First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Buddhism
32156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
Im Buddhist and Im Happy and PROUD
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:
If Buddhism did not exist than those things we can assume would not have occurred neh? The cause is buddhism and regardless of arguments the contrary these people committed their crimes in the names of this this system of belief. Unless of course you wish to allow Islam and every other religion off the hook for the "misinterpretations" of terrorists. It is nonsense to claim anything can be absolved of responsibility by saying its followers do not follow its tenets.


It's like you don't understand the concept of cause and effect. So if I went and killed your family for you, you should be held responsible? I mean, I did it for you. If you weren't around, it wouldn't have happened.

This might be a bad example if you hate your family, but I'm sure you understand my point.


magnus102 wrote:
The causation is the existence of Buddhism and whether or not it is supported in the teachings is essentially irrelevant.


You know, if there weren't any universities or schools, there wouldn't be any university or school shootings! Shit, how did I not see this?! This is a good argument for the abolition of any public institution of learning, imo.


magnus102 wrote:
So I see no reason for people to embrace what is a useless doctrine that if anything will hurt them.


Biased, illogical, and irrational statement. By this standard, allowing free speech is unacceptable.


magnus102 wrote:
Regardless it has caused this injustice. Buddhism has lead to things which I consider wrong and without it they would not occur any longer.


Again, I have difficulty taking you seriously when you haven't yet grasped the concept of cause and effect.


magnus102 wrote:
Buddhism is again open to interpretation.


Everything is open to interpretation. So unless you want to get rid of everything, advocating abolishment and censorship is completely retarded. I don't think I need to explain to you why getting rid of everything is also retarded.

In conclusion, your post is inherently irrational and you seem to be arguing simply for the sake of argument. Which, I suppose you did make clear with your first post.
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08

MEMPHADON wrote:

shibole wrote:
(Actually, what are the prayers that you're talking about? There isn't really supposed to be any prayer in Buddhism. I mean it isn't prohibited, though it isn't encouraged either. And you can't pray to the historical Buddha anyway because he's simply "gone.")

Prayer wheels


I think that these are Tibetan and I don't follow Tibetan Buddhism, so I don't know what these are actually for. "Prayer wheels" aren't described in the Pali Canon (which is common to all Buddhist sects). I don't even know who or what the prayers are addressed to or if "prayer wheel" is an accurate translation. The prayers may be addressed to spirits or something for all I know. There are also Buddhists who also worship various Hindu or Taoist gods, though I personally do not.

I do know that Tibetan Buddhism tends to be a mixture of Buddhism with some pre-Buddhist animistic and other religious beliefs, so citing Tibetan Buddhism as an example of Buddhism in general isn't accurate. There are many practices specific to Tibet and I don't personally follow any of them, yet I'm still Buddhist.



Statues honoring the deity


The Buddha wasn't a deity. The statues are more like gravestones in that they're memorials, not something to be worshiped. Simply having a statue doesn't imply divine nature anyway. If it did then Ronald McDonald and all the presidents on Mt. Rushmore must be deities also.

Buddha statues didn't even exist until hundreds of years after the Buddha was dead. Nowhere in the Pali Canon does it mention statues or making statues. The closest thing to this just after his death was that people would place flowers on and bow before his grave sites (there were 8 of them, all destroyed now) as a sign of respect to his memory and teachings.



praying to a statue of the buddha


I can't actually see what's going on in this picture because it's too small, but it looks like the people are either meditating or holding their hands together and chanting, neither of which is prayer. The Buddha is simply "gone" and can't be prayed to. He wasn't a deity and he's no longer here. People put flowers and stuff in front of Buddha statues and bow before them in the same way they did to his grave sites when they existed. It's no more "worship" than you're worshiping your dead mother if you put flowers on her grave.



i can understand giving up your life and dedicating it to acheiving the same mental state the buddha attained, but not worshiping the buddha as a deity.

I can't see worshiping him as a deity either since he isn't one.

As far as I know, basically all Buddhists agree that Siddhartha Gotama, the historical Buddha, is simply "gone" and can't be prayed to or worshiped. There is one sect of Buddhism called Pure Land or Amitaba Buddhism where people do pray to and worship (I think) a deity called Amitaba who is supposed to be a Buddha living in the "pure land" (a sort of heaven), but that's a totally different being altogether, and not all Buddhists even recognize the existence of Amitaba.
1088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
I have a friend who's a buddist, she's kinda abusive
2229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hello!
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:


Erijo wrote:


magnus102 wrote:


dkcy209 wrote:


buddhism practice tolerance.



