to hobbes:
so now you are blaming me, huh? ok, it's my fault, you are proving me wrong but you still don't have the answer, do you? it's not me who make you not believe in buddhism but yourself. so why not give it a chance?
why don't you read this introduction of buddhism instead of blaming me?
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/introdu...to_buddhism.htm
I hope you can question them.
http://www.buddhanet.net/
hey, man, you do know a lot, I don't know about confucianism or other -sm, but from what you said, buddhism is completely different from those "-sm".Originally posted by GS1969@24 March 2004 - 05:00
Well, nothing really new has been said this time.
Hobbes is right about the holy grail of ancient wisdom. The other big Eastern philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism are pretty much based on this. Confucius had great things to say, fabulous things, but he totally copped out by saying they were all from the ancients texts, therefore he didn’t have to defend any of what he said, he just said crap like the ancients say it’s so, therefore that’s the way it is. Good stuff but pretty weak.
Chuang Tzu was sort of the same, he was the big Taoist guy that said the stuff like in ancient times Blah Blah could do blah blah like ride the winds with thought, if only we could have his knowledge we could ride the winds too. That’s what a lot of the Asian Taoists are doing today in meditation, trying to recapture some of the ancient wisdom so they can become gods. There is this old guy that lives in China and that is his specif goal, to become a god and be prayed to, totally selfish, it’s dumbasses like that who spend their whole lives studying a philosophy only to gain the secret power that they themselves can wield over others. Watching National Geographic or whoever interviewing this guy was just sad, what a jack ass.
Caza, what do you mean by “I think we should not discriminate any religion first otherwise, there is no point to discuss.” I’m totally cool that English isn’t your first language and but I just don’t know what you mean exactly. Are you trying to say “don’t speak disparagingly of religion”? I’m not sure, and why not?
Here is my philosophy, Let’s call it Gregism, well, gimme a break, I’ll come up with something better later. Do not do anything to cause suffering to anyone. Why not? Do not be afraid of the afterlife. Do not be afraid of Hell. Do not be afraid of vengeful spirits. Do not think that you will be rewarded with a ticket to heaven. Do not think that by killing an enemy you will be rewarded with 73 virgins in the afterlife ( that’s got to be the best yet, what a bunch of losers). Do not wait for a rebirth into anything, lights out, time to go to bed. Just stand on your own two feet and be a good person for fucks sake! Everyone knows what’s right and what’s wrong. Religions were made for shits like George W Bush who are willing to sacrifice his own people to make a dollar.
Aw hell, now I’m getting political, sorry about that,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Chuang Tzu. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Chuang Tzu. But he didn't know if he was Chuang Tzu who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Tzu. Between Chuang Tzu and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It doens't mean anything but damn it's cool.
G
BKK
"don’t speak disparagingly of religion", yep , it is exactly what I meant, I don't see why we should. You know more than I do, but I think if you have the right to believe in "-sm", then why not the others?as long as we don't hurt other people, it will be fine. we can discuss or even argue some of our issues, but we cannot deny them compeletly. Buddhism is a peaceful religion. no god, peace make buddhism an unique religion. I'm not a religious person, I learn buddhism simply because it provides acceptable explainations from another aspect other than science.
I have some douts about your philosophy,for example, if everyone knows what is wrong or right, why there are so many problems in our society? why there are violence and wars?
Original message~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hey, man, you do know a lot, I don't know about confucianism or other -sm, but from what you said, buddhism is completely different from those "-sm".
"don’t speak disparagingly of religion", yep , it is exactly what I meant, I don't see why we should. You know more than I do, but I think if you have the right to believe in "-sm", then why not the others?as long as we don't hurt other people, it will be fine. we can discuss or even argue some of our issues, but we cannot deny them compeletly. Buddhism is a peaceful religion. no god, peace make buddhism an unique religion. I'm not a religious person, I learn buddhism simply because it provides acceptable explainations from another aspect other than science.
