(September 28, 2021 at 4:02 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 12:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Boru

Yet Dalai Lama nevertheless accepts at least two supernatural claims, reincarnation and the "law of karma," and (in the same book where that quote is from, "The Universe in a Single Atom") he criticizes the theory of evolution along creationist lines, arguing that mutations aren’t random and that the notion of "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (it isn’t). So, like with all faiths, Buddhism literalism about some beliefs makes it incompatible with science.

It looks like the Dalai Lama chose his words carefully, though. Neither karma nor reincarnation can be proven wrong by science.

As for saying that mutations aren't random... he's going off the rails there.

(September 28, 2021 at 6:04 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Buddhism is not an exception, it is a religion like any other. Buddhism has monks and temples, and holy writings and holy figures. If it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it is a religion.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a religion, you ignorant, reading comprehension-damaged moron. You said (well, strongly implied) that religious people want science to confirm their religious beliefs. I pointed out that the top dog of one of the world’s major religions has flat out said that if science contradicts his religion, his religion will change to accommodate science. THAT’S the exception.

Boru

Why do you assume everything I write is directed to you personally? 

I wasn't aiming that at you, I was simply adding to what you said.

(September 28, 2021 at 4:02 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 12:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Boru

Yet Dalai Lama nevertheless accepts at least two supernatural claims, reincarnation and the "law of karma," and (in the same book where that quote is from, "The Universe in a Single Atom") he criticizes the theory of evolution along creationist lines, arguing that mutations aren’t random and that the notion of "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (it isn’t). So, like with all faiths, Buddhism literalism about some beliefs makes it incompatible with science.

I really hate when lovers of Buddhism argue they are not the same as Christians or Muslims. "Karma" is simply another argument for getting even. Concepts of heaven and hell, and vengeance, are no different. 

In all of human history, good or bad, the truth is sometimes bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.

There is no difference in humanity, worldwide in our species history. If a story is told, it has been told before. The binary 0s and 1s only allow for  diversity. But the flight ends for everyone, first class, business class or coach, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Rasta, ect ect.  No amount of arguing for a deity or a religion will change the fact all 7 billion of us only have one home to live on.

(September 29, 2021 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 4:02 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yet Dalai Lama nevertheless accepts at least two supernatural claims, reincarnation and the "law of karma," and (in the same book where that quote is from, "The Universe in a Single Atom") he criticizes the theory of evolution along creationist lines, arguing that mutations aren’t random and that the notion of "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (it isn’t). So, like with all faiths, Buddhism literalism about some beliefs makes it incompatible with science.

I really hate when lovers of Buddhism argue they are not the same as Christians or Muslims. "Karma" is simply another argument for getting even. Concepts of heaven and hell, and vengeance, are no different. 

In all of human history, good or bad, the truth is sometimes bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.

There is no difference in humanity, worldwide in our species history. If a story is told, it has been told before. The binary 0s and 1s only allow for  diversity. But the flight ends for everyone, first class, business class or coach, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Rasta, ect ect.  No amount of arguing for a deity or a religion will change the fact all 7 billion of us only have one home to live on.

But there are differences. There are even significant differences between Christianity and Islam. If you study even a little bit of Buddhism you'll find that it is way more acceptable to the skeptical mind than the Abrahamic faiths. That counts for something. Sure, there are unfounded beliefs in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean isn't any solid wisdom or useful practices to be discovered when studying it. It's good to have a little nuance in one's approach toward belief systems. Like Nietzsche does below...

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
"In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both décadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.—Buddhism is a hundred times [more] realistic [than] Christianity—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god,” was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism).

That sounds very generalistic. "Buddhism in theory..." and then you put whatever you want. But if you look at Buddhism in practice, you will see in places like Tibet that people are (were) being oppressed by Buddhist theocracy, and Dalai Lama is a very duplicitous guy.





Or read what Julia Sweeney, who was in a Buddhist country, wrote about Buddhism and you will see that all these Buddhist concepts that Westerners like to romanticize are ugly and oppressive.

Quote:I got closer to the monastery. But as I got closer, I could see how young some of the monks were: it's a tradition in places like Tibet and Bhutan that the second son automatically goes into the monastery. Some boys were as young as seven, the Age Of Reason, but hardly an age where someone could make an informed decision about their life purpose. They would get only a religious education; they would never experience a heterosexual relationship, with its particular joys and sorrows, or a family of their own. Instead of being inspired by them, I wanted to free them.
...

From there I went to Thailand where I happened to visit a woman who was taking care of a terribly deformed boy who was an orphan. I said to his caretaker, "It's so good of you to be taking care of this poor boy." She said, "Don't say 'poor boy.' He must have done something terrible in a past life to be born like that.

When I came back to L.A., even though there was still a lot about Buddhism that intrigued me, I had to admit, I was less interested. I kept thinking, "The Buddhism we get in California is all cleaned up for us."

(September 28, 2021 at 5:56 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Buddhism is not an exception, it is a religion like any other. Buddhism has monks and temples, and holy writings and holy figures. If it walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it is a religion.

Ha!  (Just kidding...)

The response you read, could lead you to believe I am an ABBA traitor. While I am glad they remain relevant in music history, and while I do like this song, it is middle of the road for them. It is not my favorite, nor does it stand out like Watch Out, or SOS or Money Money Money, or The Winner Takes It all. They seem to be playing it safe here. I am fine with that. It still has an ABBA quality about it, but it was a safe song, not a standout.

---

(September 29, 2021 at 10:47 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(September 29, 2021 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote: I really hate when lovers of Buddhism argue they are not the same as Christians or Muslims. "Karma" is simply another argument for getting even. Concepts of heaven and hell, and vengeance, are no different. 