Really? Then explain why the Buddhist theocracy oh Bhutan is so harsh on non Buddhist and how they treated non Buddhist refugees. Or why when the lamas ruled Tibet they harshly oppressed anyone who put a toe out of line.


In Buddhisme they dont realy say anything about puniching those who are not Buddhist. Well If you notce it many use religion as a excuse to harm another in history like Christianity in the middle-age or terrorist that use Islam. Did buddha every teaches hes student to harm those that is not Buddhist?



It still the fault of Buddhism . Just as Islam and Christianity are responsible for crimes committed for those religions. You really can not argue there is a difference. After all the bible says "thouh shall not kill". People in the bible do buy hey lets ignore that. The very nature of religion will cause things like this to occur because of dogmatic thinking. If you are willing to condemn the lamas and admit they are inheritors of a monstrous system then YOU might be a good person but the religion itself it no better than any other.



How is it Buddhism's fault? Every religion will have their idiots who do the worst things, it isn't the religions fault that dumbasses act the way they are,

Buddhism will not force you to believe in anything. If you wish to then so be it, if you don't want to then so be it.

Also Buddhism has never caused a big uproar of wars, unlike other religions.
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

shibole wrote:
Please find me some sort of scripture or essay or something that supports the idea of a theocracy in Buddhism, because I've never found one.

I would argue that it does not matter if it is in the teachings or not. Since they are open to interpretation anyway. If Buddhism did not exist than those things we can assume would not have occurred neh?

Ok, so Stalin and Mao and such were atheists and based their governments on atheism. They killed millions of their own people and plunged their countries into poverty.

Atheism is the cause, and:

I would argue that it does not matter if it is in the teachings or not. Since they are open to interpretation anyway. If atheism did not exist than those things we can assume would not have occurred neh?



Unless of course you wish to allow Islam and every other religion off the hook for the "misinterpretations" of terrorists. It is nonsense to claim anything can be absolved of responsibility by saying its followers do not follow its tenets.

As far as Islam goes, I can actually quote not only verses from scripture that support things that I think are wrong and cause problems, but I can also cite fatwahs and interpretations that are similar. I basically show a causal relationship, not some sort of fuzzy correlation = causation or, group A isn't responsible because group B doesn't follow those teachings.



As with any belief system dogmatism is always going to be the end result. I do not think you can change this because of human nature. The causation is the existence of Buddhism and whether or not it is supported in the teachings is essentially irrelevant.

So basically it sounds like you're saying that people can't believe in anything because believing in any sort of system of morals, ethics, etc would be dogmatic and therefore bad? But you yourself cite doctrine that you believe in. Do you need me to quote it for you?




I answered you already about correlation and causation.

You actually didn't. You simply argued that correlation is causation, which is false.



What I am saying is that if we judge Buddhism by how primarily Buddhist countries have done it is an EPIC FAILURE TM. Do you see what I am saying? Buddhism has not made these countries better than others in anyway I can see. So I see no reason for people to embrace what is a useless doctrine that if anything will hurt them. Perhaps it would bring them peace personally but many of us are already happy and we must look after the overall good our society. It is a case for me of judging by the track record as it were.

Buddhism doesn't really dictate how you run a government or a society. For example, there's no such thing as a Buddhist marriage. Marriage isn't described in the Pali Canon at all. Monks aren't allowed to perform marriages because that's a civic function.

So basically you're assuming that Buddhism is all-encompassing like other religions, but it isn't. In southeast Asia, most of the social institutions and such come from Hinduism or similar beliefs. Again, it's almost like you're taking something like atheism, pointing to a communist society, then going "look, they're athiest and they suck, therefore Atheism sucks." You haven't shown any causal relationships, only some instances of correlation.

I can provide you with historical counterexamples. For example the Tang and Song dynasties in China were very wealthy and instituted a meritocracy in the form of the national exams. People were very well off, and Buddhism was present in society. Now was this because of Buddhism? Maybe a little bit, but largely probably not because Buddhism doesn't even address most of the social institutions that would need to come about for all of this to happen. I provides people with some basic morality (avoid killing, stealing, raping, etc) but it doesn't say "thou shalt institute the national exams." It sure as hell didn't prevent them from forming a successful wealthy society.

The Buddha wasn't a politician and almost no political or social proclamations.