I have some douts about your philosophy,for example, if everyone knows what is wrong or right, why there are so many problems in our society? why there are violence and wars?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Buddhism is different from Confucius. Confucianism is really about obedience to authority and performing a certain way, respect and stuff like that. It’s a little screwy unless your “master” holds up his end of the bargain. Basically the only reason Confucianism has survived for 2200 years is because it works very well into the hands of the state. Politicians love it because it orders one to respect authority. It has been the officially sanctioned religion of China pretty much since then.
Taoism on the other hand is very much like Buddhism. A lot of the underlying tenets are the same. You were talking about the particles and that, another of the famous analects of Chuang Tzu is something like said something like the tip of a hair is as big as a mountain. It, the universe is all one, to make distinctions between things is for man, not for the enlightened. As much as an ant understands the thoughts of a man, so does a man understand the thoughts of the enlightened. Of course there are differences between Taoism and Buddhism but the similarities are strong.
As for not speaking disparagingly of religion, no, I cannot do that. It was Karl Marx who is cited first as saying that religion is the opiate of the masses. Religion is state supported because it teaches people to be unquestioning of authority, and to work their asses off for an unseen reward, your reward will come once you are dead. No, that’s wrong, that’s being taken advantage of. That is the institutionalised manipulation of individuals to accept whatever they are offered, no matter how hard they work, and then to smile and say thank you. Religion is the greatest tool of control that was ever invented, yes invented, by those who wanted to control others. Fear and reward, the devoted are nothing more than Pavlov’s dogs. Those in control are either dupes themselves, or the most evil kind of people who prey upon people’s ignorance and consciously use fear and reward to control how others think.
Do people have a right to believe in an “ism”, I don’t know. I don’t think they do. Not without all of the facts. That’s what is cool about Buddhism, he tells one to investigate things first and then decide for yourself. But most people are too weak and or lazy to do this, others are oppressed and are not allowed to investigate spirituality on their own, or not even oppressed, let me cite a couple examples of what I am trying top say. Big in the news these days is Afghanistan. There are clerics there who cannot even read. These uneducated manipulators are simply making it up as they go along. Head scarf issues in France these days, in a poll, over 50% of Muslim women did not even want to wear headscarves in public but did so out of fear of what the fucking minority of fanatical men would do to them if they stopped. Then let’s go to the States, what sort of religious freedom do you suppose exits in some white trash evangelical household (trailerhold)? What choice is a kid given growing up?
So do people have a right to believe? as long as they are fully aware they are being manipulated, then yes.
When I say argue I don’t mean it in an aggressive way, a better word is debate, I just couldn’t think of it at the time.
~~~~~ we cannot deny them compeletly~~~~~
if you want to talk about “faith based” ideas then yes, I will deny them completely
One thing that westerners often just don’t get, is how a Buddhist, or a Confucianist, or a Taoist, really just goes through the motions. Yes there are these great ideas but for the most part there are just rules. For example it is against doctrine for a woman to touch a monk, the monk must be kept pure. What a bunch of hog wash. What about the monk that was living in New Zealand that had a refugee smuggling people trafficking business set up going? Just because it is an Eastern religion doesn’t mean that the people who are practising it are any more enlightened or good or pious or anything than some western church goer. A lot of Europeans and Californians get caught up in the Eastern Philosophy thing. One of you guys
Had a good quote from the Dhali Lamma saying not to accept anything too quickly, something like that, that was good.
Yes learn Buddhism, you can’t go wrong with that. But as soon as someone asks you to make a donation, and they have a nicer place than you, think twice. But if you’re leaning it for yourself, as a road to being a better person then go for it. But lay off on the spiritual stuff, that just makes people who believe in that sort of thing, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, and whoever esle look like fools.
~~~~~~~~~
I have some douts about your philosophy,for example, if everyone knows what is wrong or right, why there are so many problems in our society? why there are violence and wars?
~~~~~~~~
That one is easy, greed. Peoplewith power taking advantage of peole with less power. There are very few things done where greed is not involved. Of course, there is not often greed involved in schoolyard / bar room fights, those are just ass holes and immaturity. But if you want to talk about the big things, then they have no other purpose than than money and control. I’m going to put a quote in here and then push off, I’m getting really bored. This is one of the most damning things ever said about the US of A. Not because of what it says but a combination of what it says and that it was said by a highly decorated Major General of the Marine corps.