In all of human history, good or bad, the truth is sometimes bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.

There is no difference in humanity, worldwide in our species history. If a story is told, it has been told before. The binary 0s and 1s only allow for  diversity. But the flight ends for everyone, first class, business class or coach, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Rasta, ect ect.  No amount of arguing for a deity or a religion will change the fact all 7 billion of us only have one home to live on.

But there are differences. There are even significant differences between Christianity and Islam. If you study even a little bit of Buddhism you'll find that it is way more acceptable to the skeptical mind than the Abrahamic faiths. That counts for something. Sure, there are unfounded beliefs in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean isn't any solid wisdom or useful practices to be discovered when studying it. It's good to have a little nuance in one's approach toward belief systems. Like Nietzsche does below...

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
"In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both décadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.—Buddhism is a hundred times [more] realistic [than] Christianity—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god,” was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism).

To say there are differences in religions is correct. But to claim any religion is special is not. Religion, like politics and economics, are merely human's arguments for tribalism to get at resources. 

Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" speech says to me everything humanity needs to know ultimately. We are not special, our labels are not special, and we would do better long term to accept that if we want to extend our species ride. 

If someone hates me, and wants to kill me because they hate me, life provides that opportunity. But that does not mean if they are successful, they will have an eternity of being the king of the hill.

(September 29, 2021 at 11:38 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 28, 2021 at 5:56 pm)Jehanne Wrote:



Ha!  (Just kidding...)

The response you read, could lead you to believe I am an ABBA traitor. While I am glad they remain relevant in music history, and while I do like this song, it is middle of the road for them. It is not my favorite, nor does it stand out like Watch Out, or SOS or Money Money Money, or The Winner Takes It all. They seem to be playing it safe here. I am fine with that. It still has an ABBA quality about it, but it was a safe song, not a standout.

---

(September 29, 2021 at 10:47 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: But there are differences. There are even significant differences between Christianity and Islam. If you study even a little bit of Buddhism you'll find that it is way more acceptable to the skeptical mind than the Abrahamic faiths. That counts for something. Sure, there are unfounded beliefs in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean isn't any solid wisdom or useful practices to be discovered when studying it. It's good to have a little nuance in one's approach toward belief systems. Like Nietzsche does below...

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
"In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both décadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.—Buddhism is a hundred times [more] realistic [than] Christianity—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god,” was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism).

To say there are differences in religions is correct. But to claim any religion is special is not. Religion, like politics and economics, are merely human's arguments for tribalism to get at resources. 

Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" speech says to me everything humanity needs to know ultimately. We are not special, our labels are not special, and we would do better long term to accept that if we want to extend our species ride. 

If someone hates me, and wants to kill me because they hate me, life provides that opportunity. But that does not mean if they are successful, they will have an eternity of being the king of the hill.

Please label your views correctly. You clearly mean that it is not special TO YOU. Whether it is special to anyone else is not something you decide.

Seriously, you read some lame argument that might persuade a few morons and think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

You're stuck in a rut repeating an argument that is little more than a deepity. Pull your head out. Honestly, you're a one-trick pony whose one trick sucks.

How do you know that they won't have that eternity as king of the hill?

(December 21, 2017 at 3:20 am)░I░G░N░O░R░A░M░U░S ░ Wrote: (in no particular order)
Theists tell me, why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have
an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?


MadJw: Science always does- but just ignores them.
Religion, on the other hand DESEVES ridicule...

(September 29, 2021 at 11:31 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: That sounds very generalistic. "Buddhism in theory..." and then you put whatever you want. But if you look at Buddhism in practice, you will see in places like Tibet that people are (were) being oppressed by Buddhist theocracy, and Dalai Lama is a very duplicitous guy.

"Buddhism in theory" is the only Buddhism that I (and Nietzsche for that matter) are concerned with.

But thanks for sharing the video. Very informative. And, yes, Westerners have a romanticized view of Buddhism. But there are plenty of ideas worthy of consideration in ancient Indian texts. Plenty worth rejecting too. So I try to approach the subject, become aware of any nuances, and consider one idea at a time.

When you depart a "religion in theory" and begin to examine a "religion in practice" you'll always find institutions with pyramid like power structures and abusive patterns of behavior. Some worse than others. India has some of the most abusive and interpersonally destructive religious practices in the world. I'm very aware of that.

But good ideas are good ideas. And Indian thinkers had some... even the mystics.

(September 29, 2021 at 11:59 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(September 29, 2021 at 11:31 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: That sounds very generalistic. "Buddhism in theory..." and then you put whatever you want. But if you look at Buddhism in practice, you will see in places like Tibet that people are (were) being oppressed by Buddhist theocracy, and Dalai Lama is a very duplicitous guy.

"Buddhism in theory" is the only Buddhism that I (and Nietzsche for that matter) are concerned with.

But thanks for sharing the video. Very informative. And, yes, Westerners have a romanticized view of Buddhism. But there are plenty of ideas worthy of consideration in ancient Indian texts. Plenty worth rejecting too. So I try to approach the subject, become aware of any nuances, and consider one idea at a time.

When you depart a "religion in theory" and begin to examine a "religion in practice" you'll always find institutions with pyramid like power structures and abusive patterns of behavior. Some worse than others. India has some of the most abusive and interpersonally destructive religious practices in the world. I'm very aware of that.

But good ideas are good ideas. And Indian thinkers had some... even the mystics.

There has never been a period of human history where humans, within or without, for or against, internally or externally who did not conflict with others.  Humans are tribal, regardless of label.