This is specific to Tibetan Buddhism and I can't really address it as I'm not a follower of that sect.

Regardless it has caused this injustice. Buddhism has lead to things which I consider wrong and without it they would not occur any longer. I feel this is sufficient justification for the end of Buddhism.

Then you should be able to explain it to me.



I do not see much intrinsic difference between saying desire or craving in this instance. In either case we are talking about wanting something. When did I deny this was a mental attitude? `I understand its the desiring. I said after all suffering comes from desire not "suffering comes from things you posses. " My understanding was that getting things you desire might just lead to more desire unless desire is suppressed. That is the meaning of the comment under it.

The distinction is more like that between preference and craving. For example, you might prefer to eat french fries instead of rice, but that's not the same as saying that you're going to be really upset if you only get rice. But I have seen tanha (craving) translated as "desire" also.

"Getting things" doesn't necessarily make desire/craving worse, it's just that gratification is temporary, so after you get one thing you'll then be after something else. Basically gratification isn't an overall solution because it's hard to always get what you crave, whereas it may be less difficult to lessen one's craving in general since that's more of a mental quality and not something that depends so much on the availability of materials in the physical world.



You should read the books I have read on Buddhism and complain they are stated incorrectly. I suppose this is similar in a sense to Muslims saying the true Quran is only in Arabic.

Well, not really. There are lots of bad books on Buddhism out there, and Buddhism in the west has been affected by western philosophy and such. The philosophy and doctrine is rather complex and involves words like "dukkha" that don't have 1:1 translations into English, but I don't think that you really need to learn Pali or Sanskrit or something to understand the concepts.



I do not feel stressed now. In fact I am quite happy so I do not need to try out this system.

You're more fortunate than I am then. Most likely you'll probably not stay this way for the rest of your life though, but you might.



Buddhism is again open to interpretation. My take is that it wrong to desire prosperity because the desire for it will lead to more suffering. If you take things from a Buddhist point of view.

But your take on it doesn't matter, just as your take on the Qur'an doesn't matter. You're claiming that this doctrine causes problems for the people who believe in it, yet you think it causes them problems because of your take on it? What matters is their take on it. This is what I keep trying to tell people in the whole Islam discussion.


Craving as you put it motivates people to advance and work hard. I see desire as central to the cause of human advancement myself. So I find the effort to stop its ridiculous.

Sure, craving does motivate people, but the question is whether "craving" is the only way or the best way to encourage people to advance.

For example, we could use hatred to encourage the cops to enforce the law. If they hate the criminals then maybe they'll be more motivated to arrest criminals. But is hatred actually necessary to motivate them? Hatred would probably cause more stress, and might lead to excessive violence on their part which might then cause legal problems for the cops. What if they could be motivated by something that didn't have the drawbacks of hatred?

So what do you think of hatred? Should we encourage hatred for the benefit of society?
6499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Minnesota
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
i'm a theravada buddhists love it
can't wait for new years in april yay
water fight
37 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
i'm a mahayana buddhist!

i've took refuge in the Triple Gems!
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / M / philippines
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
no matter what religion buddhist,christian, islam or any others its all under the ONE above
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08

magnus102 wrote:

shibole wrote:
Ok, so Stalin and Mao and such were atheists and based their governments on atheism. They killed millions of their own people and plunged their countries into poverty.

Atheism is the cause, and:

I would argue that it does not matter if it is in the teachings or not. Since they are open to interpretation anyway. If atheism did not exist than those things we can assume would not have occurred neh?

They based their ideas on Marx. Atheism is a lack of belief not an idea. Nothing they did was a result of a lack of a belief in something. It was their desire for power. How can something be bases on a lack of belief? IT CANT.

Bwhahaha! "Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.“ I'm sorry, but that is a belief. In addition, Buddhism is actually atheistic in the sense that it rejects theism of the sort "There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent." So I guess Buddhism also includes this dogmatic lack of a belief that you're talking about, yet that's bad because it's called a religion.

And even if we replace Atheism with Communism here (arguably the major cause) now you're saying "It was their desire for power."

So, if a country is Buddhist then problems are the result of Buddhism. But if a country is atheist and Communist, then it's just the leaders' desire for power that causes problems!

I think it's now sufficiently clear that you're not coherent, so I'll stop now.

As for the mindless dogma that you supposedly follow, here's what you quoted to me, or part of it anyway:


The Golden Rule is perhaps the best known fundamental moral principle, and one of the simplest. It states

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

This is a useful and essentially satisfying way to act. It relies on enlightened self-interest and the principle of empathy to get results.