~~~~~~~~~~
Major General Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
finally I have time to look at your reply.Originally posted by GS1969@24 March 2004 - 03:37
I know two novices arguing about Buddhism may not lead to enlightenment. I’m sure both of us have gaping holes in our understanding, but at least we can look critically at what each other has to say and we’ll sort of muddle through from there. Let’s see….
~~~ well, then prove it wrong~~~
Well I think Hobbes is right there, it’s not up to me to disprove your heaven and hell and your other six realms, your hungry ghosts and your devas. I can dig your humans an animals but the other stuff you talk about is unproven. It is not correct to ask me to disprove something that you have no proof of in the first place.
~~~ you ask people to believe you but you can't prove it yourself~~~
The only thing I have asked people to believe is be good to other people. You’re right, I can’t prove that being good is right, you know why? because there is no ‘greater truth’. There is no god or spirit force or nature laying down the spiritual law for us. This is terrifying for people. If there is nothing to fear after you die then why should you do anything in life that isn’t for simple self gratification? If I think you have a nice car why don’t I just take it? If I like the looks of a girl, why don’t I smack her over the head with a club and drag her into the bushes and have sex with her? If I don’t like you, why can’t I kill you? Why? For me, it’s wrong. I don’t do awful things because I don’t think it Right. Not because I will be judged after I die either by your “natural” force that, I’m sorry is the same as God. You may not say it, but something judges you right? Sends you to heaven or hell? You conveniently call it nature, but no, it’s not natural. Nature doesn’t care who the hell you kill, or rob, or rape. I don’t do it because it’s not nice, and I don’t do lesser things because I am afraid of Johnny Law.
~~~ and I've mentioned there is no God in buddhism, you seem to ingore this fact. ~~~
I know there is no god in Buddhism. But you know what? People still pray to the Buddha. The have deified a man. Hmm, sort of like the Christians have done. So what is the difference between praying to this skinny dude on a cross, or a contemplative dude sitting cross-legged on a pedestal? They both personify a philosophy no? They both represent a greater truth no? They are both prayed to? Hell, Buddhists even give offerings to Buddha everyday, like cans of pop, open, complete with straws, apparently Buddha prefers Red Fanta (I live in Thailand BTW, BKK is Bangkok if anyone didn’t know). Buddhists say there is no god but they still pray to a “spirit world” therefore their distinction between god and not god is invalid. Be a Buddhist in philosophy but do not pray to Buddha, because then you are admitting he is a god.
~~~ if the parts of a computer are removed, then it's not call a computer, computer=nothing; if the compoents of a video card are removed, then it's not called video card, it's nothing also. Likewise, if you remove your head, your hands, then you are not a human, what is a human being? it's just a name~~~
Sorry dude, gotta call bullshit on this one. If you have a cake, and you take out a piece of cake, is it not still a cake? If you get a haircut, is not what you have remaining still called hair? If you step on a landmine and loose your legs, are you still not human?
These Socratic arguments are simple crap. People call things, things. There is no definition written by the hand of god or the hand of nature saying “This is man”, “This is computer”. Thaye are simple conventions used by people to help communicate. Which touches upon another great point of Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and whatever else; that language cannot desribe adequately the spirit world. There are no words for it. It is beyond human comprehension. When one does catch a glimpse of it, that is enlightenment, and that is hokey. Let’s spend our lives meditating to understand something that we cannot desribe, because it’s not real. This is just a cop out for the leaders of their respective philosophies. "There is something else out there that we cannot begin to understand", not.
~~~ Cause and effect can be applied to everything in the universe, if you don't respect other people, they won't respect you(you suffer the effect of your cause), the same is a murderer lives his rest life without being known he is a murderer, he caused other people's death, but he is dead,then where the effect goes? obviously, it is not logical to say the effect just gone, so the effect is still there, where can the effect goes?only in the murderer, if the effect can't stay in the murderer's body, then the effect can only go to his spirit.~~~
“obviously, it is not logical to say the effect just gone”? Why the hell not? There is nothing obvious about this at all. Yes there is an effect, the dude he killed is dead, and all of the ramifications that go along with that, but as far as some mojo booga booga effect in the afterlife for our murderer, sorry, ashes to ashes dust to dust, our boy and his killer end up in the same dust bin, destined to be recycled back into the universe, uhbadee uhbadee uhbadee that’s all folks. Don’t try to scare me with your afterlife, convince me to live by the rules of this plane, either by raising me correctly with a strong sense of right and wrong or a healthy fear of retribution by the Johnny Law or Clint Eastwood.
Once again, simply do not do anything to cause suffering to others. Save the spirits for Ghostbusters.
I know what I write sometimes sounds angry and confrontational, I'm sorry for that, it's not meant to be, I'm actually have a very good time.
G
BKK
well, then prove it wrong
You said it's wrong, It's your responsibility to prove it. Before it being proved, there is no right or wrong. I found this:
Q:You have talked a lot about rebirth but is there any proof that we are reborn when we die?
A:Not only is there scientific evidence to support the Buddhist belief in rebirth, it is the only after-life theory that has any evidence to support it. There is not a scrap of evidence to prove the existence of heaven and of course evidence of annihilation at death must be lacking. But during the last 30 years parapsychologists have been studying reports that some people have vivid memories of their former lives. For example, in England, a 5 year-old girl said she could remember her "other mother and father" and she talked vividly about what sounded like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called in and they asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke of living in a particular village in what appeared to be Spain, she gave the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbors' names and details about her everyday life there. She also fearfully spoke of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later. When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was a village in Spain with the name the five-year-old girl had given. There was a house of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more, it was found that a 23-year-old woman living in the house had been killed in a car accident five years before. Now how is it possible for a five year- old girl living in England and who had never been to Spain to know all these details? And of course, this is not the only case of this type. Professor Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia's Department of Psychology has described dozens of cases of this type in his books. He is an accredited scientist whose 25 year study of people who remember former lives is very strong evidence for the Buddhist teaching of rebirth.
Q:Well, have there been any scientists who believe in rebirth?
A:Yes. Thomas Huxley, who was responsible for having science introduced into the 19th century British school system and who was the first scientist to defend Darwin's theories, believed that reincarnation was a very plausible idea. In his famous book 'Evolution and Ethics and other Essays', he says:
In the doctrine of transmigration, whatever its origin, Brahmanical and Buddhist speculation found, ready to hand, the means of constructing a plausible vindication of the ways of the Cosmos to man... Yet this plea of justification is not less plausible than others; and none but very hasty thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity. Like the doctrine of evolution itself, that of transmigration has its roots in the world of reality; and it may claim such support as the great argument from analogy is capable of supplying.
Then, Professor Gustaf Stromberg, the famous Swedish astronomer, physicist and friend of Einstein also found the idea of rebirth appealing. Opinions differ whether human souls can be reincarnated on the earth or not. In 1936 a very interesting case was thoroughly investigated and reported by the government authorities in India. A girl (Shanti Devi from Delhi) could accurately describe her previous life (at Muttra, five hundred miles from Delhi) which ended about a year before her "second birth." She gave the name of her husband and child and described her home and life history. The investigating commission brought her to her former relatives, who verified all her statements. Among the people of India reincarnations are regarded as commonplace; the astonishing thing for them in this case was the great number of facts the girl remembered. This and similar cases can be regarded as additional evidence for the theory of the indestructibility of memory. Professor Julian Huxley, the distinguished British scientist who was Director General of UNESCO believed that rebirth was quite in harmony with scientific thinking. There is nothing against a permanently surviving spirit-individuality being in some way given off at death, as a definite wireless message is given off by a sending apparatus working in a particular way. But it must be remembered that the wireless message only becomes a message again when it comes in contact with a new, material structure - the receiver. So with our possible spirit-emanation. It... would never think or feel unless again 'embodied' in some way. Our per venalities are so based on body that it is really impossible to think of survival which would be in any true sense personal without a body of sorts... I can think of something being given off which would bear the same relation to men and women as a wireless message to the transmitting apparatus; but in that case 'the dead' would, so far as one can see, be nothing but disturbances of different patterns wandering through the universe until... they... came back to actuality of consciousness by making contact with something which could work as a receiving apparatus for mind. Even very practical and down-to-earth people like the American industrialist Henry Ford found the idea or rebirth acceptable. Ford was attracted to the idea of rebirth because, unlike the theistic idea or the materialistic idea, rebirth gives you a second chance to develop yourself. Henry Ford says: I adopted the theory of Reincarnation when I was twenty-six. Religion offered nothing to the point.. Even work could not give me complete satisfaction. Work is fume if we cannot utilize the experience we collect in one life in the next. When I discovered Reincarnation it was as if I had found a universal plan. I realized that there was a chance to work out my ideas. Time was no longer limited. I was no longer a slave to the hands of the clock... Genius is experience. Some seem to think that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives. Some are older souls than others, and so they know more... The discovery of Reincarnation put my mind at ease... If you preserve a record of this conversation, write it so that it puts men's minds at ease. I would like to communicate to others the calmness that the long view of life gives to us.
So the Buddhist teachings of rebirth does have some scientific evidence to support it. It is logically consistent and it goes a long way to answering questions that theistic and the materialistic theories fail to do. But it is also very comforting. What can be worse than a theory of life that gives you no second chance, no opportunity to amend the mistakes you have made in this life and no time to further develop the skills and abilities you have nurtured in this life. But according to the Buddha, if you fail to attain Nirvana in this life, you will have the opportunity to try again next time. If you have made mistakes in this life, you will be able to correct yourself in the next life. You will truly be able to learn from your mistakes. Things you were unable to do or achieve in this life may well become possible in the next life. What a wonderful teaching!
(http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda05.htm)
my comment: let's forget about the rebirth or nirvana things, it is difficult to accept. there are a lot of other things in Buddhism besides rebirth.
this thread is too long, I'll post the rest to the next thread
"For me, it’s wrong. I don’t do awful things because I don’t think it Right."Originally posted by GS1969@24 March 2004 - 03:37
I know two novices arguing about Buddhism may not lead to enlightenment. I’m sure both of us have gaping holes in our understanding, but at least we can look critically at what each other has to say and we’ll sort of muddle through from there. Let’s see….
~~~ well, then prove it wrong~~~
Well I think Hobbes is right there, it’s not up to me to disprove your heaven and hell and your other six realms, your hungry ghosts and your devas. I can dig your humans an animals but the other stuff you talk about is unproven. It is not correct to ask me to disprove something that you have no proof of in the first place.
~~~ you ask people to believe you but you can't prove it yourself~~~
The only thing I have asked people to believe is be good to other people. You’re right, I can’t prove that being good is right, you know why? because there is no ‘greater truth’. There is no god or spirit force or nature laying down the spiritual law for us. This is terrifying for people. If there is nothing to fear after you die then why should you do anything in life that isn’t for simple self gratification? If I think you have a nice car why don’t I just take it? If I like the looks of a girl, why don’t I smack her over the head with a club and drag her into the bushes and have sex with her? If I don’t like you, why can’t I kill you? Why? For me, it’s wrong. I don’t do awful things because I don’t think it Right. Not because I will be judged after I die either by your “natural” force that, I’m sorry is the same as God. You may not say it, but something judges you right? Sends you to heaven or hell? You conveniently call it nature, but no, it’s not natural. Nature doesn’t care who the hell you kill, or rob, or rape. I don’t do it because it’s not nice, and I don’t do lesser things because I am afraid of Johnny Law.
~~~ and I've mentioned there is no God in buddhism, you seem to ingore this fact. ~~~
I know there is no god in Buddhism. But you know what? People still pray to the Buddha. The have deified a man. Hmm, sort of like the Christians have done. So what is the difference between praying to this skinny dude on a cross, or a contemplative dude sitting cross-legged on a pedestal? They both personify a philosophy no? They both represent a greater truth no? They are both prayed to? Hell, Buddhists even give offerings to Buddha everyday, like cans of pop, open, complete with straws, apparently Buddha prefers Red Fanta (I live in Thailand BTW, BKK is Bangkok if anyone didn’t know). Buddhists say there is no god but they still pray to a “spirit world” therefore their distinction between god and not god is invalid. Be a Buddhist in philosophy but do not pray to Buddha, because then you are admitting he is a god.
~~~ if the parts of a computer are removed, then it's not call a computer, computer=nothing; if the compoents of a video card are removed, then it's not called video card, it's nothing also. Likewise, if you remove your head, your hands, then you are not a human, what is a human being? it's just a name~~~
Sorry dude, gotta call bullshit on this one. If you have a cake, and you take out a piece of cake, is it not still a cake? If you get a haircut, is not what you have remaining still called hair? If you step on a landmine and loose your legs, are you still not human?
These Socratic arguments are simple crap. People call things, things. There is no definition written by the hand of god or the hand of nature saying “This is man”, “This is computer”. Thaye are simple conventions used by people to help communicate. Which touches upon another great point of Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and whatever else; that language cannot desribe adequately the spirit world. There are no words for it. It is beyond human comprehension. When one does catch a glimpse of it, that is enlightenment, and that is hokey. Let’s spend our lives meditating to understand something that we cannot desribe, because it’s not real. This is just a cop out for the leaders of their respective philosophies. "There is something else out there that we cannot begin to understand", not.
~~~ Cause and effect can be applied to everything in the universe, if you don't respect other people, they won't respect you(you suffer the effect of your cause), the same is a murderer lives his rest life without being known he is a murderer, he caused other people's death, but he is dead,then where the effect goes? obviously, it is not logical to say the effect just gone, so the effect is still there, where can the effect goes?only in the murderer, if the effect can't stay in the murderer's body, then the effect can only go to his spirit.~~~
“obviously, it is not logical to say the effect just gone”? Why the hell not? There is nothing obvious about this at all. Yes there is an effect, the dude he killed is dead, and all of the ramifications that go along with that, but as far as some mojo booga booga effect in the afterlife for our murderer, sorry, ashes to ashes dust to dust, our boy and his killer end up in the same dust bin, destined to be recycled back into the universe, uhbadee uhbadee uhbadee that’s all folks. Don’t try to scare me with your afterlife, convince me to live by the rules of this plane, either by raising me correctly with a strong sense of right and wrong or a healthy fear of retribution by the Johnny Law or Clint Eastwood.
Once again, simply do not do anything to cause suffering to others. Save the spirits for Ghostbusters.
I know what I write sometimes sounds angry and confrontational, I'm sorry for that, it's not meant to be, I'm actually have a very good time.
G
BKK
to you it's wrong but to some other people maybe it's right, hitler thought killing people was right. For you, not believe in anything is right, for some people, believing god is right. then what's wrong or right?
"If you have a cake, and you take out a piece of cake, is it not still a cake?"
yes, it is. a piece of cake is cake, but the parts of a computer is not called computer, got it?
GS, thanks for the discussion, I'm glad you had a good time. I need a break. let's see what other people think.
Okey dokey,
What you have found that supposedly proves rebirth or reincarnation honestly does nothing of the sort. If this is the sort of stuff that experts in the field, who devote their whole lives to accumulating evidence can come up with, then it's pretty weak. I'm not a theologian, I’m not a philosopher, or a scientist, if I can see the weakness of the evidence then I wonder what someone actually trained in the field must say.
The story of the little girls is good, but why do each of these cases describe previous lives from basically the same geographic areas? Maybe souls don’t like to travel too far eh? I don’t know. I don’t know about these cases but I do know that they most certainly are not proof of rebirth. Your examiner would call it rebirth, this other examiner would call it speaking with the dead, a third would call it a complete hoax, a fourth might call it psychic energy transfer, I don’t know. If it is true and real, then cool. But to say that this is *proof* of reincarnation?, no I’m sorry, it proves nothing of the sort.
Then we go on to look at, oh my, famous people, because you know how famous people must know all the right answers. Opinions. All we are presented with in the second part is opinions of people. Once again, does an opinion constitute proof? Hardly. That’s even less convincing than the stories of the little girls and I am insulted and feel cheated that you made me waste my time reading it. I don’t want to read another's opinion as supposed evidence, that's just an insult.
What else have we got…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said it's wrong, It's your responsibility to prove it. Before it being proved, there is no right or wrong. I found this:
…………………….
Now that was good. Good point. I haven’t proven you wrong so I shouldn’t say it’s wrong, but I will say, not bloody likely. And I will say, you must stop using unproven theories of faith as evidence or as levels in a Socratic argument …although Socrates couldn’t stop so I don’t suppose you will either.
But I am glad you are talking and questioning, you are doing far better than most of the people on the planet and are at this point much further ahead from a critical thinking standpoint than most.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For me, it’s wrong. I don’t do awful things because I don’t think it Right."
to you it's wrong but to some other people maybe it's right, hitler thought killing people was right. For you, not believe in anything is right, for some people, believing god is right. then what's wrong or right?
………………..
Please don’t take what I say out of context. If you read any philosopher, not that I am a philosopher but that’s the hat I will wear today, you must take the sum of what is said, and accept that. When I talk about Right with the capital “R” I was hoping I wouldn’t have to repeat my self again with the “do not do anything that will cause suffering to anyone else”. That is what Right means. Hitler caused quite a bit of suffering so even in self examination I sure he could be convinced that he was not Right. Believing in god is not Right, it is to me nothing more than a preference of cherry pie over apple, the proof is in the pudding, don't tell me you're a good person, show me. Read the Analect of Confucius and pay attention to what it means to be a gentleman for all you will ever need.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you have a cake, and you take out a piece of cake, is it not still a cake?"
yes, it is. a piece of cake is cake, but the parts of a computer is not called computer, got it?
……………….
Yes I do indeed “get it” but you weren’t talking about computers were you? You were talking about people. A human being was your subject and you were using some shitty computer metaphor trying to prove that the if you take apart a person he is no longer a person and I called bullshit on it. Your metaphor did not work so do not try to defend it. GOT IT?
I don’t know, got anything else?
I’m not trying to cut you down here man, I like Buddhism, I like what it stands for, I just don’t like the proofs they use.
All of these old religious dudes and philosophers had to think of some sort of proof for their positions and that is what cheapens them. The Christians use their god, The Jews use their god, the Muslims use their god, yes I know they al use the same god and I don’t care, that’s my point. Then you get to the Eastern religions and philosophies, including Buddhism, and they’ll use things like spirits and gods, and ancient wisdom.
Let’s get back to Gregism for a conclusion shall we?
How about a philosophy where you don’t have to prove anything, sort of like how Buddhism starts out, just be good to each other, do not cause suffering. Why not? For the sake of not being the cause of suffering, not some because some hokey vengeful spirit is going to kick your souls ass or you think you’ll be given a ticket to the good life, or afterlife, just because it’s Right.
G
BKK
~say no to smileys!~
The Anti-Smiley League
I think you're right, I want to hear what Canuk, the guy who started the whole thing has to say.Originally posted by caza@24 March 2004 - 09:51
GS, thanks for the discussion, I'm glad you had a good time. I need a break. let's see what other people think.
G
BKK
Internet Addict
this is the original question...Originally posted by TheCanuk@19 March 2004 - 02:40
wut happens when we die. is their a heaven, if so wuts it like. do ppl actually go 2 hell?
wut is heaven is hell and hell is heaven . mabye someone mixed them up and were all actually praying to go to hell?
wut if when we die we come back as someone else, and have no memory of past lifes?
wut if we become someones gurdian.?
wut do u guys think?
opinions would b nice , enlighten me
u guys r goin
[IMG]http://img272.echo.cx/img272/9836/band8sw.gif[IMG]
this is the original question...Originally posted by ashutosh_cool16+24 March 2004 - 14:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ashutosh_cool16 @ 24 March 2004 - 14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-TheCanuk@19 March 2004 - 02:40
wut happens when we die. is their a heaven, if so wuts it like. do ppl actually go 2 hell?
wut is heaven is hell and hell is heaven . mabye someone mixed them up and were all actually praying to go to hell?
wut if when we die we come back as someone else, and have no memory of past lifes?
wut if we become someones gurdian.?
wut do u guys think?
opinions would b nice , enlighten me
u guys r goin
Alright, thread closed by topic Nazi. A dubious call though I must say.
Rest in Peace
G
BKK
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks