What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Theism, Atheism, Non-Theism

OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

How many times do you have to be told I don't follow all of the Buddha's teachings? And like I said the Buddha was just a man that's all so like all men he was fallible. I don't give much credence to rebirth or reincarnation and I really don't care if any Buddhist does or not but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect because there is no perfect.

And I never said anyone who believed in reincarnation was a mad man that's all you.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

How many times do you have to be told I don't follow all of the Buddha's teachings? And like I said the Buddha was just a man that's all so like all men he was fallible. I don't give much credence to rebirth or reincarnation and I really don't care if any Buddhist does or not but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't ignore the good in favor of the perfect because there is no perfect.

And I never said anyone who believed in reincarnation was a mad man that's all you.
So you don't follow the eight fold path?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
60,472
Reaction score
18,444
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Atheism doesn't need much introduction as it's stance is pretty clear. There are no gods.
There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists; ‘god’ does exist as a creation of man, a metaphor for human spirituality, or as a focus for meditation or contemplation.

But yes – there is no omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of humans, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be obeyed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation; that ‘god’ in fact does not exist.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
And to really throw a monkey wrench into your beliefs the very basis of Buddhism is right and wrong. Something I believe you have claimed does not exist and is made up by man. Can't wait to pull on that thread with you and see what unravels.

If nothing is permanent then neither are the concepts of right and wrong.
Sounds like you just completely undermined the Eight Fold Path. right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi.

No such thing as right and wrong, eh?
We are dealing with the fact that Siddhartha did not speak English and that the translations do not always capture the meanings of the Buddha's words.

For example the word suffering is not the word used by The Buddha.

The correct word , Dukkha, is a Pali word that contains many meanings. It can mean ordinary suffering, but it can also refer to anything that is temporary, incomplete, or conditioned by other things. So even joy and bliss are dukkha because they come and go.

As for the Eight fold Path

The word "right" is the translation. So "Right " Action isn't a commandment as in do this or you are wrong. It means being accurate or skillful, and it carries a connotation of "wise."
Dude, the right view instead of the wrong view, the right resolve instead of the wrong resolve, the right speech instead of the wrong speech, the right conduct instead of the wrong conduct, the right livelihood instead of the wrong livelihood, the right effort instead of the wrong effort, the right mindfulness instead of the wrong mindfulness, and the right samadhi instead of the wrong samadhi.

I am afraid you are just going to have to accept that the Buddha believed in right and wrong just like everyone else.

Just looking at the English translation, viz. "Right", one could say it is the opposite of wrong - like, one should practice "Right Mindfulness" and not "Wrong Mindfulness". This "Right - Wrong" also lends itself to be looked as "Good - Bad". Often, referring back to the Pali or Sanskrit word gives us a better understanding of the english translation. For example, Right Mindfulness in Pali is "samma-sati". The Pali word "samma" has a wide range of meanings: right/rightly, perfect/perfectly, full/fully, complete/completely, through/throughly, proper/properly. Why was "right" chosen in preference to the other possible English words? What about "Proper mindfulness" or "Perfect Mindfulness"?
So any conduct could be the right conduct to achieve enlightenment? What about if I decided to take any woman I wanted, would that be an acceptable conduct to become enlightened?
Again with the rape fantasies.

The Eight fold path is the path of compassion. The Middle Way of the Eight fold Path is not unlike Aristotle's Golden Mean.
You dodged the question.

But apparently you believe in compassion, right? Isn't compassion a man made thing too? What's wrong with being cruel? Is cruel wrong or bad or evil?
I never said all human concepts are worthless. If you think I have then quote the post.

I have said that morality is relative, the concepts of good and evil are relative and those concepts changed over time.

And our society has conflicting ideas on cruelty just as it does on killing.

But you deny this. I don't. In fact I accept it as reality where as the ideal is fantasy.
I never said you said all human concepts are worthless. If you think I have then quote the post.

If you don't believe that right and wrong exist independent of man than you have no basis for saying compassion leads to enlightenment anymore than you have for saying cruelty leads to enlightenment.

I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons. I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of logical reasons. That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes. Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that i said right and wrong are human concepts and you are using a lot of space reminding me that all these different things are human made concepts.

Just like you're hung up on the words right and wrong.
I'm hung up on your conflict between believing in behaviors which logically lead to success (like the 8 fold path) and your failure to acknowledge that it's because of logic that those behaviors logically lead to success. You are arguing through both sides of your face. You can't have it both ways.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,588
Reaction score
1,532
Points
140
I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons. I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of logical reasons. That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes. Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.
There exist so many kinds of "logic" and potential redundancies that use of the term in such context demands clear definition distinguishing from other possible terms. "Standards"? "right and wrong"? Wtf? Humans obviously prefer defining "logic" for themselves, but what we consider it probably seems like fairly mindless repetition of apparently rewarding behaviors to other animals. Pets and farm animals find training their "owners" child's play so often prefer focusing upon more rewarding tasks like grooming, eating, drinking, playing, and napping. These activities were naturally selected in practically all mammal species because they helped ensure survival. Again, if you wanna call Mother Nature or The Aether "God".. be my guest. Otherwise, go fish.
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I am the one that has been arguing that standards exist for logical reasons. I am trying to show you that you believe compassion leads to enlightenment because of logical reasons. That not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. That some behaviors lead to better outcomes and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes. Such that right and wrong cannot be defined by what man wants them to be but by what logic dictates they be.
There exist so many kinds of "logic" and potential redundancies that use of the term in such context demands clear definition distinguishing from other possible terms. Humans obviously prefer defining "logic" for themselves, but what we consider it probably seems like fairly mindless repetition of apparently rewarding behaviors to other animals. Pets and farm animals find training their "owners" child's play so often prefer focusing upon more rewarding tasks like grooming, eating, drinking, playing, and napping. These activities were naturally selected in all species because they helped ensure survival. Again, if you wanna call Mother Nature or The Aether "God".. be my guest. Otherwise, go fish.
The analysis is made easy when one compares diametric behaviors. It's pretty obvious to see the logic of why two compassionate people will always have a better relationship than two cruel people.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.
Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.
Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.
right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?
The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.
I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.
So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.
Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.
I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​
Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​
The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​
Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.
Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​
After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​


You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.
So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.
But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.
Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.
I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.
That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't
The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.
I have never denied reality.
If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.
Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.
Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.
right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?
Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days