An expanded version of this rule is called the Categorical Imperative, and was formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He came up with it as a means of expanding and clarifying on the process of how ought becomes is.

The Categorical Imperative is basically as follows:

Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.

It's a means of testing the moral dimension of our own actions before we take them. What would the world be like if everyone acted exactly as you do in the same situation? If every time you pass someone collecting for a charity, you don't give any money because the next person might, consider how it would affect things if everyone expected the next person to give instead.

Humanism is another system of morality; it is too big a topic to go into here, to be frank. Briefly, though: Humanism is founded on the principle that the only 'saviour' of humanity is humanity itself. To this end, it relies on compassion and enlightened self-interest to foster a sense of altruism and community. A fuller and more accurate look at Humanism can be found at http://www.americanhumanism.org; Humanism is such a massive topic that it is beyond the scope of this article to examine it in detail.


Oh no! Run! Horrible dogma! What's funny is that this is basically a subset of Buddhism, yet I got this from you!
1707 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/15/08 , edited 4/18/08
My family is Buddist and so am I. I dun really care about my religion as long as i didn't do bad things like killing, harming ppl, etc it Ok ady.
7711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / under ur bed
Offline
Posted 2/16/08 , edited 4/18/08
yea. i am one. agree wit enternalfir3. it has a lot of stuff to honor da dead. n respect ur parents. yes. mostly like dat.
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 2/16/08 , edited 4/18/08
Let me start off by saying every word you've written has now come into question, as you've proven yourself to be a irrational and (for lack of a fitter word) retarded, individual. Let's see why this is so (omgwtfbbq long post)!


magnus102 wrote:
Atheism is a lack of belief not an idea. Nothing they did was a result of a lack of a belief in something. It was their desire for power. How can something be bases on a lack of belief?


Atheism is the belief in the lack of a god, not the lack of an idea itself. The lack of an idea would be, by definition, something unknown. I can see why you couldn't understand the concept of cause and effect now. And to echo your line of reasoning, here is how something could be based on a lack of belief (in god). "If they'd believed in God, they would have feared divine punishment and never done the things they did!" If you find this argument to be ineffective, keep in mind that this is the same reasoning you're using.


magnus102 wrote:
Again as I said Buddhism will cause the same problems as other religions and this lesson is shown clearly in history.


What's been shown in history is that religion is not the sole motivator for atrocity. Feel free to cite examples proving me otherwise. I feel like the one you'll jump on first is 9/11, so let me address that preemptively. 9/11 was a result of hatred for America. This hatred for America was reinforced and encouraged using religion as a tool. However, the religion itself did not preach hatred for America -- this is a fact.


magnus102 wrote:
They teach peace in many sects of Islam. The teachings are bad it is true but again dogmatic thinking is why people are willing to die for their religion.


Teaching peace is bad? Right. And you keep referring to dogmatic thinking as though it were somehow conjoined to religion . I'll let you in on a secret. A dogma is basically a strong opinion. People die for strong opinions all the time, whether they're connected to religion or not (e.g. slavery). Surprise!


magnus102 wrote:
I cite actual examples of how Buddhism has been used by people to cause harm. Do you think it is logical to claim it would not occur again? It is not the correlation is causation exactly but rather in the case of an organized moral system people will always come along and pervert it.


This one made me lol. First of all, your examples are not only incorrect, they're laughably irrelevant. Why? Because you substitute correlation as cause and effect. Do you think it's logical to claim something wouldn't happen if religion weren't around? Answering this question with a yes would be about as silly as answering yours with a yes. Yet, that is the answer your system of belief seems to endorse (see first sentence of post). And your last sentence imples that because all organized moral systems could be perverted, they should be abolished. Amazingly, the law is also an organized moral system! You're arguing that 'cause there're some bad cops around, we should scrap the law.

I'm of the opinion that anarchy is not a very useful form of government (or lack thereof) for society. Perhaps you disagree.


magnus102 wrote:
You misunderstand why I say it is the cause. My point is that organized belief will always be perverted. Perhaps we can say it is not guilty but yes it is responsible. Though yes you are right. I would be the cause of it as it I had not existed then would have lived.


Your point is an opinion and irrelevant. That some would warp their interpretation of something does not mean that the source itself is tainted nor responsible. And here's another secret. Not guilty means not responsible.

But at least you bit the bullet and accepted the blame for my crime. If I could, I'd blame anything I'd done on you, and you'd have to accept it, 'cause if you weren't here, who knows? I probably wouldn't have done it (this is following your train of thought). Fortunately, this sort of illogical rationale is rightly considered foolish by society at large. The law and it's standards are proof of that (i.e. I'd be the one to go to jail if I were to kill your family, not you -- this would be because there is no way to establish that your existence (cause) had made me murder your family (effect), just like you can't establish that religion (cause) had made government violate human rights (effect)).


magnus102 wrote:
Unlike Buddhism those are places and not a belief system.


Apparantly you're unable to do something commonly referred to as "reading between the lines". Let me make the analogy a bit more direct for your standards.

You: "If we got rid of movies, people would stop killing each other. I mean, movies like Spider-man encourage murder!"
Me: "No, I think that movie would actually discourage it. Remember, 'With great power comes great responsibility'?"
You: "It doesn't actually matter what's in the movie. It'll 'cause murder just because people saw it."
Me: "I don't think you could really say Spider-man causes people to kill each other."
You: "Ok, fine, I can correlate that people who've watched movies have been involved in more murders than people who haven't seen any movies. See why I'm right?"

No, I don't.


magnus102 wrote:
If you tell me where I said stop free speech I will kill your ass. I said I saw no reason for it-not that we should stamp it out with force.


This one made me lol quite heartily. Firstly, your entire argument seems to revolve around the idea that the world would be better off without religion. I'm trying to explain to you that religion is a form of thought just like philosophy. Let me quote myself:

"Everything is open to interpretation. So unless you want to get rid of everything, advocating abolishment and censorship is completely retarded. I don't think I need to explain to you why getting rid of everything is also retarded."

Secondly, when you expound an opinion that certain forms of thought should not exist in this world for the betterment of mankind, you should realize that the only way to get rid of an idea is to silence the spreading of it. This is possible only through censorship of free speech.

But forgive me for thinking that you would want your opinion translated into action. I'm sure if the U.S. ever tried to pass a measure banning Islam from the States, you'd vehemently oppose it as a violation of free speech and human rights, despite your personal disliking of it.


magnus102 wrote:
I do not advocate its destruction based on it being open to interpretation but rather again the nature of dogmatism which results from a system of beliefs that is organized E.G. Buddhism. I am against all organized belief systems. I do however not advocate censorship.I do not think you have any basis for saying I did. Idiot.


No, you are advocating for it's destruction based on it being open to interpretation, 'cause you're saying if it weren't open to interpretation, these negative actions would not have occured. I don't see you saying that the law against murder should be gotten rid of as part of the organized system of belief that is the law. And let me define the word "dogmatism" for you: "a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises". For what reason do you think this is something that could apply only to religious ideas? Again, this is a concept completely independent of religion, i.e. you get rid of religion and dogmatism would still be around (e.g. racism, sexism, etc).

And again, no, I had no textual basis for thinking you advocated censorship beyond the fact that you were saying "These things shouldn't be around", so I apologize if I was mistaken, but I've explained why I arrived at this conclusion.

Final point:

magnus102 wrote:
After all the bible says "thouh shall not kill". People in the bible do buy hey lets ignore that. The very nature of religion will cause things like this to occur because of dogmatic thinking.


You acknowledge that religion had nothing to do with teaching people to commit a negative action. In fact, you acknowledge that people will sometimes do the exact opposite of what a particular religion preaches. Yet, you blame religion for it. How does that make any sense? What is the "nature" of religion that you use to justify your position? That's like blaming Cho Seung Hui's parents for his VT murders. After all, if they hadn't had kids, this wouldn't have happened!

You are either incoherent, or irrational and retarded. I'm sorry I had to be the one to break it to you (btw, it'd help if you learned how to use the quote tag).
854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F
Offline
Posted 2/16/08 , edited 4/18/08

MEMPHADON wrote:

the philosophy of buddhism is really nice, i just don't like the religious part. all the prayers, rituals, worshipping.....its just another religion now.


Lol. We don't worship, we respect. It's because, to us, Buddha is not a god, he's our teacher. Besides. he is higher than a god.
854 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F
Offline
Posted 2/16/08 , edited 4/18/08

crispyfly wrote:

im buhhist and im cool with and i like how it's not really strict as other religions
and is it against homosexuality?


Nah, nada, nil. It's okay to be gay.
Posted 2/16/08 , edited 4/18/08
im buddhist!!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.