Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: WHY NOT ???!!!!!!

  1. #1 WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    Forum Freshman almirza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    OMAN
    Posts
    80
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?


    ALMIRZA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    I was not raised religious, but went to a catholic school. As such, I never truly understood the relevance of the stories. As such, I eventually formed my own concept of death, which is much like the 'disappearance of whatever spirit or geist' from the human body.
    When learning about religions, and knowing the difference between the old and new testament, the Quran and Torah, I never really came to understand why I was learning any of it.
    Basically, I eventually grew past being able to believe in God. Being a materialist meant that my entire philosophy was without God from its very development at age 12/13/14. And after that, when I got going, and read more and more, it became harder for me to believe in anything outside of this world.

    I mean, I did have a buddhist period, but I went past that when I found the values were too hard-set in stone. Their source was not apparant to me. Then, I found Nietzsche, and all hope in believing God was away from me. I can never close my eyes to the thundering lightning that strike one's Life when reading those books.

    Mr U


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by almirza
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?
    Genetics and environment. What do you think made you believe as your do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Captain_Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    58
    I simply don't see any logical point behind it. In my mind there is no real solid evidence stating that there is any higher being out there, we're just kinda making an estimation. If highly trained weather professionals with all of the technologies of today can't accurately tell me what the weather will be like on the weekend then I don't know how anyone can trust 2000+ year old books when it comes to what happens after we die and etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    I can remember my mother taking me to church when I was young enough to understand. Trouble was I never understood it. Especially the part of why I should fear God. Didn't make any sense to this 8 year old then and years later it still doesn't. I remember asking the Rev why after God said everything was good it suddenly went bad. Besides my mother going into shock, I just couldn't get my head around that one. I don't know why but everytime I hear or read a religious answer I see contradiction or it just doesn't have a ring of truth or reality to it. I think I could land in a room full of Moonies and be the only one kicked out. Of course none of this means God exists or not, I simply see the preponderence of the lack of evidence for it to be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman almirza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    OMAN
    Posts
    80
    Any other replies
    ALMIRZA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Definite uncertainty.
    Unwavering doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    With all the laws of physic and nature forbids a god. so logicly it cant be one then
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    common sense and lack of evidence.
    you may as well say the flying spaghetti monster is real, given it has the same amount of evidence and common sense.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    yes, and lets not forget the boggie man
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Captain_Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    common sense and lack of evidence.
    you may as well say the flying spaghetti monster is real, given it has the same amount of evidence and common sense.
    Hey!! I resent that, I am a proud member of FlyingSpaghettiMonsterism. *can't say that with a straight face*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Anubis
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    common sense and lack of evidence.
    you may as well say the flying spaghetti monster is real, given it has the same amount of evidence and common sense.
    Hey!! I resent that, I am a proud member of FlyingSpaghettiMonsterism. *can't say that with a straight face*
    my sincerest apologies to you, I forgot that the one true god was the FSM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    south africa
    Posts
    122
    it was in std 8 when my religion teacher lent me a copy of 'a brief history of time'...it made me see the bigger picture with regard to the creation of the universe and everything in general. i realised that god is nothing but a myth / form of security for some / an explaination for something people cant explain or understand....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore kingjacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    between time and timbuktu
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    With all the laws of physic and nature forbids a god. so logicly it cant be one then
    What laws of physics or nature forbid the existence of god, logically an Omnipotent creator god is just as logical as the big bang or super string theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Anubis
    I simply don't see any logical point behind it. In my mind there is no real solid evidence stating that there is any higher being out there, we're just kinda making an estimation. If highly trained weather professionals with all of the technologies of today can't accurately tell me what the weather will be like on the weekend then I don't know how anyone can trust 2000+ year old books when it comes to what happens after we die and etc...
    Anubis, that is non sequitur, Im not saying the 2000 year old book is right all Im saying is the fact that weathermen suck at predicting weather has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kingjacob
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    With all the laws of physic and nature forbids a god. so logicly it cant be one then
    What laws of physics or nature forbid the existence of god, logically an Omnipotent creator god is just as logical as the big bang or super string theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Anubis
    I simply don't see any logical point behind it. In my mind there is no real solid evidence stating that there is any higher being out there, we're just kinda making an estimation. If highly trained weather professionals with all of the technologies of today can't accurately tell me what the weather will be like on the weekend then I don't know how anyone can trust 2000+ year old books when it comes to what happens after we die and etc...
    Anubis, that is non sequitur, Im not saying the 2000 year old book is right all Im saying is the fact that weathermen suck at predicting weather has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the bible.
    Life and the universe is so awsome (or is it cool you use these days) that it was inevitable somebody was gonna try and take credit for it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    I am also a proud member of FlyingSpaghettiMonsterism! Also known as Pastafarian!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    With all the laws of physic and nature forbids a god. so logicly it cant be one then
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Hawkings
    Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
    I think it is not nature or the laws of physics that forbids God. I think it is yourself.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by almirza
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?
    I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking why people believe in one God as opposed to many?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by almirza
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?
    I believe only one God could exist because only one could have created everything.

