and compassion for all living things. First and foremost, as Skeptico noted, paying some attention to and feeding the poor dog.

And by praying for this they don't really believe that some mystical energy force is going to bring these things about, but rather they use these prayers to develop their own inner peace.

And to seek metaphysical enlightenment and whatnot. Buddhism doesn't have a god, but it does have a bunch of supernatural nonsense (which admittedly varies from sect to sect). Meditation may be all well and good for personal relaxation, but it's not going to bring about the things you suggest they're praying for.

So what exactly is it about all that you find objectionable? What it is about a monk wanting his chihuahua to keep still while he meditates that makes him a "religious idiot"?

Well, the fact that he brought a dog to the temple, for one. And the fact that, assuming you're correct regarding what he's praying for, he'd accomplish those goals by actually doing something with the dog.

But most importantly? Because it's a silly image, and yet the people in the area and the newsmedia have attached some kind of significance to it. A dog is mimicking its masters to do a trick that is standard for dogs around the world, and it makes the newswire. This isn't "man bites dog," this is "dog acts like dog." The only reason it's newsworthy is because it's happening in a temple rather than a kennel.

And more generally, why is it that those in the skeptical community are so quick to ridicule those they believe they disagree with? Ridicule first, ask questions later seems the general principle among skeptical blogs.

Why is it that drive-by woos judge the whole skeptical community by the content of one brief fluff post? We ridicule after we've asked the questions and found the answers lacking; just because there isn't a deep dissertation on the philosophical failings of a given position in every post doesn't mean we haven't thought it through. Buddhism has some good stuff; like any religion (or quasi-religious philosophy), it also has a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and yes, even harmful elements (karma, for instance). As with anything of the sort, we have no problem with the good aspects; keep the meditation if it calms you down, keep the eightfold path if you think it's a good guideline for life, but there's no reason that the good, useful bits have to be weighed down by superstition and woo.

King of Ferrets:

Buddhists aren't precisely atheist, from what I recall they believe in reincarnation and the soul. They made not believe in any god, but supernatural souls and reincarnation aren't exactly atheistic things.

All that's required of atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Buddhism is atheistic, as are Raelianism and Scientology. What you're looking for is skepticism and naturalism, which all three lack in significant quantities. Souls and reincarnation can show up in an atheistic worldview, not so much in a naturalistic one.

It's easy, since the majority of the outspoken atheists in the blogohedron are also science-minded skeptics, to think that the two are the same. Atheism, however, is a big tent (by virtue of being a single position on a single question), and the skeptical science types are only one part of the whole.

Brian:

Sam Harris is a Buddhist, by the way.

Got a citation for that? I know Sam's into spiritualism and is heavily inspired by Buddhism and Hinduism, but has he actually claimed to be a Buddhist?

Most skeptics confuse skepticism with cynicism, thus explaining the hateful comment of the monk engaging in a "pointless ritual."

Really? Who are these "most skeptics"? How do they confuse the two (fairly distinct, from my point of view) terms? Do you have anything to back up that claim?

How exactly is it "hateful" to call prayer (of any sort) a pointless ritual? That it is a ritual is not in doubt, so obviously the contention is on its pointlessness. I can see where prayer and meditation have a calming effect on the meditator; I don't see why one would need to engage in that "all the time" as Yoshikuni claims to do. Beyond that, what is the point? What, besides a calming effect, could be accomplished by sitting immobile for extended periods on a daily basis, which couldn't be better accomplished in any number of ways?

I can see a small point, in moderation, for the human, and no point for the dog. That's pretty close to "pointless" in my book.

I can also see that Skeptico's original post was meant to be funny, though that seems lost on you.

Ben again:

So perhaps the monk is not quite as silly as the other article would have us assume?

He's bringing his dog to daily prayers. If he has such a problem with the dog staying immobile, why bring it? Hence, silliness.

I see a declaration that the monk's actions were wrong and objectionable by Skeptico when s/he calls Buddhist prayer a "pointless ritual" and files the post under "religious idiocy".

Then you don't know what "wrong" and "objectionable" mean, because they aren't synonyms for "pointless" and "idiotic."

Also, Skeptico ridicules the monk by saying that whatever he is praying for is not going to come true. And he is doing this while seemingly not having any idea what exactly the monk is praying for, or knowing what exactly Buddhist prayer actually is.

And again, you make this assumption. We have come full circle. Very zen. As you said yourself, with the same telepathic abilities that allow you to see that Skeptico doesn't know anything about Buddhist prayer, the monk is praying for "love, peace and compassion for all living things." A better use of his time would be to work for "love, peace and compassion for all living things," starting with not neglecting his damn dog. Skeptico is right; praying is not going to make any more love and compassion in the world.

[Skeptico]

Benjamin:

Why is it that credulous people who post comments on skeptical blogs are so quick to criticize the skeptic?

Perhaps if you had been more skeptical of your own assumptions, instead of your knee jerk reaction to my post about prayer, you would have done a minimal amount of research to find out what exactly I have written before about prayer. (It’s in the left hand column under “classic posts”.)

You would have then found that, most importantly, Prayer is useless. even when studied again, Prayer is still useless. Secondly, if these monks are praying and yet they don't really believe that some mystical energy force is going to bring these things about, then they are clearly morons.

So what exactly is it about my evaluating the evidence (of lack of it) for prayer that you find objectionable?

And more generally, why is it that those in the blog-commenting community are so quick to complain about those they believe they disagree with without even reading the arguments presented? Complain first, ask questions later seems the general principle among credulous commenters like you.

[Brian]

Sam Harris is a Buddhist, by the way.

Tom: Got a citation for that? I know Sam's into spiritualism and is heavily inspired by Buddhism and Hinduism, but has he actually claimed to be a Buddhist?

I don't have a citation, but I distinctly remembering him refer to himself during a lecture as a "Buddhist Scholar." For more detailed view of his take on Buddhism, I would read this article that he wrote for several Buddhist publications:

http://www.samharris.org/media/killing-the-buddha.pdf

This article is also instructive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-contemplative-science_b_15024.html

How exactly is it "hateful" to call prayer (of any sort) a pointless ritual?

Because the comment denounces the monk with presumptive ridicule. Also, it was filed under "religious idiocy." Yeah. Not hateful in the slightest.

I can see where prayer and meditation have a calming effect on the meditator; I don't see why one would need to engage in that "all the time" as Yoshikuni claims to do. Beyond that, what is the point? What, besides a calming effect, could be accomplished by sitting immobile for extended periods on a daily basis, which couldn't be better accomplished in any number of ways?

Meditation isn't necessarily about producing a state of calm, but rather revealing the nature of the mind and changing longstanding destructive mental habits. In objective terms, there are brain changes which have been proven to occur in prolonged meditation practice.

There are many studies I can refer you to if you're curious. Here is one example:

http://www.dharma.org/ims/documents/PLoSBiologyResearchArticle_000.pdf

Tom:

I can also see that Skeptico's original post was meant to be funny, though that seems lost on you.

So if I'm trying to be funny, that means I don't have to be civil or make sense?

[Brian]

I think that link may have gotten cut off:

dharma.org/ims/documents/PLoSBiologyResearchArticle_000.pdf

[Skeptico]

btw: Brian’s link (.pdf)

[genewitch]

i like the Buddhist philosophies. I think that if their meditation isn't contributing to the problem, then even if it isn't a solution, it's still better than just praying for jesus to fix it.

Along the lines of Karma, it depends on the functional definition. If you're taking it to mean "good things happen to those who do good things" then i don't see a problem with that.

If you're saying constantly "i must be paying for bad karma" then yeah, it's superstitious crap.

If i had to pick a religion at gunpoint i'd pick Buddhism, just cause it's the lease invasive (in my opinion).

Doesn't mean that they're right or anything. :-)

[Marcus Ranum]

Benjamin - it sounds to me like you're simply defining buddhism to be whatever you think it is that's convenient for your argument... Which buddhism? Tibetan? Nichiren? Zen? Or Benjamin's own flaw-free atheist brand that conveniently doesn't have any history?

So what about the buddhists who are praying for peace for others? My understanding of the tibetan lamas is that that's their alleged purpose (other than to live high on the hog while being supported by peasants who live in near-slavery in return for their supposed prayers... If their prayers are not "useless" what, exactly are they accomplishing?

Non-theistic? So you are saying buddhists reject the notion that bodhisattvas like the dalai lama are literal reincarnations of special souls, etc?

Non-theistic? What about the statues that are paid homage? I'm darned if I can see the difference between praying at a crucifix or praying at a gold-plated statue of the buddha. HmmmM?

Harris has said favorable things about the morals of the Jains but I've never seen a cite that he's a buddhist. Got one you can share? (BTW, I question whether Harris really appreciates what a bunch of useless, arrogant parasites the Jains are, but that's his business. He's not perfect.)

Buddhism is just another retarded bunch of religious bollocks. You can kid yourself if it makes you happy, I suppose. But why don't you study a bit of the history of buddhism before you get on your high horse about how it's not a religion. Reincarnation, souls, yadda-yadda - are all supernatural stuff not "atheism"

[Cory Olsen]

A clear case of "don't you step on my favorite fairy tale!"

Being a buddhist might now be as fashionable as owning an IPod but it don't mean their prayers are anymore likely to be answered than those for Jebus.

Cory.

[Benjamin]

Tom:

There you go, right off the bat, assuming people here don't know what the purposes of Buddhist meditation and prayer are. "Ignorance" and "disagreeing with the utility of the action" are not the same thing.

My assumption was based off of my previous readings of Skeptico's blog posts concerning prayer and meditation, my personal perception of the ignorance of the skeptical community about the differences between Buddhism and western religions and/or supernatural nonsense, and the tone and content of this particular post. I think in this case "ignorance" and "disagreement of utility" are related in that I perceive there to be a misunderstanding of Buddhist prayer (or meditation) and its utility and Skeptico’s perception.

Why is it that woos are so prone to broad generalizations?

(So you say you are being ironic here, but you end up calling me a woo later on as well, so I'll just address this now)What is that I have said that qualifies me to be considered a woo? Where have I made it evident that I am person who readily believes in supernatural, paranormal, or occult phenomena? Or are you using "woo" in another sense, as in anyone who is in disagreement with you at any particular moment? Why resort to name calling? I don't see how it adds anything to our conversation.

Yes indeedy. That's why we subject our own beliefs to the same methods of scrutiny and standards of evidence which we demand from everything else. What's your point?

My point is that in this instance I believe you are not using said methods of scrutiny and standards of evidence. By lumping anything and everything with the title 'prayer' or 'religion' into the same category, I believe you are being unskeptical.

Buddhist are atheists. So?

A common objection to prayer among those who consider themselves skeptical is that one must be a believer in the supernatural to engage in the activity, and therefore the person "praying" must be irrational. My point is that in terms of Buddhist prayer, this is not the case.

Great. You know what would be more useful? Doing something to promote love, peace, and compassion for all living things.

If one's objective was to bring about "personal relaxation" as you call it, or "inner peace" as the Buddhists call it, prayer or meditation seems like a reasonable and useful way of bringing this about. What evidence do you have to the contrary? If you can not provide this evidence, will you concede that the meditation may not be a "pointless ritual"?

Also, what are these other activities that one can engage to promote love, peace, and compassion that you have in mind?

First and foremost, as Skeptico noted, paying some attention to and feeding the poor dog.

Where did it say in either article that the dog was being starved or neglected?

Meditation may be all well and good for personal relaxation, but it's not going to bring about the things you suggest they're praying for.

I agree with you on this to a certain extent. I can't believe that there is some supernatural force spreading out peace all over the world while the monk prays.

That said, Buddhist monks life-long devotion to mindfulness and the principles of peace and compassion have brought positive things to our world, even if it is sometimes an indirect influence. Off the top of my head I would mention Thich Quang Duc as well as the monks of Burma and Tibet. Of course, this does not give them a free pass regarding any irrational beliefs they may (or equally likely, may not) have, but with this in mind I question the calling of meditation a "pointless ritual" and the practitioners "religious idiots".

There is a point to the ritual, even if it helps no one but those meditating. Meditation is ultimately about personal transformation. Ideally (and as Buddhists hope) this personal transformation will have a net positive effect on the world as a whole, but even if it doesn’t, it doesn’t make meditation a pointless ritual or meditators idiots.

Well, the fact that he brought a dog to the temple, for one. And the fact that, assuming you're correct regarding what he's praying for, he'd accomplish those goals by actually doing something with the dog.

What is objectionable about having a dog in the place where you live? Why do you assume he never does anything with the dog?

to seek metaphysical enlightenment and whatnot.

What do you mean by calling Buddhist enlightenment metaphysical?

The only reason it's newsworthy is because it's happening in a temple rather than a kennel.

I don't see how this explains calling Buddhist meditation a "pointless ritual" or calling the monk a "religious idiot".

Why is it that drive-by woos judge the whole skeptical community by the content of one brief fluff post?

What makes you think my judgment is based off of just this post? Just because I commented on this particular post doesn't mean this is the only skeptical blog post I’ve ever seen. I've been subscribed to many skeptical/science blogs for many many months which I read daily. In fact, a few months ago here on skeptico I praised a comment of yours and asked if you had your own blog. I've been reading and enjoying your blog periodically since then. So from my perspective it seems quite ridiculous and unfounded for you to call me a "drive by woo".

keep the eightfold path if you think it's a good guideline for life, but there's no reason that the good, useful bits have to be weighed down by superstition and woo.

How have the dog articles or my reply extolled superstition or woo? What is the justfication for your or Skeptico's ridicule in this case?

That it is a ritual is not in doubt, so obviously the contention is on its pointlessness. I can see where prayer and meditation have a calming effect on the meditator; I don't see why one would need to engage in that "all the time" as Yoshikuni claims to do.

Because you don't see why someone would spend their time in meditation, you consider it pointless? Surely you do activities that you enjoy and which have a calming effect on you. Maybe you watch tv, maybe you drink, maybe you work a lot, maybe you write and respond to blogs. Whatever it is that you like to do, I wouldn’t call it a “pointless ritual” nor would I call you an idiot because that’s how you prefer to spend your time.

Beyond that, what is the point?

To live in and be aware of the present moment. To be calm, peaceful and happy.

What, besides a calming effect, could be accomplished by sitting immobile for extended periods on a daily basis, which couldn't be better accomplished in any number of ways?

What are these “any number of ways” that can accomplish what meditation does? What is your experience with meditation and how do you know there are similar activities that can bring about similar states of consciousness? If you don’t have personal experience in meditation I’d be interested in seeing citations.

He's bringing his dog to daily prayers. If he has such a problem with the dog staying immobile, why bring it? Hence, silliness.

By that logic, the next time you are on your computer or watching TV, you should consider giving up your dog (if you have one). Every dog owner has times when they would like their dog to be still, I don’t see anything objectionable or silly about that.

Monks live in their temple. Monks spend time meditating. Perhaps monks like dogs as well. As every dog owner I’ve ever known doesn’t spend 100% of their time playing and running around with their pup, I don’t see what’s wrong with a monk keeping a dog and wanting it to be still while he prays. Also, concerning Chihuahuas, asking why he brings it to prayer isn’t a fair question. Chihuahuas like to follow their owner around everywhere and sit on or near them at all times. They are lap dogs, and it seems like this particular one has adapted to that by imitating his master.

Then you don't know what "wrong" and "objectionable" mean, because they aren't synonyms for "pointless" and "idiotic."

If an individual calls someone an idiot and their actions pointless, I think it is fair to assume he would object to said idiotic and pointless activity. My perception of the post was that it was scornful and mocking of Buddhist prayer/meditation.

As you said yourself, with the same telepathic abilities that allow you to see that Skeptico doesn't know anything about Buddhist prayer, the monk is praying for "love, peace and compassion for all living things."

A person doesn’t need telepathic abilities to read Skeptico’s blog and make a judgment on his/her understanding of Buddhist prayer. Nor does one need telepathic ability to make an educated guess about what the monk in the article is praying for and what that prayer actually means to them and other Buddhists. Why do you feel the need to inject such snideness? This is exactly what I’m talking about when I criticize the skeptical community for it’s rashness to ridicule anyone it disagrees with. Can’t we disagree and then discuss it? What does it accomplish to be rude or insensitive to each other?

[Martin]

Tom Foss:
Great. You know what would be more useful? Doing something to promote love, peace, and compassion for all living things.

He is doing something to promote it. I think the idea is that if you change yourself you change the world. If you want to do something to promote peace&love, what is a better place to start than with yourself?

[Benjamin]

Skeptico:

Why is it that credulous people who post comments on skeptical blogs are so quick to criticize the skeptic?
Would you rather no one ever post critical comments on your blog? Isn’t that part of the purpose of comment sections?

Perhaps if you had been more skeptical of your own assumptions, instead of your knee jerk reaction to my post about prayer, you would have done a minimal amount of research to find out what exactly I have written before about prayer. (It’s in the left hand column under “classic posts”.)
I did. In fact I am a long time reader and fan of your blog. Because of my knowledge of your writings I thought it was reasonable to criticize you concerning this particular post.

You would have then found that, most importantly, Prayer is useless. even when studied again, Prayer is still useless. Secondly, if these monks are praying and yet they don't really believe that some mystical energy force is going to bring these things about, then they are clearly morons.
If you define prayer as the “act of trying to communicate with a deity”, then I agree with you, prayer is certainly useless. My point is that it is unfair to compare Mahayana Buddhist (the branch of Buddhism this monk is most likely involved in) prayer with theistic prayer. A better word for what this monk is doing would simply be meditation.

As the monk in this article makes no claims of anything supernatural, I think it is unfair to call his meditation a “pointless ritual” and to label him as a religious idiot.

Buddhists can be and quite often are rationalists, empiricists, and critical thinkers. Certainly some of them are not, but why turn off the good ones with unnecessary and unjustified ridicule?

[JC]

Brian: Thinking that someone is an idiot is not the same as hating that person. Calling someone an idiot is not the same as hating that person.

I do not hate you. I think you are an idiot.

And for what it is worth I don't think that prayer is pointless as it obviously does have a point. Rather, it is futile.

[Brian]

You can think whatever you want, but if you conclude that "I" am an idiot and use it in an argument rather than cite that my "ideas" are idiotic and show why, you are clearly pulling ad hominem bullshit.

[Marcus Ranum]

Buddhists can be and quite often are rationalists, empiricists, and critical thinkers. Certainly some of them are not, but why turn off the good ones with unnecessary and unjustified ridicule?

Y'know, I've heard that from lots of christotards, too. As an argument, it fails miserably and here's why: What kind of "rationalist" or "empiricist" or "critical thinker" accepts the notion of reincarnation and spiritual planes based on absolutely zero evidence??? The kind that's self-deluding - that's what kind. The kind that's not actually rationalist, empiricist, or a critical thinker.

Basically, it boils down to "sure, there's a lot of stupid, but some of us are less stupid than the others, and you should only offend the highly stupid."

Epic fail.

[Brian]

Just so you know: Many Buddhist (particularly Western Buddhists) don't accept the idea reincarnation or spiritual planes. It is not necessary to hold those beliefs in order to practice Buddhism.

[Benjamin]

Marcus:

What kind of skeptic accepts the notion that every Buddhist accepts reincarnation and spiritual planes? You are awfully quick to judge a whole group of people who, it seems, you know little about.

[pv]

Brian said:

Just so you know: Many Buddhist (particularly Western Buddhists) don't accept the idea reincarnation or spiritual planes. It is not necessary to hold those beliefs in order to practice Buddhism.

That's what I love so much about religion people. They can believe whatever they want and call it what they want - and convince themselves, with no sense of irony, of their exclusive rightness. Magic.

The above letter by 'King of the Ferrets' (1.50 PM, Mar 25) makes absolutely no sense. He states that 'Buddhists aren't precisely athiest' but then makes the comment that they 'may not believe in any god' - isn't this the very definition of atheism?
A person who believes in the existence of souls and re-incarnation, but not an all-encompassing supernatural deity, is still an atheist (although not a materialist). There is a difference between the two, although judging by many of the statements that self-proclaimed sceptics have made on various blogs/websites, it would appear that most of them don't understand this basic distinction.

[King of Ferrets]

All that's required of atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Buddhism is atheistic, as are Raelianism and Scientology. What you're looking for is skepticism and naturalism, which all three lack in significant quantities. Souls and reincarnation can show up in an atheistic worldview, not so much in a naturalistic one.

It's easy, since the majority of the outspoken atheists in the blogohedron are also science-minded skeptics, to think that the two are the same. Atheism, however, is a big tent (by virtue of being a single position on a single question), and the skeptical science types are only one part of the whole.

I was thinking more of the connotations of atheism as a lack of metaphysical beliefs instead of going by a literal definition, but you are right. In the future I'll have to be careful about that, thanks for reminding me.

[King of Ferrets]

The above letter by 'King of the Ferrets' (1.50 PM, Mar 25) makes absolutely no sense. He states that 'Buddhists aren't precisely athiest' but then makes the comment that they 'may not believe in any god' - isn't this the very definition of atheism? A person who believes in the existence of souls and re-incarnation, but not an all-encompassing supernatural deity, is still an atheist (although not a materialist). There is a difference between the two, although judging by many of the statements that self-proclaimed sceptics have made on various blogs/websites, it would appear that most of them don't understand this basic distinction.

See above.

[badger3k]

I'm going to post this and hope it hasn't been said before. I tried to read the comments but my eyes are bothering me (picked up a head cold from my roommate) and it looks like my browser is showing many duplicate comments (not just people quoting). If the monk was doing zazen, then he probably wasn't praying for anything. That's not meditation. It seems like some know the difference, but others don't seem to. Add also that the zen buddhists I know, and have studied (Western and Eastern) believe that this life is the only one, that rebirth refers to our ever-changing existence, the idea that all buddhists believe in supernatural crap is a bit of a stretch. This reminds me of an argument I had showing that there are schools of buddhism that believe karma is "results" rather than some supernatural scales of justice and was told I was wrong, despite quoting the actual buddhists.

All told, I thought the picture was cute, and the monks honesty in what was going on quite refreshing.

[Ezekiel Register]

It is important to distinguish not only the different nominal varieties of Buddhism, as has been done, but also between intellectual Buddhism, vernacular Buddhism, and the commercial Buddhism that has infiltrated the West. The distinctions are not superficial.

1. Vernacular and commercial Buddhism are not necessarily representative of Buddhist scripture. In fact, Buddhist scripture itself is (perhaps intentionally) cryptic and contradictory. You would not expect there to be a sect of Christianity that denies Jesus Christ's divinity, yet there are denominations of Buddhism that abandon concepts just as integral.

2.Considering that, it is possible to portray 'Buddhism' as pretty much anything. Atheistic or theistic. Naturalistic or dualistic. A religion or a philosophy. And it has all been tried before. Forgive me, then, for making another attempt.

3. That doesn't mean Buddhism is so nebulous that it can't be definitively understood. The kind discussed in scholarly books by educated monks or intellectuals is, generally, the one most relevant. Here are a few common assertions made, for whatever they are worth:
a. Buddhism is atheistic. There is not a deistic or theistic God, the Buddha himself is not divine, and nothing in Buddhism transcends the 'natural'. Characterizations of the Dalai Lama as a living god are inherently absurd.
b. There is no prayer in Buddhism. It is a meditative religion in which the practitioner meditates, not prays, and the two are not even slightly similar.
c. Anatta, literally no-self, directly contradicts the concept of a soul. In Buddhism, the understanding of one's identity as separate from the universe is anathema to enlightenment. Obviously, this is a very naturalistic, scientific understanding.
d. As a corollary of Anatta, another important concept in Buddhism is that of acknowledging the inherent emptiness of the universe. In other words, forms and identities, planets and solar systems, are mere contingency. Again, note how modern this world view is.
e. The precise meaning of Nirvana is inconsistent from school to school, but broadly it is a realization of the empty, cyclical nature of the universe, perhaps embracing loving-kindness, perhaps realizing one's original face, perhaps adopting a new kind of existence, or perhaps embracing oblivion.
f. The common understanding of Karma as a reciprocal kind of universal morality is a distortion. In reality, the concept of Karma is extremely intricate and, like Nirvana, inconsistent.
g. If some of this seems contradictory to what Buddhism is most known for, such as idolatry and reincarnation, that's because it is. Buddhism is, on paper anyway, an inherently flawed belief system. It was not immune to the cultural conceptions of its time, such as the wide held Hindu belief in reincarnation. Religion and philosophy is not a science, and have no way of snipping out outdated, irrelevant ideas as time goes on. Just don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Saying that, I would conclude that dogmatic, religious Buddhism is a potentially ridiculous, not entirely atheistic set of beliefs, but certain concepts within Buddhism, such as Anatta and Meditation, are very interesting, very useful, and very malleable to a scientific world view, as most modern philosophers (and Sam Harris) acknowledge. Be skeptical of both dogmatic Buddhists and ignorant atheists who characterize Buddhism as 'just another religion'. It is not.

[Brian]

Thanks Ezekial. It's refreshing to see someone who actually knows something about Buddhism commenting, rather than the typical blind religious hatred I typically see on this site.

[genewitch]

the funny thing is... you know what, if brian can't see the irony in his statement, who am i to shatter his illusion of his grasp of reality?

[pv]

Brian said:

Thanks Ezekial. It's refreshing to see someone who actually knows something about Buddhism commenting, rather than the typical blind religious hatred I typically see on this site.

Really Brian I think you could be a little more temperate and, shall we say, Buddhist like in your comments. Of all the hateful comments in this thread your last is the only one.
There is a teeny difference between religious hatred and a dislike of religions, and you would do well to learn and recognise it.

[King of Ferrets]

Thanks Ezekial. It's refreshing to see someone who actually knows something about Buddhism commenting, rather than the typical blind religious hatred I typically see on this site.

< rant> Yes, it could be said that some of us hate religion. Is there a problem with hating a relic of our past that weighs us down as a species that people refuse to cast off? It may comfort them, but if you need comforting about the idea of mortality, I say "Grow up!" Even at the oh so tender, young age of 15, I've already gotten past being worried about my own mortality. I've grown past believing lies in the face of contradictory evidence just because it's comforting. (Santa Claus, anyone?)It does more harm than good and we should, if nothing else, at least make it not be the driving force of our lives, though the complete removal of it is my goal. We cast off flat earth, geocentricism, humors, we're casting off racism and sexism... We should need to do the same with religion before the fundamentalist idiots screw the world over any more than they already have.< /rant>

On a separate note, I really need to learn a better way to make fake tags...

[Skemono]

King of Ferrets, you can make fake tags like this: write out < and > for the angle brackets. Observe:
<rant> ... </rant>
will show up like this:
...

[Skemono]

Dagnabbit. That should have been, write out & lt; and & gt; for the angle brackets....

[King of Ferrets]

Uhhh.... not sure what lt and gt are...

[King of Ferrets]

Uhhh.... not sure what lt and gt are...

[Techskeptic]

I am not going to add anything, or at least not much. I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this back and forth. I also don't really like the tooty fruity stuff of buddhism (souls, spirits, reincarnation, karma with respect to next life, etc), but I do like its focus on peace, self improvement, tolerance, and connectedness with other people.

Well over a decade ago I spent a lot of time in northern india with the exiled tibetan buddhists, and learned a lot. I admired a lot of the culture and beliefs (without really making much of it part of my life).

It is very clear that the way your brain works can actually affect your health (otherwise why would placebo work?). I'm sure meditation is healthy, and maybe healthy for a society if voluntarily adopted as a health practice, like brushing teeth (yes that was an unsupported assertion, I'm admitting that this is just a feeling that I have).

I do not meditate, I find it an utter bore, like yoga. But I do a lot of relaxed self reflection.

Some things that may have gotten left out:
The statue of the buddha is not like a god. Its much more like a historical figure. We have statues of Washington all over the place. We often reflect on our history when we see these. Its not quite the same, but its kind of close.

Tibetan buddhist texts often show pictures of what I thought were gods. It turns out this is not quite the case, they are more like representations of emotions and circumstances. It is easily confused from western eyes.

my $0.02

[Skemono]

Uhhh.... not sure what lt and gt are...

"lt" and "gt" stand for "less than" and "greater than", respectively. < is a way of coding a less-than symbol, but in such a way that it's not counted as a less-than symbol when the page is parsing for HTML.

[King of Ferrets]

I understood "less than" and "greater than".

[Valkyries]

Benjamin,

Nice rebut to Tom's comments.

"What is that I have said that qualifies me to be considered a woo? Where have I made it evident that I am person who readily believes in supernatural, paranormal, or occult phenomena? Or are you using "woo" in another sense, as in anyone who is in disagreement with you at any particular moment? Why resort to name calling? I don't see how it adds anything to our conversation."

Being called a "woo" or a number of other descriptive terms appears to be the standard call up for people who do not agree with part of this groups particular point of view at any given moment.

You have given no evidence to lead to the "woo" conclusion.
Perhaps Tom sports a secret "crystal ball" in his bag of tricks?
If so apparently is it failing him.

Back to the "pointless ritual"?
I would have to defend Tom's perception of "pointless ritual".
I am fairly certain you will agree if you hear me out. It is his personal perception, opinion etc. He has every right to it.
In reality that does not mean it is "pointless ritual" to anyone but him. We all need to keep that in mind when dealing with those who claim authority they do not own. Most people frame their belief system on their own experience.
Where his argument goes south is pretending his own belief represents that of the rest of the world and calling those who challenge him idiots or morons.

"You, sir, are a moron." Tom Foss

So back to my un-scientific logic. Is this meditation or prayer "pointless ritual"?
To Tom Foss and Skeptico it certainly is, according to both of their statements.
It is "pointless ritual" to the monk? I would opt for a NOT. And logic tells me he would stop if he thought it was.
Is it "pointless ritual" for the dog. I would have to opt for an I don't know since I am not versed in "doggie sign" or "doggie telepathy".

Maybe Tom and his "perhaps" "crystal ball" could help us out on this particular point.
That is a bit of "fluff" Tom I hope you see the humor in it.

I am with you on the why resort to name calling?
And it certainly does not add anything to the conversation.

King of Ferrets,

"I've grown past believing lies in the face of contradictory evidence just because it's comforting. (Santa Claus, anyone?)It does more harm than good and we should, if nothing else, at least make it not be the driving force of our lives, though the complete removal of it is my goal."

How nice you have grown past the worry of your mortality at the ripe age of 15. Your are an anomaly compared to the many teens I know.
Few if any of them worry about their mortality. In fact the over riding consensus seems to be invincibility. Probably much to their detriment.
Next: Who gave you the right to remove anything from the lives of people who value it?
How would you like it if I made it my goal to do away with your right to be an Atheist or whatever it is you call yourself? And succeeded.
Apparently you are to young to understand you are sitting squarely in the middle of a country where men and women fought and died for OUR right to be whatever any of us choose. You are clearly on the wrong track little one. You might want to consider you are a very tiny minority in the scheme of things. I doubt you are up to the challenge of abolishing what about 90% of the world holds near and dear.

Is my Hitler mindset reference from the other thread getting clearer for you all now?

[Martin]

King of Ferretes:

Is there a problem with hating [...]

YES. It's a problem. Please stop right away. It's not good for you. Moreover its a fucking waste of time and energy. Do something good with your life. Off you go. ;)

[King of Ferrets]

How nice you have grown past the worry of your mortality at the ripe age of 15. Your are an anomaly compared to the many teens I know.
Few if any of them worry about their mortality. In fact the over riding consensus seems to be invincibility. Probably much to their detriment.

Oh, I know quite well I'm not invincible. Believing myself to be invincible would be foolish... I know perfectly well that I could die at any time, but I take safety precautions to lower the chances.

Next: Who gave you the right to remove anything from the lives of people who value it?
How would you like it if I made it my goal to do away with your right to be an Atheist or whatever it is you call yourself? And succeeded.
Apparently you are to young to understand you are sitting squarely in the middle of a country where men and women fought and died for OUR right to be whatever any of us choose.

The fact I was kinda of annoyed when I wrote that post might have obscured the fact that I never said I'm going to be going around and forcing conversions at gunpoint. I'm going to try to get people to listen to reason and realize that what they hold near and dear is wrong.

You are clearly on the wrong track little one. You might want to consider you are a very tiny minority in the scheme of things. I doubt you are up to the challenge of abolishing what about 90% of the world holds near and dear.

Urge to kill Valkyries for marginalizing me because of my age rising.... Just because I'm young doesn't mean I'm neccesarily more stupid than my elders. I am intelligent, I have my own opinions, and my age has no bearing on these things. In fact, it's likely that I am more intelligent than you. Also, I know my goals are unrealistic, but have you heard one of the billion quotes about how reaching for the stars and failing is better than not reaching at all?
Just so ya know, for the most part, your arguments are kinda pathetic. Most first time debaters (I do debate tournaments) I've seen first have far, far better arguments in every way.

And as for Martin...

YES. It's a problem. Please stop right away. It's not good for you. Moreover its a fucking waste of time and energy. Do something good with your life. Off you go. ;)

No, it's not. Hating isn't always bad. For example, if you were molested as a child and it emotionally scarred you and ruined your life, would it be a bad thing to hate the molester? Would it be a bad thing to hate someone who was a molester even if you weren't molested yourself? In this case, it would be more like the latter. Religion brainwashes kids around the world to be Warriors for Jesus/Allah/Scientology/etc. And it uses the position afforded to pastors, parents, and friends of the family as people you should trust to do so. It's a vicious cycle that does far, far more harm than good. If religion had never started, what would be different? Would we have cures for cancer and AIDS? Would we have lab-grown organs and perfect organ transplants? Could we cure the common cold? Note that these are all medical things. Why? Because one thing that religion has held us back on a lot is medicine, and it continues to do so. Because of religious interference, we might be more predisposed to believe without evidence, hence the prevalence of CAM. We used to, because of religion, believe that demons and evil spirits caused diseases, and tried to pray them away, and some still do. How long did this hold us back? 100 years, 200, maybe more? Because of the superstitious association of cats and witches, the black plague was even worse than it might have been, because all the cats were being killed. Would these things have happened without any religion? For that matter, what about the Crusades? The Inquisition? Human sacrifice, like the Aztecs? Would the Dark Ages have happened? To risk invoking Godwin, the Holocaust with its Hitler propaganda? Some or all of the blame for these things can be traced to religion. If we don't fix our society to, to paraphrase PZ Myers, make religion a side dish (or was that the quote? I can't remember), more horrible things might happen. Yeah, its an appeal to consequences, but it's an appeal to consequences with multiple precedents, so I think that makes it not fallacious. Feel free to whack me with a rolled up newspaper if I'm wrong.

Well, I'm too sleepy to come up with anything else to rant about, so I'm done... for now.

[Benjamin]

King of Ferrets:

No, it's not. Hating isn't always bad. For example, if you were molested as a child and it emotionally scarred you and ruined your life, would it be a bad thing to hate the molester?

Hating someone because they have a different opinion than you and hating someone because of their violent actions toward you are completely different and incomparable grounds for hatred. As Thomas Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That said, I would still respond that yes, it would be a bad thing to hate the molester. Perhaps an unavoidable and excusable hatred, but still not an ideal emotion for you to have. What good could it possibly do you or anyone else to hate?

Consider that this molester was most likely abused themselves at some point in their existence. It's important to understand that the events and circumstances of an individual's life largely determines who they will become. So if things had turned out differently for you, King of Ferrets, you may have become one of the people that you are now so quick to hate. Empathy and compassion are immeasurably more valuable than hatred.

I’m not excusing bad people’s actions or the necessity for their punishment, I just believe that hatred adds nothing positive to humanity.

[King of Ferrets]

Benjamin, the part you quoted:

No, it's not. Hating isn't always bad. For example, if you were molested as a child and it emotionally scarred you and ruined your life, would it be a bad thing to hate the molester?

Was right before where I said this:

Would it be a bad thing to hate someone who was a molester even if you weren't molested yourself? In this case, it would be more like the latter.

I believe that would be called quoting something out of context.

As Thomas Jefferson said "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

He was right about the two things he said it doesn't do, but he doesn't cover everything. If, for example, we lived in a theocracy, religious beliefs could quite easily break your leg. While your neighbor's beliefs might not have an effect on it, religion is at fault for breaking your leg.

What good could it possibly do you or anyone else to hate?

Let's see.... it could quite easily raise the morale of an army. Most likely, during the civil rights movement, many people helped with it because they hated the current laws, same with women's sufferage. Some of the people in the American Revolution were probably motivated by their hatred of the British rule. Essentially, the point is, history has shown that hate can be a motivator to do good. Yes, it often does the opposite, but that's not what I'm arguing here, I'm disproving the idea that it can't do any good to hate.

Empathy and compassion are immeasurably more valuable than hatred.

I feel compassion for those brainwashed by religion. It's religion that I hate, not the religious. Can you feel empathy and compassion for an idea? Is it possible? I don't think it is. Those kind of require a person on the other end of them.

[King of Ferrets]

Just realized part of my post might not make sense to some people...

He was right about the two things he said it doesn't do, but he doesn't cover everything. If, for example, we lived in a theocracy, religious beliefs could quite easily break your leg. While your neighbor's beliefs might not have an effect on it, religion is at fault for breaking your leg.

What I mean there is that his quote doesn't cover everything that I hate. I hate the bad things religion does, not the people who believe it (unless they actively promote the bad things and weren't brainwashed). I hate the idea that religion is of importance to the human race.
Also, I have an argument directly against the quote I forgot to add: If your neighbor is a fundamentalist and starts stoning you to death for being a blasphemer, well, then your neighbor's belief in a god or gods has affected you by ending your life, hasn't it?

[Tom Foss]

I'm working on a more substantial reply to the actual point of this thread, but I feel the need to hit this now.

Valkyries, you're just a quote-mining machine, aren't you? Why not go the whole hog, then? Here's something else I said:

In other words, you are wrong, and you're a fucker for thinking that no one would call you on it.

See, my own words don't embarrass me. I'm not ashamed of them. I stand by what I've said here and elsewhere. I accept responsibility for the things I type, right or wrong. Yeah, I've called people morons, fuckers, liars, and a variety of other things. Obviously you're high above that sort of thing; you'd never call anyone a moron. No, you'd just call them "rocks," accuse them of arrogance and elitism, and compare them to Nazis.

Where do you shower in that glass house of yours, Valkyries?

But as long as we're going to use my words to try to indict my character, why not link to my comment? Believe me, I was surprised that I only ever said it once on this site as well. Let's take a look at what the moron comment was in response to, shall we?

But I do know that evolution is nothing more than an unscientific story about how something MAY have happened. There is NO proof.

Ah yes, clearly I only called the man a moron because he "challenge[d me]," since I "pretend [my] own belief represents that of the rest of the world." It couldn't possibly be because he was factually wrong, proudly ignorant, and claimed knowledge of a subject he had clearly never examined. It couldn't be because my "belief system" with regard to evolution is based on observable, objective evidence, and is shared both by the rest of the scientific community and the natural world. No, clearly his worldview where evolution was an "unscientific theory" with "NO proof" and my worldview where evolution is a scientific theory which (by the scientific definition of "theory") represents the best explanation we currently have for a wide variety of observed phenomena, experimental results, and evidence, are equally valid.

Wait, wait, I know! I'll apply your unscientific common logic to the situation!
1. John: evolution is an unscientific theory with NO proof.
2. Tom: evolution is a scientific theory with lots of proof.
3. We don't know.

Oh, hey, that's really easy! I barely have to think at all! Let's try that again!
1. John: presumably considered himself not a moron.
2. Tom: considered John a moron.
3. We don't know.

This is amazing! Why, I can prove that everything has exactly a 50% probability of being true, not that we'd ever be able to tell. Thanks, Valkyries, with your method I may never have to use my brain again!

[Martin]

King of Ferrets:

No, it's not. Hating isn't always bad. For example, if you were molested as a child and it emotionally scarred you and ruined your life, would it be a bad thing to hate the molester? Would it be a bad thing to hate someone who was a molester even if you weren't molested yourself?

Yes I think it would be a bad thing to hate the molester. I don’t see how it does any good or helps anything. Any step one can take towards reducing the influence of negative emotion can help one live a happier life, and I would argue that it is the hatred itself that would be ruining the life of the molested child. Another problem with hatred as I see it, is that it seems that whenever there are intense emotions involved there tends to be disparity between how things appear and how they really are. In a desperate effort to stay on topic, I’ll quote Dalai Lama: “Hatred and anger are considered to be the greatest evils because they are the greatest obstacles to developing compassion and altruism, and they destroy one’s virtue and calmness of mind.”

Anyone (another effort to stay on topic):
If we can change the structure and function of the brain by cultivating new thoughts, the idea that we can achieve happiness through the training of the mind seems a very real possibility, and the above exercise wouldn't be pointless at all?

[King of Ferrets]

Any step one can take towards reducing the influence of negative emotion can help one live a happier life

Problem with this is, labeling of emotions as positive or negative is somewhat arbitrary. You might screw something up because you feel happy and carefree, you might fall in love and get your heart broken because of it, etc. No emotion is wholly good or bad.

“Hatred and anger are considered to be the greatest evils because they are the greatest obstacles to developing compassion and altruism, and they destroy one’s virtue and calmness of mind.”

I disagree. Hatred and anger, for some reason, help me focus. It might be because it's an additional stimulus, due to my ADHD I operate best when I have multiple stimuli to help me focus. That debunks the latter part of the quote. And being mad makes me pay more attention to being compassionate and altruistic in real life, where I have to not just act on my emotions. I don't have to do that quite as much on the internet, but it still applies.

If we can change the structure and function of the brain by cultivating new thoughts, the idea that we can achieve happiness through the training of the mind seems a very real possibility, and the above exercise wouldn't be pointless at all?

In my opinion, until I'm shown quite a bit of evidence, this is a claim to be skeptical of. To quote Dr. House, "People don't change." It might just be me being pessimistic, but change seems to be something that's hard for most people. If it's hard for the people, wouldn't it be hard for the brain as well? Last point to make: This is, to some degree, brainwashing yourself. Just brainwashing yourself to be happy isn't the best thing in the world, because then you can be happy with anything, and if you're happy to have, for example, someone con you out of all your money, that isn't a good thing.

[Bronze Dog]

There was a movie I didn't watch a whole lot of, but one scene stuck in my mind:

Howard Beale: We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Solving problems require recognizing them and getting passionate about fixing them. We may not have a X-point plan to get it done, but we're here and we're arguing in favor of sanity. We're doing the most constructive things we can think of to address these problems with woodom and uncritical acceptance of nonsense. I care, and because I care, I get mad. I reject the notion of "negative" emotions.

[Martin]

Problem with this is, labeling of emotions as positive or negative is somewhat arbitrary.

Yes, I think I see your point. I guess if you act in a positive way to what I would call a negative emotion, then it cancels out in the bigger picture perhaps.

You might screw something up because you feel happy and carefree, you might fall in love and get your heart broken because of it, etc. No emotion is wholly good or bad.

It’s not clear to me that just because some people love to start wars for instance, that love isn’t (always/wholly) a positive emotion. In your example I think it is the lack of love that eventually breaks the heart. Anyway you need some way to control your emotions and maybe it’s this control mechanism that will have the last say on whether the emotion was good or bad. But regardless of all this, my concern is that the emotion of hate in itself has a negative physiological impact. That the very act of hating actually alters the fabric of your mind (whatever that means) and will, given enough cultivation time, manifest itself as a physical and/or mental disease. (I had the evidence but my dog ate it. I always forget to feed him.)

I disagree. Hatred and anger, for some reason, help me focus. It might be because it's an additional stimulus, due to my ADHD I operate best when I have multiple stimuli to help me focus.

I don’t see why the multiple stimuli has to be hatred and anger. But to be honest I’m not really that worried in your case. You know what works for you, and I’m not really in a position to tell anyone what is best for them. Anyway I think your making this hatred stuff up. You're not a hater.

That debunks the latter part of the quote.

Well yeah, you’re the one who participates in debating competitions, so don’t let me (or the Dalai Lama for that matter) stand in your way.

In my opinion, until I'm shown quite a bit of evidence, this is a claim to be skeptical of.

Well I actually read somewhere that there was evidence that we could change the structure and function of the brain by cultivating new thoughts, but I suspect that (“read somewhere”) won’t cut it in your usual debating competition. Anyway I usually just make shit up and hope it floats. Worked fine until I found this irritating/addictive blog. (still trying to find a way around this ‘evidence’ business. No luck yet.......)

To quote Dr. House, "People don't change." It might just be me being pessimistic, but change seems to be something that's hard for most people. If it's hard for the people, wouldn't it be hard for the brain as well?

Yes indeed. Change is perhaps the only thing that is constant in the universe, which makes it, at least for me, something beautiful. Everything changes. Everywhere. All the time. It’s the resistance against change that requires effort. Changing is often just letting go - a simple concept which, like you suggest, is hard to implement!

Just brainwashing yourself to be happy isn't the best thing in the world, because then you can be happy with anything, [...]

Being happy with anything? What could be better? For me happiness is the final destination. There seems to be more ways than One to get there, but at the end of the day, if a person is happy, that’s one down (and unfortunately many to go). Since happiness most likely is located in the brain, I’ve wondered if with enough mental strength it would be possible to be in a total ‘happy-state’ even though you amputated your body from the neck and down (my own version of the brain-in-vat thought experiment..), and your whole being was just a skull and a brain lying on the floor for the rest of your life. In this case I would hope even the most militant skeptics would entertain the idea of meditation.

[…] and if you're happy to have, for example, someone con you out of all your money, that isn't a good thing.

No it isn’t, I agree. That’s why you have great places like this where you can get your brain washed with some critical thinking. But you can still use whatever tools you have in your box, without switching to un-happy state.

Better stop before the thought-police arrest me. Good luck.

[Benjamin]

In my opinion, until I'm shown quite a bit of evidence, this is a claim to be skeptical of.

Absolutely. Here's a start:

Meditation States and Traits: EEG, ERP, and Neuroimaging Studies. By: Cahn, B. Rael; Polich, John. Psychological Bulletin, Mar2006, Vol. 132 Issue 2, p180-211, 33p, 3 charts, 1 graph
From abstract: Neuroimaging studies indicate increased regional cerebral blood flow measures during meditation. Taken together, meditation appears to reflect changes in anterior cingulate cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal areas. Neurophysiological meditative state and trait effects are variable but are beginning to demonstrate consistent outcomes for research and clinical applications.
--
Differential engagement of anterior cingulate and adjacent medial frontal cortex in adept meditators and non-meditators. By: Hölzel, Britta K.; Ott, Ulrich; Hempel, Hannes; Hackl, Andrea; Wolf, Katharina; Stark, Rudolf; Vaitl, Dieter. Neuroscience Letters, Jun2007, Vol. 421 Issue 1, p16-21, 6p
From abstract: For the meditation condition (contrasted to arithmetic), meditators showed stronger activations in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex bilaterally, compared to controls. Greater rostral anterior cingulate cortex activation in meditators may reflect stronger processing of distracting events. The increased activation in the medial prefrontal cortex may reflect that meditators are stronger engaged in emotional processing.
--
Age effects on gray matter volume and attentional performance in Zen meditation. By: Pagnoni, Giuseppe; Cekic, Milos. Neurobiology of Aging, Oct2007, Vol. 28 Issue 10, p1623-1627, 5p
From abstract: These findings suggest that the regular practice of meditation may have neuroprotective effects and reduce the cognitive decline associated with normal aging.
--
Electroencephalographic (EEG) Measurements of Mindfulness-based Triarchic Body-pathway Relaxation Technique: A Pilot Study. By: Chan, Agnes S.; Han, Yvonne M. Y.; Mei-chun Cheung. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, Mar2008, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p39-47, 9p, 1 chart, 2 diagrams, 2 graphs
From abstract: Two EEG indicators were used: (1) alpha asymmetry index, an indicator for left-sided anterior activation, as measure of positive emotions, and (2) frontal midline theta activity, as a measure for internalized attention. Increased left-sided activation, a pattern associated with positive emotions, was found during both TBRT exercise and music conditions. However, only TBRT exercise was shown to exhibit greater frontal midline theta power, a pattern associated with internalized attention. These results provided evidence to support that the TBRT gives rise to positive emotional experience, accompanied by focused internalized attention.
--
Mental Training Affects Distribution of Limited Brain Resources. By: Slagter, Heleen A.; Lutz, Antoine; Greischar, Lawrence L.; Francis, Andrew D.; Nieuwenhuis, Sander; Davis, James M.; Davidson, Richard J.. PLoS Biology, Jun2007, Vol. 5 Issue 6, pe138, 8p Abstract: Intensive training in Vipassana meditation enhances one's ability to allocate attention efficiently in order to detect visual targets accurately. Behavioral and event-related potential evidence for a causal link between behavioral training and brain plasticity in adults is shown.
--
The psychological and neurophysiological concomitants of mindfulness forms of meditation. By: Ivanovski, Belinda; Malhi, Gin S.. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, Apr2007, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p76-91, 16p
From abstract: The few neuroimaging studies that have been conducted suggest volumetric and functional change in key brain regions. Conclusions: Preliminary findings from treatment outcome studies provide support for the application of mindfulness-based interventions in the treatment of affective, anxiety and personality disorders.
--
Maintaining your brain. Mayo Clinic Health Letter, Jul2007, Vol. 25 Issue 7, p4-5, 2p
From abstract: Meditation activities activate the parts of the brain associated with happiness and contentment.
--
Electro-encephalogram based brain–computer interface: improved performance by mental practice and concentration skills. By: Mahmoudi, Babak; Erfanian, Abbas. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, Nov2006, Vol. 44 Issue 11, p959-969, 11p, 3 charts, 6 graphs
From abstract: The results show that the mental practice and concentration can generally improve the classification accuracy of the EEG patterns. It is found that mental training has a significant effect on the classification accuracy over the primary motor cortex and frontal area.

--
Mindfulness as a concept and a process. By: Kostanski, Marion; Hassed, Craig. Australian Psychologist, Mar2008, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p15-21, 7p
From abstract: Primarily, mindfulness is presented as a cognitive style that facilitates development of a heightened sense of awareness of thought processes and emotions, and utilisation of this awareness to cultivate the ability to engage actively in being rather than reacting or doing. Further, it is noted that the learning of mindfulness meditation is believed to empower the individual to find release from depressive rumination, anxiety and stress in their lives.
--
Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. By: Yi-Yuan Tang; Yinghua Ma; Junhong Wang; Yaxin Fan; Shigang Feng; Qilin Lu; Qingbao Yu; Sui, Danni; Rothbart, Mary K.; Ming Fan; Posner, Michael I.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10/23/2007, Vol. 104 Issue 43, p7152-17156, 5p

From Abstract: Compared with the control group, the experimental group of 40 undergraduate Chinese students given 5 days of 20-mm integrative training showed greater improvement in conflict scores on the Attention Network Test, lower anxiety, depression, anger, and fatigue, and higher vigor on the Profile of Mood States scale, a significant decrease in stress-related cortisol, and an increase in immunoreactivity.
--

These are just the top results I got from an EBSCOhost search for "meditation" AND "brain". This is just the tip of the iceberg, there are hundreds and hundreds of scientific articles concerning meditation and its effect on the brain and happiness. I think if more people were aware of this, the skeptical community would be less quick to ridicule meditation.

[King of Ferrets]

It’s not clear to me that just because some people love to start wars for instance, that love isn’t (always/wholly) a positive emotion.

Go read Romeo and Juliet (Yes, it's not likely to happen in real life, but it's just an extreme and easy to understand example of what I mean). That's more what I was thinking of when I said love isn't always positive.

In your example I think it is the lack of love that eventually breaks the heart. Anyway you need some way to control your emotions and maybe it’s this control mechanism that will have the last say on whether the emotion was good or bad.

Since I was thinking of Romeo and Juliet, it's more "Oh, woe is me, my love just died, *suicide*" than "Oh, woe is me, my love doesn't love me back, so I'm heartbroken."

But regardless of all this, my concern is that the emotion of hate in itself has a negative physiological impact. That the very act of hating actually alters the fabric of your mind (whatever that means) and will, given enough cultivation time, manifest itself as a physical and/or mental disease.

Extraordinary claim. Extraordinary evidence. Gimme.

(I had the evidence but my dog ate it. I always forget to feed him.)

Extraordinary claim doesn't care what your dog ate, it wants some extraordinary evidence so that it can be shown to be right.

I don’t see why the multiple stimuli has to be hatred and anger. But to be honest I’m not really that worried in your case. You know what works for you, and I’m not really in a position to tell anyone what is best for them.

It doesn't have to be, but it helps anyway. Also, you can be in the position to tell someone what is best for them, if you can show why this is. So, if you show me why this is so, I'll freely admit that it is, in fact, best for me.

Anyway I think your making this hatred stuff up. You're not a hater.

Somebody doesn't know me very well...

Well yeah, you’re the one who participates in debating competitions, so don’t let me (or the Dalai Lama for that matter) stand in your way.

I think there's something of an accusation of an appeal to my own authority here, except that it's not an accusation because you don't find a problem with it. (You should.) The debating competition is just something I mentioned to explain an observation.

Well I actually read somewhere that there was evidence that we could change the structure and function of the brain by cultivating new thoughts, but I suspect that (“read somewhere”) won’t cut it in your usual debating competition. Anyway I usually just make shit up and hope it floats. Worked fine until I found this irritating/addictive blog. (still trying to find a way around this ‘evidence’ business. No luck yet.......)

Soooo.... here we have you admitting to making shit up, another thing somewhat claiming I appeal to my own authority (it actually would, if you could provide the source, most evidence in your average debate competition is just quotes.) And finding a way around this "evidence business" won't help, because we'll just point out that you don't have any.

Being happy with anything? What could be better? For me happiness is the final destination. There seems to be more ways than One to get there, but at the end of the day, if a person is happy, that’s one down (and unfortunately many to go). Since happiness most likely is located in the brain, I’ve wondered if with enough mental strength it would be possible to be in a total ‘happy-state’ even though you amputated your body from the neck and down (my own version of the brain-in-vat thought experiment..), and your whole being was just a skull and a brain lying on the floor for the rest of your life. In this case I would hope even the most militant skeptics would entertain the idea of meditation.

Happiness as the ultimate destination? An interesting idea. However, it's not a good thing for your health. In addition, permanent happiness for everyone would probably be a bad thing, ending in, most likely the destruction of the human race. We'd be happy with cancer and diseases, so we'd let them run rampant, we wouldn't mind filth, we would be fine not having an operation that could save our life, we'd be happy starving to death, etc.

No it isn’t, I agree. That’s why you have great places like this where you can get your brain washed with some critical thinking. But you can still use whatever tools you have in your box, without switching to un-happy state.

But, you won't feel any need to do so, so you won't bother.

Next on the list, Benjamin!
From what I can tell, you just kind of grabbed a bunch of random studies. I'm not the expert on evaluating studies, so I'll leave that to those with more experience at this.

And lastly: Bronze Dog!
You did a much better rejection of the concept of negative emotions than I did.

[Benjamin]

King of Ferrets:

Isn't the point of being a skeptic that your opinions are based on reason and empirical evidence? If you aren't willing to examine scientific studies, how exactly are you forming opinions about any of the things discussed here on Skeptico?

"If we can change the structure and function of the brain by cultivating new thoughts, the idea that we can achieve happiness through the training of the mind seems a very real possibility, and the above exercise wouldn't be pointless at all?" In my opinion, until I'm shown quite a bit of evidence, this is a claim to be skeptical of.

So I guess that no matter how many studies I cite here on the comments, you will remain skeptical? I don't understand why you need to be shown the evidence, when you are equally able to do a literature search yourself. Examine the evidence. Make your own conclusions. That is the true spirit of skepticism.

Now that I have presented some evidence, I challenge you to show me evidence that meditation does NOT change the brain and does not affect human happiness.

[King of Ferrets]

So I guess that no matter how many studies I cite here on the comments, you will remain skeptical? I don't understand why you need to be shown the evidence, when you are equally able to do a literature search yourself. Examine the evidence. Make your own conclusions. That is the true spirit of skepticism.

I don't know if the studies were replicable, what controls they had, etc, because evaluating scientific studies isn't something I know how to do very well. However, there are people here who do know how to evaluate a scientific study, so I'll leave it to them to decide if it's valid or not.

Now that I have presented some evidence, I challenge you to show me evidence that meditation does NOT change the brain and does not affect human happiness.

If the studies end up not being valid, then the burden of proof would still be with you.

[Martin]

Go read Romeo and Juliet (Yes, it's not likely to happen in real life, but it's just an extreme and easy to understand example of what I mean). That's more what I was thinking of when I said love isn't always positive.

I’m filing this under “Post Hoc” until someone corrects me.

Extraordinary claim. Extraordinary evidence. Gimme.

Extraordinary concern does not require extraordinary evidence. I have a license to woo. Anyway it’s not an extraordinary claim. “Evidence” would suffice.

Extraordinary claim doesn't care what your dog ate, it wants some extraordinary evidence so that it can be shown to be right.

Or more precisely; so that it can be shown to be more likely.

Also, you can be in the position to tell someone what is best for them, if you can show why this is.

I don’t really think I can to be honest. I have nothing more than my own opinion to offer, on issues like these. When I comment on physicsforums.com etc I might be a little more certain that I’m right. I still enjoy reading other peoples views though.

Somebody doesn't know me very well...

Or somebody thinks he’s the first angry 15 yr old to walk the earth. (You are a human btw, right?)

Soooo.... here we have you admitting to making shit up […]

What I was hoping you would say was: “even though it might float sometimes, it’s still shit.”

I think there's something of an accusation of an appeal to my own authority here, except that it's not an accusation because you don't find a problem with it. (You should.)

No, not at all. There’s no accusation. On the contrary, I was acknowledging that this quote from the Dalai Lama;

“Hatred and anger are considered to be the greatest evils because they are the greatest obstacles to developing compassion and altruism, and they destroy one’s virtue and calmness of mind.”

might not apply to you.

And finding a way around this "evidence business" won't help, because we'll just point out that you don't have any.

But then I would already have gone past you into wonderland, so it would be too late…

Happiness as the ultimate destination? An interesting idea. However, it's not a good thing for your health.

Where did you learn that? That’s pretty extraordinary at least, I’ll give you that.

In addition, permanent happiness for everyone would probably be a bad thing, ending in, most likely the destruction of the human race.

You mean something like http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1323/1433529629_4c1f775559.jpg>this would happen? As you can imagine I think hate is the singularity the picture is trying to illustrate, although a removable one. (sorry I just had to find a way to get that picture in there somewhere, haha)

We'd be happy with cancer and diseases, so we'd let them run rampant, we wouldn't mind filth, we would be fine not having an operation that could save our life, we'd be happy starving to death, etc.

No it isn’t, I agree. That’s why you have great places like this where you can get your brain washed with some critical thinking. But you can still use whatever tools you have in your box, without switching to un-happy state.

But, you won't feel any need to do so, so you won't bother.

You’re confusing happiness with apathy. Oh. And what happened to extraordinary evidence and all that?

Have a nice day.

[King of Ferrets]

I’m filing this under “Post Hoc” until someone corrects me.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be post hoc. While not all the tragedy can be blamed on the love, without the love it basically wouldn't have happened. Other factors would be the upcoming marriage to Paris and the fact that the message to Romeo was delayed.

Extraordinary concern does not require extraordinary evidence. I have a license to woo. Anyway it’s not an extraordinary claim. “Evidence” would suffice.

Saying that hate must lead to mental disease eventually is an extremely extraordinary claim! As has been pointed out by myself and others, it's not always a bad thing, and doesn't always lead to bad things. Also, extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence.

Or more precisely; so that it can be shown to be more likely.

True.

Or somebody thinks he’s the first angry 15 yr old to walk the earth. (You are a human btw, right?)

Yes, I am human, and I know that there are other angry teenagers around. From talking to them every day for the last couple years, I can safely say that most of them are mad about things like having a bedtime or not having a new cell phone or whateverthefuck most people are interested in these days. (I don't know what they like, I'm too antisocial to care.)

No, not at all. There’s no accusation. On the contrary, I was acknowledging that this quote from the Dalai Lama;

“Hatred and anger are considered to be the greatest evils because they are the greatest obstacles to developing compassion and altruism, and they destroy one’s virtue and calmness of mind.”

might not apply to you.

I would go so far as to say that, not only do they not apply to me, they don't apply to most people. And why mention my mention of debate tournaments twice if that meaning could be just as well accomplished without it?

But then I would already have gone past you into wonderland, so it would be too late…

What I mean is, you can't find a way around the evidence, because even if you find some ridiculous reasoning to try to prove it without evidence, evidence is still better.

Where did you learn that? That’s pretty extraordinary at least, I’ll give you that.

Common sense? If you've programmed yourself to only feel happiness, and one of the major motivations of people is to be happy, then why be motivated to do anything else?

You mean something like this would happen? As you can imagine I think hate is the singularity the picture is trying to illustrate, although a removable one. (sorry I just had to find a way to get that picture in there somewhere, haha)

Not really, we'd just end up not being motivated enough because, as I said, happiness is a major motivator. And also, if you're happy, the other major motivator (making other people miserable) is gone.

You’re confusing happiness with apathy. Oh. And what happened to extraordinary evidence and all that?

Have a nice day.

As I've said, there won't really be a motivation to do it.

One more argument against mentally reprogramming yourself to be happy with anything: Couldn't it be like absolute zero, where no matter how much you try, you can't get that last little bit of emotion that isn't pure happiness gone, because pure happiness probably is more likely to make you jump for joy than try to reprogram your brain?

[Martin]

King:

One more argument against mentally reprogramming yourself to be happy with anything: Couldn't it be like absolute zero, where no matter how much you try, you can't get that last little bit of emotion that isn't pure happiness gone, because pure happiness probably is more likely to make you jump for joy than try to reprogram your brain?

Yes I think you’re onto something here. But your confusion arises because you forget the most important thing; to integrate. Like this: As hate approaches zero, pure happiness goes to infinity. Integrate over the infinitesimal small time interval of the present moment, and you get http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/gallery/peace/art/10.jpg>one. And everyone lived happily ever after. Q.E.D

I really need to get back to work, thanks for the chat! (see “Dirac delta function” in case that didn’t make any sense. If it still doesn’t make sense, then you’re probably right :)

[Martin]

...the infinitesimal small time interval ...

[King of Ferrets]

Hmm... I just realized that my argument about lack of motivation is bunk, because I forgot survival is a motivation.

Yes I think you’re onto something here. But your confusion arises because you forget the most important thing; to integrate. Like this: As hate approaches zero, pure happiness goes to infinity. Integrate over the infinitesimal small time interval of the present moment, and you get one. And everyone lived happily ever after. Q.E.D

Can you explain that in the way that actually makes sense to me?

[King of Ferrets]

Benjamin: Forgot to respond to you. That's all stories about research, and as I've said before, I don't know how to evaluate the studies they are based on. Also, I was wondering: Are Buddhist prayer and meditation the same thing?

Discussioneers:

This continues to be an entertaining thread for me.

Benjamin:
I look forward to reading all those links. As I said before it is quite clear that your brain has a profound effect on your health as is easily seen by the placebo effect. Thinking something will make you better, often actually makes it better, even physical effects like sneezing, coughing, swelling. If your brain can do this without really trying, it really isnt a hard stretch to think that you brain can actually be further motivated to perhaps do better.

I will read your links to see how these results fare with respect to this idea.

I have learned an awful lot by reading and participating on this blog (and others). I hope you do to. When I first came around I was asking about vaccinations (not with respect to autism). I experienced some rough edges from one commenter in particular (forgot his name, something with an H), but for the most part you'll find that people are willing to listen and understand what you are saying, however they may challenge any preconceived notions which may come off as rude. Its not, its great.

King,
Honestly, while you certainly make a few points, you are doing something that trully annoys me. Its common, even that idiot commentator in Design News does it. It goes something to the effect of "Well we are not experts in this field, therefore we can't really make a conclusion on this". He often says something like this with respect to the veracity of Global warming.

If this is your attitude, how do you know anything is true? Are you and expert on evolutionary processes? why do you think that is true (presuming you do). Are you an expert on climatology? Why do you think that is true? (again presuming). Are you an expert on relatively? Quantum Mechanical? Virology? Archeology? etc etc. you get the point.

The fact is, there is plenty of information out there, and Benjamin spoon fed it to you. Read the links, find the flaws, follow the references. Its easy and you learn a lot quickly.

It is insulting that you wont bother to research the thing you are arguing, writing it off as not being an expert and not qualified to make a comment on scientific or medical articles, or even the dumbed down versions you were also spoon fed. Why bother to argue anything at all, if you are unwilling to read evidence pro and con?

[King of Ferrets]

Honestly, while you certainly make a few points, you are doing something that trully annoys me. Its common, even that idiot commentator in Design News does it. It goes something to the effect of "Well we are not experts in this field, therefore we can't really make a conclusion on this". He often says something like this with respect to the veracity of Global warming...

...The fact is, there is plenty of information out there, and Benjamin spoon fed it to you. Read the links, find the flaws, follow the references. Its easy and you learn a lot quickly.

It is insulting that you wont bother to research the thing you are arguing, writing it off as not being an expert and not qualified to make a comment on scientific or medical articles, or even the dumbed down versions you were also spoon fed. Why bother to argue anything at all, if you are unwilling to read evidence pro and con?

Normally, I would try to, but I'd rather not try to evaluate them myself when there are people who are far better than me that frequent this site. If I can easily have someone else do the job far better than I can, I'd rather let them do it.

If this is your attitude, how do you know anything is true? Are you and expert on evolutionary processes? why do you think that is true (presuming you do). Are you an expert on climatology? Why do you think that is true? (again presuming). Are you an expert on relatively? Quantum Mechanical? Virology? Archeology? etc etc. you get the point.

You can't really think an entire field is untrue, can you? I found it much easier to find less technical explanations on fields that weren't neurobiology.... Also, evolution is just common sense. All it is is the realization that if farmers can artificially adapt organisms to do certain things, why can't nature breed the fittest organisms?

[poetryman69]

Lost in the clouds with Jupiter transcendent

Lost in the clouds with Mars ascendant.

Love Luck and the music of the Spheres.

Azure in the arms of Cerulean

Cast adrift in the Indigo isles

May Angel love and Moon glow light your path.

---klqtzzzz

[King of Ferrets]

Lost in the clouds with Jupiter transcendent

Lost in the clouds with Mars ascendant.

Love Luck and the music of the Spheres.

Azure in the arms of Cerulean

Cast adrift in the Indigo isles

May Angel love and Moon glow light your path.

I have a feeling that you lack anything useful to contribute to our discussion.

[zenbopeep]

Cute picture, but Buddhist monks don't pray. There is no point to prayer. There is a point to mastering the control of one's mind. Sound's easy, but you should try it some time.

[zenbopeep]

Cute picture, but Buddhist monks don't pray. There is no point to prayer. There is a point to mastering the control of one's mind. Sound's easy, but you should try it some time.

[King of Ferrets]

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I wouldn't be surprised if some did, in fact, pray. For example, I think Shintoists pray, or something similar, and many Japanese Buddhists are also Shintoists.

[Jimmy_Blue]

zenbopeep:

There is a point to mastering the control of one's mind.

Really, what does that even mean? Are you implying I don't have control of my mind? Then who does?

Who comes up with this crap?

[Techskeptic]

Jimmy,

He is talking about meditation. The way the Buddhists do it is not like 'relaxing', its often a pursuit of thinking about nothing. Its an exercise that is very difficult. Try it, you will find you mind wandering and soon enough you are thinking about something again.

They teach how to do this, by focusing on your breathing. In fact, the way it was explained to me (when was into this sort of thing) is to imagine how important your breathing is if you were underwater. This helps you to focus on each breath.

The claim is that that practicing this and becoming good at it will lead to other benefits.

Obviously its a mental exercise, if you believe it works to reduce depression, increase happiness, reduce stress, etc, I'm sure it does.

[Jimmy_Blue]

its often a pursuit of thinking about nothing.

It appears from the posts here and elsewhere in the blogosphere that many woos must have mastered control of their minds then...