Questions for Buddhists.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
thedoc wrote: FYI II, you'll probably come back as a "bad dog". :)
Thus explains the sheer delusions of the average Buddhist. Logically, how are dogs worse than humans? Humans are as bad as you can get, so logically speaking, why would a "good dog" reincarnate into a human anyway?

A dog is a human development, so a "bad dog" is one that doesn't conform to human expectations, and since dogs were developed by humans they are inferior to humans. You are certainly not conforming to anyone's expectations, even your own.

FYI, a Wolf, or wild dog is not a human development, so good and bad do not apply.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

thedoc wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: Let me clarify, the game is explaining "nirvana" in a scientific manner, the rules are as I prescribed. So far you are failing the game.

It's meaningless, Nirvana is not scientific, and only a fool would ask that it be explained in those terms. There is no scientific explanation of Nirvana. It is only explainable in religious terms, which is another area that you have no understanding of.
Religious cop-out answer. You don't have to explain how Nirvana "feels" or even the experience of it, but you do have to answer the main key points.

Key points:

Does it last after bodily death? You say yes. Why and how?

Is it eternal life as another form? Why and how?

Is it not eternal life, but non-existence? Why and how?

By "how" I do not mean religious dogma, but the mechanism and property of action.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

Do you understand the difference between "know" and "believe". Most of the concepts in religion I believe, but I don't claim to know, and especially not in scientific terms.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by Arising_uk »

Given your views upon the use of nukes I think you have little grounds for talking about Buddhism.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

Arising_uk wrote:Given your views upon the use of nukes I think you have little grounds for talking about Buddhism.

Given my statements about Nukes, I would say there is a difference between understanding Buddhism and practicing it. That could also be applied to Islam, though I know less about Islam then Buddhism. Similarly I don't hold all the Christian dogma to be literally true, I tend to rationalize that, but not out loud.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

I believe that Buddhism is a wonderful philosophy and guide for living, I just don't claim to be able to live according to it's teachings. In Christian terms, I'm a sinner, but happy in the knowledge that Christ didn't come to reach those who are saved but those who are lost, like me.
User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by ReliStuPhD »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:By "how" I do not mean religious dogma, but the mechanism and property of action.
The only answer to "mechanism and property of action" is religious dogma. There is no scientific explanation for Nirvana. As long as you search for one, you'll never understand Nirvana. Or so says the Buddhist (and if they're wrong, then Nirvana doesn't exist and any such inquiries are incoherent).
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: Thus explains the sheer delusions of the average Buddhist. Logically, how are dogs worse than humans? Humans are as bad as you can get, so logically speaking, why would a "good dog" reincarnate into a human anyway?

There is your mistake, you're trying to apply "logic" to a religious question, it just doesn't work. Religion is based on belief and faith, not logic.
User avatar
ReliStuPhD
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by ReliStuPhD »

thedoc wrote:There is your mistake, you're trying to apply "logic" to a religious question, it just doesn't work. Religion is based on belief and faith, not logic.
Yes and no. Christianity actually bases quite a lot of dogma on logical reasoning. But yes, as far as Buddhism is concerned, Logic is as likely to get in the way as it is to help.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by reasonvemotion »

I worked with Buddhists for a couple of years, had the opportunity to interact on an every day level, plus I attended a few introductory sessions on Buddhism.

My conclusion.

They are human like the rest of us and grossly flawed, (like the rest of us).

I soon became disillusioned.

What was I thinking?!!!!
Breath
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:49 am
Location: In my skin

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by Breath »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
thedoc wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: Let me clarify, the game is explaining "nirvana" in a scientific manner, the rules are as I prescribed. So far you are failing the game.

It's meaningless, Nirvana is not scientific, and only a fool would ask that it be explained in those terms. There is no scientific explanation of Nirvana. It is only explainable in religious terms, which is another area that you have no understanding of.
Religious cop-out answer. You don't have to explain how Nirvana "feels" or even the experience of it, but you do have to answer the main key points.

Key points:

Does it last after bodily death? You say yes. Why and how?

Is it eternal life as another form? Why and how?

Is it not eternal life, but non-existence? Why and how?

By "how" I do not mean religious dogma, but the mechanism and property of action.

No, no, no. You are lying to yourself. To be able to keep doing that you need to keep expanding that big brain of yours. There's no more room in your skull for your lies.

The question to ask and answer is why you keep on being homosexual while it disgusts you.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by attofishpi »

thedoc wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: Thus explains the sheer delusions of the average Buddhist. Logically, how are dogs worse than humans? Humans are as bad as you can get, so logically speaking, why would a "good dog" reincarnate into a human anyway?

There is your mistake, you're trying to apply "logic" to a religious question, it just doesn't work. Religion is based on belief and faith, not logic.
I disagree. If one knew God exists one must intelligently apply logic to understand how and\or why. Or does knowing God exists negate religion..
Having belief and faith still requires a certain amount of logic, otherwise one is little more than an idiot.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Breath wrote:
Religious cop-out answer. You don't have to explain how Nirvana "feels" or even the experience of it, but you do have to answer the main key points.

Key points:

Does it last after bodily death? You say yes. Why and how?

Is it eternal life as another form? Why and how?

Is it not eternal life, but non-existence? Why and how?

By "how" I do not mean religious dogma, but the mechanism and property of action.



No, no, no. You are lying to yourself. To be able to keep doing that you need to keep expanding that big brain of yours. There's no more room in your skull for your lies.

The question to ask and answer is why you keep on being homosexual while it disgusts you.
Makes no sense. How could my statement be a lie? It wasn't even a statement, it was a series of questions. Questions are by definition not lies. The only statement you quoted I made was that his statement was a religious-cop out answer. That was my opinion, and the equivalent of saying "unsatisfactory answer please answer the question in more detail." Asking someone to clarify something, is not a lie.

I never said homosexuality disgusted me, I said human sexuality disgusts me on all levels. Human sexuality disgusts many others, and why do they continue? They don't know whether or not they enjoy being disgusted. They have a hard time resisting their DNA. Human's say they want something but they don't know what they want, they are just robots saying and doing things for no real reason. Humans say life is a good thing but it's only part of their program. Life is not good at all.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by mtmynd1 »

attofishpi wrote: If one knew God exists one must intelligently apply logic to understand how and\or why. Or does knowing God exists negate religion..
Having belief and faith still requires a certain amount of logic, otherwise one is little more than an idiot.
If one is an atheist must your criteria still hold, i.e. "one must intelligently apply logic to understand how and\or why"..?

...and "Having belief and faith still requires a certain amount of logic.."
how much of your "certain amount" would suffice in having this belief and faith? 10%?... 25%... 63%... when is it that pushes the mind into believing?

Having "logic" is an extension of mind which never ends in it's quest for answers. Become enamored in one's mind is becoming akin to being held prisoner within that mind and hence the inability to ever find ones true Self. Mind is not Self but a tool to our survival on this plane of existence.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Questions for Buddhists.

Post by thedoc »

attofishpi wrote:
thedoc wrote:
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: logically speaking,
There is your mistake, you're trying to apply "logic" to a religious question, it just doesn't work. Religion is based on belief and faith, not logic.
I disagree. If one knew God exists one must intelligently apply logic to understand how and\or why. Or does knowing God exists negate religion..
Having belief and faith still requires a certain amount of logic, otherwise one is little more than an idiot.

There is a point here I would like to address, that of proof destroying faith. I have often heard that one can only "believe" in what one does not know for sure, and that proof will destroy belief and faith. I disagree, I can believe that something is true whether it has been proven or not, and I can have just as much faith in that truth, with or without proof. Attofishpi, I know that this point was not part of your post but it seemed relevant. I agree that many of the conclusions about religion are based on logically structured arguments, but much in religion is expected to be accepted on faith alone, and basing conclusions on a faith based premise is not logical, at least not in my understanding of logic. I do have some grounding in logical arguments, and I am familiar with the possibilities, sound premises - sound conclusion, unsound premises - unsound conclusion, unsound premises - sound conclusion (a possibility) and I understand that there may be other permutations. I will reiterate one point here, I said religion is not "Based" on logic, and in this I believe it is true that most religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven, conclusions derived from these faith based premises may be logically structured, but the basic premises are based on belief and faith.
Post Reply