    I believe the God for the christians is the same as the God for the muslims and Buhdda - I think he just appeared to each in ways they could understand.

    What do you Believe in Almirza, and what religion are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    49
    I used to believe in god, because that’s how I was raised, you get more from your parents then you might think. I always had an interest in science, especially life sciences. I think I believed in god and evolution, because I didn’t fully understand evolution, I had a firm grasp on what god and religion was all about. I started reading many different science books on evolution and zoology, watching programs about it and searching the net, etc. I also done allot of reading about primates and human evolution, and realized that god was a lie. Science doesn’t answer all questions, no one said it did, but it answers more questions then religion and god ever did or will, and it has evidence to back those questions. The biggest problem is that people who don't believe in evolution don't understand it completely. Or it contradicts what thier religious beliefs say, and they shun it away all together. I think people need to open their minds to different possibilities.
    "Nature is an infinite sphere whos center is everywhere and whose circumferense is nowhere."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by almirza
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?
    I believe only one God could exist because only one could have created everything.

    I believe the God for the christians is the same as the God for the muslims and Buhdda - I think he just appeared to each in ways they could understand.

    What do you Believe in Almirza, and what religion are you?
    Buddha is not a God and did not create the universe. Many Christians and Shintoists (to mention a few) are also Buddhist. Just wanted to clairify that.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Actually, from what I've read of Buddhism, the founding Buddha's saught enlightenment through detachment. Especially that one prince. As a rule, psychologically detached people feel no remose, etc, and are neither happy nor sad.
    They can be known to get so detached that the issue is no longer present and they are able to develop happiness. I personally disagree with the philosophies and the psychology of it, so that's my take on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    That's not really how it works. It is more about control. When you relieve yourself of all cravings you have complete freedom. In this freedom you see the universe in a nonjudgemental way and everything is perfect. But, that is not waht I was talking about. I am talking about the fact that Buddhists are very good people.

    I don't mean to say that people are Buddhist but, more like good people are on a similar path. That is all I meant.

    Oh yes and it was one person named Siddhartha Gautama who became enlightened after meditating under the Bodhi tree. He then became Buddha and taught what he had learned. If done properly meditation is a powerful practice.

    (I may have spelled some of those Indian words wrong).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    That's not really how it works. It is more about control. When you relieve yourself of all cravings you have complete freedom. In this freedom you see the universe in a nonjudgemental way and everything is perfect. But, that is not waht I was talking about. I am talking about the fact that Buddhists are very good people.

    I don't mean to say that people are Buddhist but, more like good people are on a similar path. That is all I meant.

    Oh yes and it was one person named Siddhartha Gautama who became enlightened after meditating under the Bodhi tree. He then became Buddha and taught what he had learned. If done properly meditation is a powerful practice.

    (I may have spelled some of those Indian words wrong).
    Alright, Philosophy time. What is enlightenment? What are cravings? What is freedom? What is being nonjudgemental (Aka: neutral)? What is perfection? Who are "good" people? What is really "control"?

    As you can see, there are a billion ways to answer them all, most of which make buddhism philosophy incorrect.

    Meditation is used for many things, but again you must, against all odds, properly define "enlightened" in a philosophical manner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    I am a skeptic buddhist, which mean I have not yet believed all that were taught by Buddha. But that's is OK in buddhism, because it asked us not to believe anything just because it was said by him.

    I agree most of what DaBOB said. But beware, DaBOB may not understand enlightenment well either. If he does, then he automatically is another buddha.

    If I try to explain enlightenment, it will probably like a layman trying to explain the schroedinger's cat. He can talk about the superposition state, but he did not really understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    29
    these are pretty goodSome Important Distinction
    Important Distinctions
    1.1 Relevant Concepts of God
    The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings -- even a supremely great being -- but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply.
    On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be.

    What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good. But if such a being exists, then it seems initially puzzling why various evils exist. For many of the very undesirable states of affairs that the world contains are such as could be eliminated, or prevented, by a being who was only moderately powerful, while, given that humans are aware of such evils, a being only as knowledgeable as humans would be aware of their existence. Finally, even a moderately good human being, given the power to do so, would eliminate those evils. Why, then, do such undesirable states of affairs exist, if there is a being who is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good?

    What one has here, however, is not just a puzzle, since the question can, of course, be recast as an argument for the non-existence of God. Thus if, for simplicity, we focus on a conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:

    If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
    If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
    If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
    If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
    Evil exists.
    If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
    Therefore, God doesn't exist.
    That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion -- (7) -- is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).

    Whether the argument is sound is, of course, a further question, for it may be that one of more of the premises is false. The point here, however, is simply that when one conceives of God as unlimited with respect to power, knowledge, and moral goodness, the existence of evil quickly gives rise to potentially serious arguments against the existence of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    29
    these are pretty goodSome Important Distinction
    Important Distinctions
    1.1 Relevant Concepts of God
    The term “God” is used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there are metaphysical interpretations of the term: God is a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence. Or God is not one being among other beings -- even a supremely great being -- but, instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply.
    On the other hand, there are interpretations that connect up in a clear and relatively straightforward way with religious attitudes, such as those of worship, and with very important human desires, such as the desire that, at least in the end, good will triumph, and justice be done, and the desire that the world not be one where death marks the end of the individual's existence, and where, ultimately, all conscious existence has ceased to be.

    What properties must something have if it is to be an appropriate object of worship, and if it is to provide reason for thinking that there is a reasonable chance that the fundamental human hopes just mentioned will be fulfilled? A natural answer is that God must be a person, and who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good. But if such a being exists, then it seems initially puzzling why various evils exist. For many of the very undesirable states of affairs that the world contains are such as could be eliminated, or prevented, by a being who was only moderately powerful, while, given that humans are aware of such evils, a being only as knowledgeable as humans would be aware of their existence. Finally, even a moderately good human being, given the power to do so, would eliminate those evils. Why, then, do such undesirable states of affairs exist, if there is a being who is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good?

    What one has here, however, is not just a puzzle, since the question can, of course, be recast as an argument for the non-existence of God. Thus if, for simplicity, we focus on a conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good, one very concise way of formulating such an argument is as follows:

    If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
    If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
    If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
    If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
    Evil exists.
    If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
    Therefore, God doesn't exist.
    That this argument is valid is perhaps most easily seen by a reductio argument, in which one assumes that the conclusion -- (7) -- is false, and then shows that the denial of (7), along with premises (1) through (6), leads to a contradiction. Thus if, contrary to (7), God exists, it follows from (1) that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. This, together with (2), (3), and (4) then entails that God has the power to eliminate all evil, that God knows when evil exists, and that God has the desire to eliminate all evil. But when (5) is conjoined with the reductio assumption that God exists, it then follows via modus ponens from (6) that either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Thus we have a contradiction, and so premises (1) through (6) do validly imply (7).

    Whether the argument is sound is, of course, a further question, for it may be that one of more of the premises is false. The point here, however, is simply that when one conceives of God as unlimited with respect to power, knowledge, and moral goodness, the existence of evil quickly gives rise to potentially serious arguments against the existence of God.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#Oth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Alright, Philosophy time. What is enlightenment? What are cravings? What is freedom? What is being nonjudgemental (Aka: neutral)? What is perfection? Who are "good" people? What is really "control"?As you can see, there are a billion ways to answer them all, most of which make buddhism philosophy incorrect.
    Nonjudgemental does not mean neutral. Control is when your overinflated ego is not controling your life to put it short. If we all had perfect control over our lives we would all be healthy, intelligent, respectful and understanding (to mention a few things). Obviously this is not the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Meditation is used for many things, but again you must, against all odds, properly define "enlightened" in a philosophical manner.
    Sorry, but I feel that enlightenment is different for everyone and has many phases. Against all odds? Not sure what you are getting at.

    I am not a Buddhist teacher I simply am trying to let you know that Budhism is not about dieties.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I am a skeptic buddhist, which mean I have not yet believed all that were taught by Buddha. But that's is OK in buddhism, because it asked us not to believe anything just because it was said by him.

    I agree most of what DaBOB said. But beware, DaBOB may not understand enlightenment well either. If he does, then he automatically is another buddha.

    If I try to explain enlightenment, it will probably like a layman trying to explain the schroedinger's cat. He can talk about the superposition state, but he did not really understand it.
    There is no such thing as a skeptic Buddhist because it is Buddha nature to be skeptical so unless you are skeptical about skeptisism than you can be considered a Buddha. Now I don't want to e throwing labels around. I was the same way untill I realized the skeptical nature of Buddhism which made me realize I agreed more with the Buddhist philosophy than I thought. It is also why I said many people are essentially Buddhist whether they use the label or not. I had a Nanotech teacher who was Buddhist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddha
    Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
    Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
    Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
    Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
    Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
    But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
    Does this help explain my point?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Reply to Gatorfan -- If God did not allow evil to exist, how would we know the difference between good and evil; right and wrong?

    One does not validate any law by following it. One validates a law by violating it and thus possibly showing that violation of the law is less productive than following it. (Well, one could also prove the law improper by violating it.)

    I might point out that if God exists, He has not given you any authority to write rules which he has to follow. Nor is He bound to abide by your incomplete understanding.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB

    Nonjudgemental does not mean neutral. Control is when your overinflated ego is not controling your life to put it short. If we all had perfect control over our lives we would all be healthy, intelligent, respectful and understanding (to mention a few things). Obviously this is not the case.
    Augh!

    non‧judg‧men‧tal 

    not judged or judging on the basis of one's personal standards or opinions: They tried to adopt a nonjudgmental attitude that didn't reflect their own biases. My guidance counselor in high school was sympathetic and nonjudgmental.

    Neutral:
    11. a person or a nation that remains neutral, as in a controversy or war.

    Hmm...well not EXACT meanings, but it pretty much can be similar depending on the context. Yours allowed the usage of the word "neutral" due to the fact nonjugmental doesn't cover as much as neutral does. Happy now? It's why i said "or neutral"

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Sorry, but I feel that enlightenment is different for everyone and has many phases. Against all odds? Not sure what you are getting at.
    Buddhism clearly states in it's philosophies *TRUE ENLIGHTENMENT* as in *NOT A VARIABLE*. Apparently you're not a buddhist, but more of a buddhist reformist or something like that.
    Against all odds because the definition is impossible to fully reach without an entire 700 page book. XP

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    I am not a Buddhist teacher I simply am trying to let you know that Budhism is not about dieties.
    actually, with one buddhist sect it is. However, I already know this. You must've misunderstood me.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    There is no such thing as a skeptic Buddhist because it is Buddha nature to be skeptical so unless you are skeptical about skeptisism than you can be considered a Buddha.
    Well, that I guess I can agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Now I don't want to be throwing labels around. I was the same way untill I realized the skeptical nature of Buddhism which made me realize I agreed more with the Buddhist philosophy than I thought. It is also why I said many people are essentially Buddhist whether they use the label or not. I had a Nanotech teacher who was Buddhist.
    Actually, you're misusing the label. Many people borrow or accidentally use things from other places they've never even read or heard about. Like me using freud's logic once in a while before I even read much about his works, it's a mental simularity many possess to an extent.
    This is how creationists can be evolutionists (mitch!) but still a theist. Your labeling of people with your logic means you are NOT buddhist, but have a trilloin other labels all at once.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Does this help explain my point?
    No, since that's only one buddha out of...what....three? Five? Oh and that 17 year old kid who vanished to get away from the insane publicity. He'll probably come back a buddha, hah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Wow dude. I'm not sure what your trying to get at. Do you just like argueing? If so, well, that's not really why I'm here.

    Anyways, that quote was from Siddhartha Gautama the original Buddha. Probably not a direct quote seeing as how he probably spoke a different language.

    I never said I was Buddhist and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything anyways. I am not a reformist. In fact, I am quite the opposite although I would prefer not to get into my personal life.

    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I believe the God for the christians is the same as the God for the muslims and Buhdda
    Maybe this will help. This is why I originally said what I did before people decided to change the direction and purpose of my post. Buddhism does not have a God. That is all I'm trying to say. Maybe next time I will try to be more simple in my explanation.

    True enlightenment is something I am not qualified to talk about and because of that will not dare to because I know what you and others will do to me if I do.

    O.K. there are ways to practice Buddhism if one chooses to. In that case they might join a 'sect'. The bottom line is no hierarchy or Deity is necessary to attain enlightenment. There are Buddhisattvas that are respected as great teachers but, that is all.

    Oh yes and anyone can attain Buddhahood so there are probably alot more the three or five Buddhas.

    Sorry everyone, I did not mean for my simple comment to become such a large tangent.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    You do drugs, don't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Jeremyhfht

    Actually what daBOB said makes perfect sense to me. There may be some confusion whether Buddhism has a god or not. You can say that some buddhist sect has dieties. So let's say that daBOB's and mine buddhist sect has none.

    The Budda who attained enlightenment 2550 years ago is different from other Buddas after that because he 'discovered' the ultimate truth by himself. The others have attained the state by studying his teachings and practicing and then, at last, understood it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Your jdgement has caused you to misjudge me twice now.

    You probably haven't read many of my posts in the health section but, I am very much so against drugs (in all it's forms). Although something leads me to believe that your comment wasn't serious.

    There is not God in Buddhism. There are Buddhisattvas that may be worshiped by a certain sect but, this worship is not necessary for enlightenment. Also, I have never heard of Buddhists worshiping any of the Buddhisattvas so I would appreciate if someone would inform me of where they do this. Many Buddhists are part of other religions in which case the people would be worshiping a God but, it would not be a Buddhist God. Buddhism, like Yoga or Ayuveda, is just a philosophy on life. A way to reach certain point. It can be called a religion because there are ritualistic practices that the members will often take part in.

    I know you like definitions so here you go.

    Religion: obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
    Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Does not mention anything about deities.

    Buddhism advocates science. People think it's practices are supernatural in intent so they think it is 'just another' religion. It is very different though.


    "Generally Buddhism does not believe in a personal God or a divine being, it does not have worship, praying to, or praising of a divine being (although some sects do.) It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, no heavenly hope, or a final judgment to those practicing its system. Buddhism is a moral philosophy, an ethical way to live for the here and now of this world to gain the ultimate state. It has more in common with humanism and atheism than its original religion Hinduism it separated from."

    Basics of Buddhism
    ; http://www.letusreason.org/Buddh1.htm

    "The concept of a personal God does not fit into the Buddhist system of religion. Today there are many sects of Buddhism. Many differ in their concept of the divine and of Buddha. In general, Buddhists are pantheistic in their view of God. Many view God as an impersonal force which is made up of all living things and holds the universe together."

    God and Buddhism; http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html

    "First and foremost, the Buddha was not a god but a flesh-and-blood human being...Unlike other major religions, Buddhism doesn’t have the notion of a supreme God who created the world and who looks over it. "

    http://buddhism.about.com/od/courses/a/WhatBuddhism.htm

    Something tells me you have already read one or more of these and it is where you got your 'some sects do' theory. As you can tell though, worship is not necessary but is simply part of some practice to reach the same goal. I am amazed you are making me work this hard just to make a very simple point.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: WHY NOT ???!!!!!! 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by almirza
    I have one question here but only for people who do not believe in existing of only one god........

    What made u think like that ?
    THe question is too poorly written to have any meaning in English, it's the sort of wording you find in your dvd instruction manual fault guide.

    The only bit I can get a handle on is the few words "What made u think like that ?"

    THe answer to the way I think is as follows:

    The way[or method] I think is the sum of my genes, physiological make-up, anatomy, diet, history and experience. E &OE.


    Do you mean:

    For people who do not believe in [the] existence of a single god, what makes you think this way?

    In which case, since I do believe in a single God I need not take part in this debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Jeremyhfht

    Actually what daBOB said makes perfect sense to me. There may be some confusion whether Buddhism has a god or not. You can say that some buddhist sect has dieties. So let's say that daBOB's and mine buddhist sect has none.

    The Budda who attained enlightenment 2550 years ago is different from other Buddas after that because he 'discovered' the ultimate truth by himself. The others have attained the state by studying his teachings and practicing and then, at last, understood it.
    Yes, God part, got that, but he didn't restrict the conversation to only that as you can easily read. This is also a philosophy issue, the "ultimate truth". If you don't see it, then I will be forced to once again cite sources and further my cyst hand pain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    I am glad you agree on the 'non-god' part. The 'ultimate truth' part is much harder, as I already said, I am not the enlightened one myself.

    I do not expect anyone to explain the concept of ultimate truth with such a clarity that there are no further disagreements in this thread, which has the implicit requirement for brevity of contents. All I can say it that a lot of buddhists have become more peaceful and calm and happy when they understand more of the teachings and feel less dependent on things around them.

    One observation:
    Buddhism is rarely a cause for war or violence. It does not have a teaching to take revenge, or a need to force people to believe in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    You probably haven't read many of my posts in the health section but, I am very much so against drugs (in all it's forms). Although something leads me to believe that your comment wasn't serious.
    Not really, more along the lines of sarcastic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    There is not God in Buddhism. There are Buddhisattvas that may be worshiped by a certain sect but, this worship is not necessary for enlightenment. Also, I have never heard of Buddhists worshiping any of the Buddhisattvas so I would appreciate if someone would inform me of where they do this. Many Buddhists are part of other religions in which case the people would be worshiping a God but, it would not be a Buddhist God. Buddhism, like Yoga or Ayuveda, is just a philosophy on life. A way to reach certain point. It can be called a religion because there are ritualistic practices that the members will often take part in.
    Well, yes, not many view them as Gods, but last I checked Wiki* mentioned this group. If you wish to start a philosophical debate on buddhist philosophy, I encourage you to start a thread on it. We may both learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    I know you like definitions so here you go.

    Religion: obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
    Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
    Nope, I'm disagreeing with other statements in your posts. I can see now it went right ower everybody's head, so nevermind.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Something tells me you have already read one or more of these and it is where you got your 'some sects do' theory. As you can tell though, worship is not necessary but is simply part of some practice to reach the same goal. I am amazed you are making me work this hard just to make a very simple point.
    No, I am amazed you've both misunderstood me.

    Footnote*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    I do not expect anyone to explain the concept of ultimate truth with such a clarity that there are no further disagreements in this thread, which has the implicit requirement for brevity of contents.
    I agree. I feel I have a good understanding of this 'truth' yet I cannot put it into words and probably have alot more to learn. I have read things that just make it sound so clear though.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    One observation:
    Buddhism is rarely a cause for war or violence. It does not have a teaching to take revenge, or a need to force people to believe in it.
    Rarely? I would say more like never. I can only think of shaolin and they only fought in defense as far as I know. A true Buddhist would not cause harm to others (one thing I can't fully agree with for certain reasons). If there is such thing as a true Buddhist. :?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    29
    Why would a God who loves you not leave more evidence of His existnece? I mean all the proof we have is physical but none of that could ever prove God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    What if we are God? Creating ourselves in a search for what we are. Do we not love ourselves? :? I see evidence everywhere. It is all a matter of perception.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by GatorFan1984
    Why would a God who loves you not leave more evidence of His existnece? I mean all the proof we have is physical but none of that could ever prove God.
    That's enabling for one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •