(October 14, 2016 at 8:56 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Aroura Wrote: People can be ANYTHING and still be an atheist.  I've met Christian atheists.  They don't buy the bull, they just like the social gains, and some of the new testement teachings(turn the other cheek and such).  
Christian Atheist? Not tons of them, but they exist!
Jewish atheist?  YES!
Buddhist atheist? OF COURSE! (Buddha indeed didn't teach to believe in gods, so there are MANY of these folks)
Taoist atheist?  NATURALLY!

You cannot fit everyone into your neat little boxes.

Wrong.  

Take these saying.............A beard doesn't make a philosopher.........or..........the dress does not make the priest.......
People are free to say what they like to be but in order to be what they say they are they must prove it.

Buddha like Christ like and other person that follow spirituality obviously believe in God.
I already explained why Buddha did not mention God.
See my previous posts.

You make up a bullshit story about what Buddha originally thought, then assume your spirituality is the only kind there is, so Buddha must have been following your spirituality because he was obviously a smart guy. The amount of made up bullshit in your story is outlandish. It all depends on things you assert but don't actually know being true. You may have already 'explained' why Buddha did not mention God, but your explanation was nothing but bullshit which you have no way of knowing. An 'explanation' is nothing more than a hypothesis about how things occur. Without supporting facts, an explanation might just as well be false as true. You gave no supporting facts for your beliefs about why Buddha did not mention God. My explanation that Buddha did not mention God is because he didn't believe in the Hindu conception of God. Without supporting facts, there's no more reason to believe your 'explanation' than mine. Telling convincing just-so stories is not a means to establishing truth. That's all you're doing, telling just-so stories.

For my money, Buddha was a failed ascetic who decided to form a cult instead of practicing spirituality. Maybe you do follow the same path after all.

(October 14, 2016 at 9:15 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(October 14, 2016 at 8:43 am)Primordial Bisque Wrote: I think your chakras are a bit off, buddy. You may want to get them realigned because you're spewing nonsense.

Maybe we don't remember the actions of our past lives because we didn't have past lives. You didn't think of that Rik, did you?

Whoooooo, that is interesting Bisque.

If we didn't have past lives then it means that we never build up the consciousness that we got and it all come as per magic and free.
I never guessed that we could get something for free.  

Gee, I never thought about it Bis!  

So, you consider a neurochemical process to be magic?

This is the most badass protest I have seen and its a religious one(video above).

What I don't get, Little Rik, is why you're so hot on karmic "justice" in the first place? From what you've said I've always assumed that Yoga and Buddhism were pretty similar but as I understand it, wishing harm on anyone is the antithesis of Buddhism. I don't know how much the meditation practices in Yoga differ from those in Buddhism, but I thought the whole point was self-mastery and self-understanding at source in your own mind. Not about controlling the outside world but understanding the inner world. So recognising anger and everything else as the transient things that they are, that come and go... dukkha... and that you can attach to or not. So it just seems strange to me why you seem so full of anger... cos that's not how I understand the goals of Buddhism at all. I know you're not a Buddhist, but as I said, Yoga and Buddhism do seem similar and you've said yourself that the Buddha first studied Yoga.

Quote:188. Driven only by fear, do men go for refuge to many places — to hills, woods, groves, trees and shrines.

189. Such, indeed, is no safe refuge; such is not the refuge supreme. Not by resorting to such a refuge is one released from all suffering.

190-191. He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Teaching and his Order, penetrates with transcendental wisdom the Four Noble Truths — suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the Noble Eightfold Path leading to the cessation of suffering.

192. This indeed is the safe refuge, this the refuge supreme. Having gone to such a refuge, one is released from all suffering.

The Dhammapada

Got that? The Buddha is the refuge supreme. Not God. The Buddha. In the Buddha's own words.

If a criminal dies and can no longer hurt anyone, isn't that justice enough?

I think what's really interesting here is that the OP resents that some people die without suffering consequences for wrongdoing. That I think is motivtion for a lot of belief in various religions: we hate that some people do bad things and get away with it, so we convince ourselves that they get what they deserve after they die.

This is one thing I appreciate about my own journey away from faith: I realised death is the fullstop at the end of the last sentence in the book, and there is no sequel. It has motivated me to do what I can to work towards justice now, in this life, but for me individuals suffering consequences for their actions is not what's most important. Instead what's important to me is that people who suffer are not going to experience relief in the afterlife, so we must strive to achieve happiness for ourselves and our fellow living beings here and now.

My reading of the OP's questions is that they have a thirst for revenge, and I believe the majority of countries' methods for handling criminals is based on exacting vengeance. I believe we should instead focus on dealing with people who have committed crimes in such a way that they return to society changed to be someone who contributes rather than takes away from others' happiness, and are equipped to achieve their own happiness NOT at the expense of others. I also believe focusing on rehabilitating offenders before releasing them from corrective facilities means that someone who can be guaranteed to reoffend is not returned into society once they've "paid the price for their crime", but instead is kept in a place where they can live a fulfilling life without the opportunity to harm others.

So I'm not responding to the poll because the questions are phrased to express the OP's anger, not to really gain new knowledge.

(October 13, 2016 at 8:59 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 13, 2016 at 8:56 am)Little Rik Wrote: Gee, something new to me mate.  
I didn't know that Buddhists are atheists.  
Can you please explain to me how a religious person can be atheist?  

Because Buddhism doesn't require the belief in a god.  You can be buddhist and atheist.  Many are.

In any case, please do not confuse Buddhism with "Chinese religion", which is a totally different thing my friend. For example, there are water gods, mountain gods, fire gods and river gods for a start. Therefore, according to a survey done a couple of years ago stated that only 6.3% of Chinese are atheists.

(October 15, 2016 at 4:54 am)racingboo Wrote: I think what's really interesting here is that the OP resents that some people die without suffering consequences for wrongdoing. That I think is motivtion for a lot of belief in various religions: we hate that some people do bad things and get away with it, so we convince ourselves that they get what they deserve after they die.

This is one thing I appreciate about my own journey away from faith: I realised death is the fullstop at the end of the last sentence in the book, and there is no sequel. It has motivated me to do what I can to work towards justice now, in this life, but for me individuals suffering consequences for their actions is not what's most important. Instead what's important to me is that people who suffer are not going to experience relief in the afterlife, so we must strive to achieve happiness for ourselves and our fellow living beings here and now.

My reading of the OP's questions is that they have a thirst for revenge, and I believe the majority of countries' methods for handling criminals is based on exacting vengeance. I believe we should instead focus on dealing with people who have committed crimes in such a way that they return to society changed to be someone who contributes rather than takes away from others' happiness, and are equipped to achieve their own happiness NOT at the expense of others. I also believe focusing on rehabilitating offenders before releasing them from corrective facilities means that someone who can be guaranteed to reoffend is not returned into society once they've "paid the price for their crime", but instead is kept in a place where they can live a fulfilling life without the opportunity to harm others.

So I'm not responding to the poll because the questions are phrased to express the OP's anger, not to really gain new knowledge.

You got it quite wrong racing.  

Justice according to karma is to level back up the positive with the negative or the other way around.
It is a fact that this universe is perfectly balanced by negative and positive or yin and yang.
Nothing really to do with revenge.

One more thing.
I also agree with rehabilitation.
Unfortunately these days is all about revenge.

(October 15, 2016 at 12:45 am)Astreja Wrote: If a criminal dies and can no longer hurt anyone, isn't that justice enough?

Have you got any evidence that the consciousness die when the body die?